Western Australia: 3 situations

[Shackel]

I have 3 different questions, each one being a different situation in which Western Australia becomes independent.

1. Western Australia doesn't join Australia in 1901. How does it go? Do they rejoin later?

2. Western Australia secedes peacefully in 1933. How does it go?

3. Western Australia sucedes in a war in 1933. How does it go? Who joins who?
-3a. Western Australia fails. How does this affect Australia as a whole?
-3a1. Western Australia strikes again in 1974. How would the second attack affect Australia?
-3a2. Would this cause terrorism later?

 

[Cook]

1. How would Western Australia have done if it did not join the Federation(of Australia) in 1901? If it stayed independant, would it have simply been annex by Australia when it's economy collapsed in the early 1930s? ?

I assume you mean Eastern Australia’s economy in the 1930s and not Western Australia’s?
The Australian Commonwealth would never have just annexed an independent Westralia. Any suggestions of annexing or invading belong purely in the Alien Space Bats department.

2. How would it have done if it won Britain over, allowing it to become independent in 1933?

Britain by that stage was irrelevant. The Australian Commonwealth constitution came into force on January 1st, 1901. Western Australia becoming independent in 1933 requires a change of the Australian Commonwealth constitution. That requires a majority of voters in a majority of states and a majority overall to approve the change. Unilateral independence is again in the ASB department, as is Britain interfering in the Australian Constitution.

3. If it did not win Britain over, what if it attempted to secede in a civil war at some point between then and WWII?

Australians going to war against fellow Australians? Over distribution of the federal treasury? Into the deepest locker of the Alien Space Bats files for that idea.

There was a thread recently where issues of the Australian constitution and West Australian Independence were covered.

Regards,
Cook.
Perth,
Western Australia.

 

[Shackel]

1. Oh, I thought Western Australia's economy collapsed and didn't recover until 1947.

Maybe I should look that up, just in case, however I believe you misunderstood me when I said "annexed". What I meant was that Western Australia could have joined the Australian Federation, and since it would have been the smaller, weaker coutnry, it would have been annexed.

2. Western Australia voted 68% for succession, and when they asked Britain to have the constitution changed to secede, they were denied.

That does NOT belong in the ASB department. :/

3. Do note that situation 3c1 was if there was a civil war that Western Australia lost, possibly causing a more aggressive attempt at succession in 1974, so it would be less about the national treasury.

Also, civil wars happen for all kinds of reasons, Cook. Americans have fought against other Americans over slaves, Chinese fought against Chinese over the government, Romans against Romans for the ruler, French against French over, yes, the distribution of money, and Russians against Russians for the same thing.

Being Australian doesn't make you or your ancestors any less vulnerable to a civil war.

 

[Mako_Leader]

-3a. If Western Australia succeeded, would it have been far more inclined to join the Warsaw Pact/an alliance with Communist China due to a hostile state being near it?
Could that lead to a destabilization of NATO? Or even an "Australian Missile Crisis" if the Soviet Union decides to intervene?

Now that would have been an interesting place to grow up next to, the Communits State of Western Australia, CSWA! Though I don't think you understand the mindset of the majority of Australians, west or east. Try and bring communisim in, esspecially in the style of the past, and someone's going to take you out into the street through the closed half of the pub door and bury you in the concret gutter, then politely suggest you might want to perform a sexual act upon your good self whilst traveling somewhere.

Destabilise NATO? Nah, not likely.

Australian Missile Crisis? Nah, we'll just take 'em down the pub, get 'em drunk and point their missiles back at themselves then send out an alert!

 

[Shackel]

Who else would it be friends with? Australia?

Every new country that has gained independence must have a friend, lest you end up like the CSA.

 

[Cook]

2. Western Australia voted 68% for succession, and when they asked Britain to have the constitution changed to secede, they were denied.

See previous post regarding Australian Constitution. The delegation was denied for the simple reason that it was no longer Britain’s responsibility. The fact that 68% voted for secession but then didn’t bother to proceed further when the other states didn’t even hold a referendum on the issue should have been a hint that as a basis for armed rebellion, this is a non-starter.

