What would a fascist Australia look like?

a worse Great Depression? ?

I'm going to go contrarian and say a less worse depression where it's easier to blame people out of work for various personal failings or say that they don't belong to the right group. And/or a slower moving depression where it's easier to blame the victim.

That is, with a lesser or slower moving depression, you more hit the "sweet spot."

What isn't the right group though? The Aborigine population bottomed out at 75,000 in the 20s after over a century of virgin field epidemics and the Frontier Wars, nor was there other large 'out' groups that could be scapegoated.
 
It's 50 years since Indigenous Australians first 'counted'. Why has so little changed?

Guardian (UK), Paul Daley, 18 May 2017

https://www.theguardian.com/inequal...ted-why-has-so-little-changed-1967-referendum

' . . . Indigenous people had never previously been officially included among the Australian citizenry, nor counted in the Commonwealth census – so the federal government could not legislate for them. But on 27 May 1967, more than 90% of the Australian electorate voted at the “citizenship” referendum to effectively bring Indigenous people into the Commonwealth.

'“After the referendum, though, it was like the work was done for the rest of the country and governments – when it was actually just the bloody beginning,” [Sol] Bellear says. “Every little thing we’ve won since, we’ve had to fight for.” . . '

.

.

' . . . He [Sol Bellear] talks about the recent damning interim report by the UN special rapporteur Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, and another by Oxfam, both scathing assessments of – among many other things – rates of Indigenous child removal, incarceration, the lack of government commitment to self-determination, health, education and employment. . . '

.

.

' . . . He [Gary Foley] wrote: “The young people were told to assist in the campaign for a ‘Yes’ vote as that would be the answer to Aboriginal people’s ongoing oppression and marginalisation. Then, when the referendum resulted in the biggest ‘Yes’ vote in Australian history, the old guard of the Aboriginal movement effectively declared the battle won, but nothing really changed.

'“In fact, in New South Wales things got significantly worse, as the state government repealed the Aborigines Welfare Board and withdrew administration for reserves around the state, effectively abandoning tens of thousands of Aboriginal people who were then left in limbo. This led to disillusionment and discontent on the part of the younger generation, whose white counterparts were challenging the white political mainstream over issues to do with imperialism and neo-colonialism (Vietnam), and personal freedom.” . . '
And if this is the situation for Aborginal Australians from 1967 to present, they were probably worse during the 1920s and '30s, especially during the Great Depression.
 
Last edited:
And if this is the situation for Aborginal Australias from 1967 to present, they were probably worse during the 1920s and '30s, especially during the Great Depression.

Sure, but we're not talking about how shit they were doing but how they were to be blamed by fascists for the ills of Australian society in order for these fascists to rise to power. Who is going to 'fuck yeah!' when the New Guard points to the Aborigines and says 'You're life is shit because of them!'?
 
Could a 'Corporatist' economy be established in AU or would straight out total nationalisation and planned economy or cronyism and private monopolies be a better take on a fascist AU?

And if this is the situation for Aborginal Australians from 1967 to present, they were probably worse during the 1920s and '30s, especially during the Great Depression.

here's a good history of aboriginal rights that covers the 30s.
https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/aboriginal-history-timeline-1900-1969

Sure, but we're not talking about how shit they were doing but how they were to be blamed by fascists for the ills of Australian society in order for these fascists to rise to power. Who is going to 'fuck yeah!' when the New Guard points to the Aborigines and says 'You're life is shit because of them!'?

they would point at asia not aborigines to blame.
most of the nativist literature and politics at the time was concerned with yellow peril, fears of mass immigration, chinese-japanese conspiracies to invade and etc.
and of course 'international finance'.
Centre Party/New Guard wouldn't be concerned with aborigines being the scapegoat, they'd want to be rid of them sure, but they wouldn't scapegoat them.
Socialists, disloyal australians, people who say commonwealth instead of empire, trade unionists, foreign domination of the market, jews and yellow peril are all good scapegoats but views against aborigines don't easily line up to the copying how nazis went mold.

