WI Harold Holt The Australian PM did not Disappear?

Harold Holt seved only 22 months in office as Australian Prime minister, disappearing presumed drowned while swimming near Portsea. All sorts of rumours and urban myths abound as to what happened - was it suicide, was he picked up by a Chinese sub?
Actually suggesting he was a Chinese agent is analguous to suggesting De Valera was a British one in Ireland, as he strongly supported the ANZAC role in Vietnam and had a terror of the Dominoe effect comming into play in Asia. He served over 30 years in Canberra holding several senior ministries, but only faught 1 election as Liberal leader, which he won by a record margin, which may even stand to this day in 1967.
What happens to the world and Australia, including it's indigenous people and its role in Nam, if Holt serves 2 full terms as Prime minister in Canberra? Does it have any impact on the future development of either the Liberal party or the Labour party?
 
Holty was on morphine on the sly for some ailment he wanted kept quiet, and when he went swimming in a cold and roughish day the morphine, illness and conditions kicked in to sweep him away.

I suppose if he had lived he would have shagged a few more women, he was quite the pants man.
 
They never found Holt did they? Or was he picked up in a Chinese submarine manned by Lord Lucan, Shergar and Elvis.....
 
Holt survives? Interesting question. I see the Liberal-Country Party coalition government being defeated earlier than it was and ousted in 1969. I see Australia being drawn more deeply into Vietnam - "All the way with LBJ!" I see the office of Prime Minister being abused even worse than when Gorton and McMahon held it. Holt was a disaster who over-identified Australia's interests with those of her "great and powerful friends" (as Menzies called the United States).
 

Cook

Banned
Given that Whitlam didn’t defeat the erratic and totally uncharismatic John Gorton in 1969 his chances against the popular Holt would be poor. The swing needed for Labor to win in 1969 was just too great anyway.

The referendum on the constitutional amendment regarding Aboriginals took place while Holt was Prime Minister and had his full support but I doubt he had more up his sleave regarding them.

With regard to Australian commitment to Vietnam; no significant change. There was no radical change to policy following Holt’s death and while ‘all the way’ was an election winning slogan, that’s all it was. The commitment was about as large as the defence force could support at the time given the other responsibilities it had. The Australian task force started to be reduced in strength in 1970 and the decision to withdraw the task force entirely from Vietnam was announced in August of ’71, the last Australian infantry battalion (4 RAR) left Vietnam in December 1971. None of that would be likely to change because it was consistent with the Vietnamisation strategy of General Abrams.

The Labor Party would in all likelihood have still won in 1972; ‘it’s time’ had come after so long in the wilderness.

Since Australian Prime Ministers don’t normally hang around in opposition Holt probably would have gone to the back bench after the election and retired sometime in ’72 or early ’73.

Frazer’s Machiavellian intrigues getting him to the top job after Holt bowed out is less likely, at least not straight away anyway.
 
Last edited:
Additionally Holt was intending to orientate Australia's economy towards the NICs of East and South East Asia. Conceivably if this occurs then you see an earlier 'engagement' with Asia then the OTL.
 
Given that Whitlam didn’t defeat the erratic and totally uncharismatic John Gorton in 1969 his chances against the popular Holt would be poor. The swing needed for Labor to win in 1969 was just too great anyway.

If not 1969, then 1970.

With regard to Australian commitment to Vietnam; no significant change. There was no radical change to policy following Holt’s death and while ‘all the way’ was an election winning slogan, that’s all it was. The commitment was about as large as the defence force could support at the time given the other responsibilities it had.


Which were? After 1966, Borneo is finished. Malaya was winding down. Singapore was basically withdrawn by 1969.

The Australian task force started to be reduced in strength in 1970 and the decision to withdraw the task force entirely from Vietnam was announced in August of ’71, the last Australian infantry battalion (4 RAR) left Vietnam in December 1971. None of that would be likely to change because it was consistent with the Vietnamisation strategy of General Abrams.

The dates are a little off. The Task Force started to draw down in late 1969. I would see under Holt an latter date for that, perhaps 1971.

Frazer’s Machiavellian intrigues getting him to the top job after Holt bowed out is less likely, at least not straight away anyway.

Who? Oh, you mean Malcom Fraser :p
 
Australia's other commitments were ships, planes and troops in Malaya. It was the ships on the strategic reserve station that would go to Manus Island to escort Sydney to and from Vietnam on its trooping runs. An infantry coy and sometimes a btn was stationed in Singapore, indeed one deployed directly from Singapore to Vietnam, it was a handy cover for the SIGINT run from there. The Sabres that were deployed to Thailand were called back to Butterworth in 1968 to be replaced by Mirages, no Mirages went to Vietnam or Thailand.

Ausrtalia's drawdown started after the US', we still had 3 btns in Vietnam in 1970 but didn't replaced the 2rd when it's tour was up. We couldn't stay in strength longer than the US because we relied heavily on their support for things like medium/heavy artillery.
 

Cook

Banned
If not 1969, then 1970.


1970 was a Half Senate election; it had no effect on who formed government. The next federal election was 1972, not ’70, which gives Holt his two full terms, just as SlickWilly asked.


Lest anyone be under the illusion that Whitlam was a great campaigner it is worth remembering that in 1972 he won the election with a majority of only 8 seats, no great endorsement in anyone’s book and that was against Billy McMahon, a man with a face for radio who had had personality bypass surgery. And that was with the nation tired of a government wholly out of ideas that had been in power for Twenty-three years.


Which were? After 1966, Borneo is finished. Malaya was winding down. Singapore was basically withdrawn by 1969.
As Riain has pointed out, Australia had commitments throughout the region. Australia still maintained military forces to Malaysia, that didn’t alter just because the fighting finished.

The dates are a little off. The Task Force started to draw down in late 1969. I would see under Holt an latter date for that, perhaps 1971.

No. 8RAR was the first Battalion not to be replaced; it left Vietnam in November 1970. The downsizing of the Australian commitment was in line with overall Allied policy.
 
Last edited:
You'll note I said "task force" not when the battalions were withdrawn. There are other units and personnel than infantry in a task force. Personnel started being drawn down from the end of December 1969, immediately after Gorton's announcement of the general drawdown. I can introduce you to several I know personally who experienced that, if you want.
 

Cook

Banned
You'll note I said "task force" not when the battalions were withdrawn. There are other units and personnel than infantry in a task force. Personnel started being drawn down from the end of December 1969, immediately after Gorton's announcement of the general drawdown. I can introduce you to several I know personally who experienced that, if you want.

Again, Australia did not begin reducing the size of the Task Force until 1970; PM Gorton didn’t even announce the intention to do so until December of 1969.

The Task Force consisted of the three battalions and support elements, this was reduced to two battalions when 8 RAR was not replaced on completion of its’ tour in 1970. When 8 RAR left in November of 1970 the AATTV was increased by 120 personnel. This was all consistent with the overall Strategy of the Vietnamisation of the war.

The Task Force didn’t even reach strength of three battalions until 1967 anyway and that had required the RAR to be increased in size by a brigade.
 
Last edited:
Top