3. Do note that situation 3c1 was if there was a civil war that Western Australia lost, possibly causing a more aggressive attempt at succession in 1974, so it would be less about the national treasury.

Also, civil wars happen, Cook. Americans have fought against other Americans(twice), Spanish against Spanish(Three or four times), Romans against Romans(A lot), and English agaisnt English(War of Roses).

Being Australian doesn't make you or your ancestors any less vulnerable to a civil war

Civil Wars occur because there is a reason for them to occur.

No such reason exists in Australia in the 20th century.

The below thread covers issues concerning potential starters for an Australian Republic (Imprtant, note comments regarding The Ashes):

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=154035

I can’t be bothered looking for the Independent Westralia thread, I’ll leave that to you.

I you want a scenario that could realistically give you an independent Westralia you need to go back to the 19th century and the period leading up to Federation.

Research on Premier John Forrest, he is one of the key figures of the period.

Just realise that any disputes between Westralia and Eastern (Federal) Australia would have been resolved in meetings in cabinet rooms or by cartographers. Australians keep our fights to the cricket pitch and footy field, we don’t take pot shots at each other.

 

[Shackel]

I might as well say this now. Try to keep the "Us [insert nationality here] would never do [insert relatively common political or negative thing here]" argument out without proof on that. I am sure there were many in 1860 who said America would never break.
--

Seeing how all of my topics have strayed from the original question to someone pointing at one small section or detail and yelling "That's impossible!"(paraphase), I'm just going to cut the details of the OP questions to make them simple.

 

[Cook]

I shall edit the first post.

But on to the ACTUAL QUESTION. How would a Western Australia do in 1933?

If you mean a Western Australia that events in the federation era proceeded differently for and it remained aloof if the Commonwealth and became the Dominion of Westralia?

Expect it to make an equally large commitment to WW1 as in OTL, and to suffer the same. This would effect growth after the war just the same because of the resultant manpower shortage unless immigration was somehow promoted.

The depression in the 1930’s was a global event; there is no way of avoiding it. Western Australia was and is an exporter of commodities to the global market (which in the 1920s was Britain), the crash would effect the markets of an independent Westralia to the same extent as in OTL, but without loosing large sums of money to the Federal coffers you could expect it to be a bit better off and to then have an influx of people from the Eastern States arrive.

 

[Shackel]

So 1901 Westralia would do well, but not change much?

Could there be differences in ideologies in the two Australias? How would that work in WWII?

 

[Cook]

So 1901 Westralia would do well, but not change much?

Could there be differences in ideologies in the two Australias? How would that work in WWII?

Australians aren’t particularly ideological.

This may help you:

http://australianpolitics.com/elections/features/

Westralia in WW2 would still contribute forces to the European war and then World War, in a similar manner to New Zealand.

It is worth noting that initially New Zealand was invited to the Federation Convention and Western Australia was not.

 

[Larrikin]

I might as well say this now. Try to keep the "Us [insert nationality here] would never do [insert relatively common political or negative thing here]" argument out without proof on that. I am sure there were many in 1860 who said America would never break.
--

Except for the fact that Americans already had form for shooting at each other only a couple of generations earlier. No Australian govt has ever used its troops to shoot at other Australians. The last time troops did any shooting was before self rule in the Colonies.

 

[Shackel]

Actually, Cook, what I mean by that is, during the CENTURY, could there be a change in ideology. Could Westralia deviate from history or change the Pacific?

Also, about the 1933 succession, could Westralian supporters, instead of trying to get Britain's support, declared independence by saying that the Union was only indissoluble in the preamble, and not the Act?

 

[Cook]

Actually, Cook, what I mean by that is, during the CENTURY, could there be a change in ideology. Could Westralia deviate from history or change the Pacific?

Also, about the 1933 succession, could Westralian supporters, instead of trying to get Britain's support, declared independence by saying that the Union was only indissoluble in the preamble, and not the Act?