The 'populate or perish' v 'white australia' debate is probably a good example for how scapegoats would be if you want them.
But, looking at the british/italian blaming abstracts 'international finance', socialism and democracy (and jews but in codewords rather than outright), might be a better tack than an actual minority as again, the AU/NZ fascists historically borrowed heavily from what Mosley was publishing more than looking to the nazis as an example, Empire nationalism was a big thing and germans were hated performatively.
If you want a racial scapegoat, it's got to be 'asians' as historically it already was and fascists would make use of that. I'd go with 'International Finance' and socialists/traitors though.
 
Similar to how some women were labelled witches in the middle ages Europe, maybe the woman was struggling with mental illness, or Aspie, or quirky and offbeat, or just not instantly deferential to men, or maybe she had rejected a prominent man, etc, etc.

Most likely Australian fascists would go after "communists," defined more or less broadly.

They might also go after "weak" liberals, atheists or other people accused of undermining religious strength. And since it's the 1930s, they might accuse people of being anarchists. And yes, although it's not logical to me, they might accuse Jews of all kinds of things.

===========

Please notice that with labeling a woman a witch in the middle ages sometimes there was a particular concrete problem you were blaming her for. Other times it's much more vague and it's like the whole morality play provided relief from the boredom and unsatisfaction of everyday life I guess.
 
as a bigger thought, what effect would a fascist australia have on the world if it stayed fascist?
Say, as Empire and loyalty to britain were AU fascists form of patriotism, we can assume they'd be allies in WW2?
So, after the world is over, fascism is defeated but wait, those ones were on our side. would it give neo-fascists credibility, give british and etc fascists an opportunity to point and say 'look at australia, loyal to britain and loyal on the right side you were wrong to doubt us?' and lead to fascism or atleast australian style fascism returning to politics and making it into the post-war mainstream?
Or would they be regarded more like fascist Spain, an aberration to the narrative that still manages to exist and mostly ignored with little effect?
 
here's a good history of aboriginal rights that covers the 30s

No, that's really not a good history; it's a very basic timeline of some events that is written for students. It doesn't examine the Aboriginal experience in all its complexity. What you said earlier is just a nonsense. And now we're seeing - as Riain has pointed out and you seem to be accepting - that Aboriginal policy is not an issue by which any fascist party could come to power. It's irrelevant in that context. Further, though, the idea that a fascist party could rise to power based on fears of the "yellow peril" fails to take into account that it would not be a point of difference with the major parties of the era. The big problem with using a bogeyman like the threat of invasion or what have you is that the prevailing attitude was still very much that we were part of the mother country.
 
. . . the idea that a fascist party could rise to power based on fears of the "yellow peril" fails to take into account that it would not be a point of difference with the major parties of the era. . .
But of course it's not just the content of the policy. Fascists pride themselves on being quite a bit more "muscular" than average.

To a fascist, running roughshod over a person is not a bug, but a feature!
 
Australians could always count. Put simply there weren't and aren't many Australians. There are lots of Asians. And the white Australians knew what happened to the people who were in Australia first. Any group who positioned themselves as muscularly standing up to the yellow peril would be laughed out of the room.
To be clear mainstream politicians did stand up. See Billy Hughes and the League of Nations. But you are always going to hit the numbers issue which in turn means a policy of coseying up to some big white power for protection. Going fascist enough to scare off any reasonable protector is not going to fly.
 
I think we're coming to the conclusion that Fascist Australia is pretty unlikely, and the minimal impact of the closest thing we had (which was pretty tame into the bargain) reinforces that.
 
I think we're coming to the conclusion that Fascist Australia is pretty unlikely, and the minimal impact of the closest thing we had (which was pretty tame into the bargain) reinforces that.

if you're talking about Joe. said party is still paying for the mans mistakes (they've taken government exactly once since).
 
as for the question. Depending on their racial policies (both towards aboriginals and asians as well as anyone else who isn't anglo), it isn't exactly impossible to see a South Africa or Rhodesia type situation, just that their would be a white majority when everything goes pear shaped.
 
Top