Of course history would deviate, imagine how events would be different in OTL if New Zealand were a part of Australia.

So there is massive scope for change with an independent Westralia.

Just accept that Australia and the West have a long history of full involvement in the political process.

I’ve never been overly impressed with the secession push in 1933. The fact that it died so quietly and was never seriously reconsidered seems to support me on this.

Please don’t mention talk by Ray O’Connor of it, he was only after more Federal money and everyone knew it.

 

[Cook]

I might as well say this now. Try to keep the "Us [insert nationality here] would never do [insert relatively common political or negative thing here]" argument out without proof on that. I am sure there were many in 1860 who said America would never break.
--

Seeing how all of my topics have strayed from the original question to someone pointing at one small section or detail and yelling "That's impossible!"(paraphase), I'm just going to cut the details of the OP questions to make them simple.

In 1860 the United States was operating with two mutually exclusive systems running parallel to each other and had been doing so since independence.

And this had been recognised as a problem from independence!

 

[Magniac]

I have 3 different questions, each one being a different situation in which Western Australia becomes independent.

All were cut and replaced by detailess questions due to topic immediately straying.

1. Western Australia doesn't join Australia in 1901. How does it go? Do they rejoin later?

Not sure whether the other colonies would happily go ahead and federate if the referendum fails in WA, but considering the ad hoc response to the failure of the 1898 vote in NSW I suppose anything is possible (within reason, of course).

WA joins after the Japanese beat the Russians in 1904.

The main theme of Australian politics at the time compels it.

 

[Shackel]

Hm, what an interesting world it would be if not only Westralia existed, but New Zealand did not.

Who do you think would have gotten administration over Paupa New Guinea, assuming that both fought in WWI?

 

[Riain]

What's in it for WA to go it alone? Mining didn't take off over there until the 60s and 70s. WA will just be a more backward shithole than it was/is IOTL.

Thank God NZ didn't join us, they're an economic basket case, but I suppose if they joined us they'd be doing well also.

 

[Julius Vogel]

.

Thank God NZ didn't join us, they're an economic basket case, but I suppose if they joined us they'd be doing well also.

Care to elaborate on that comment about NZ being an economic basket case? I was back recently and while the recession is hitting us hard, it is hardly what I'd call a basket case, compared to say Greece, Argentina or the like. Or even Britain's current position.

Generally we are pretty glad we didn't join the proposed federation as well, we didn't care to take a step back on social legislation, indigenous affairs or sign up to rule from 2000km away. It was bad enough having London to answer to, let alone Sydney or Melbourne as well

Seems like everyone is happy eh?

 

[Riain]

Just fishing.

Basket case is too harsh, but NZ was right alongside us until the 70s and then we pulled away and now we are 1/3 richer. Easy explanations like minerals and distace don't cut it, apparently NZ has a less profitable investment legislation environment and tax setup so over the last 20 years we have pulled ahead. Subtle, but it adds up over decades.

http://www.cis.org.au/executive_highlights/EH2007/eh54507.html

Here's an article.

 

[Cook]

Hm, what an interesting world it would be if not only Westralia existed, but New Zealand did not.

Who do you think would have gotten administration over Paupa New Guinea, assuming that both fought in WWI?

Papua New Guinea would still go to Australia (The Commonwealth), Queensland having a prior claim to it and since you can see PNG from the Torres Strait Islands and paddle a canoe there.

Not sure whether the other colonies would happily go ahead and federate if the referendum fails in WA, but considering the ad hoc response to the failure of the 1898 vote in NSW I suppose anything is possible (within reason, of course).

WA joins after the Japanese beat the Russians in 1904.

The main theme of Australian politics at the time compels it.

Federation was going ahead without Western Australia anyway, the fear of John Forrest was that the east would be able to convince the Goldfields (Kalgoorlie) to join separate from the west.

An independent Westralia is no more likely to join in 1904 than New Zealand in OTL.