Hi,

I am new to the forum and this is my first post. But to the point..

I want to know what you guys (and gals) think would have happened in the pacific war had Australia been a superpower and not a colony of the crown. Do you think their political position in the war would have changed? How far do you think the Japanese would have gotten?

Thanks, Andrew

__________________
"Non-sense! They couldn't hit an elephant from the dist--" - Major General John Sedgewick at the Battle of Spotsylvania, 2 June, 1863.

How would Australia become a superpower? It isnt today because of a lack of population, infrastructure, oil and strategic minerals, and capital. How could these things change prior to the Second World War?

__________________
It's a sick, sick world. I'm a happy man.

Ok guys now be nice, the question was WHAT IF not why weren't they.. In my opinion there would have been a dramatic difference in that the Japanese would have been unable to attack the US thus leaving the States out of the loop as it were, I'm sure there still would have support in terms of materials etc. but not the manpower...Besides then December 7th 1941 would be remembered as the day the Japaneses attacked Hong Kong and not Pearl Harbour. Remember that this whole opinion is bac sed on WHAT IFS....if they were a super power, if they were aligned with the Allies and not Japan, etc etc etc...yall get the idea.

As for 'what ifs' what if the politicians had forced the Canadian conscripts overseas at the begining of the war not the end, how much sooner would the war have ended??? In italy, the only Canadians who fought were volunteers no conscrits at all when understrenght units got re-enforcements they were drawn from the motor pool, kitchens, bat men, and on and on, nothing from Canada, not till the end of the fighting in Europe did conscripts serve and very few at that...

I was being nice. The topic is beyond far fetched though.

__________________
It's a sick, sick world. I'm a happy man.

A) Australia has only 19 Million people today. In 1901, Australia only boasted 3.2 million people, 100,000 of those aboriginal.
In 1940 the population was over 6 million, this growth in and of itself was phenominal, yet leaves Australia with little manpower. I can see no world event short of alien intervention to increase Australian population much more than it historicly did. In contrast every large player in WWII had a population in excess of 85 million people, most over 100 million.
B) In 1901 Australia's economy is hugely agricultural. Almost no manufacturing base exists whatsoever. How is this turned around in 40 years? Without England? And again with such a small manpower base?
C) The US, Japan, and other major players in the Pacific had many warships because their Navy's had been slowly built over 50 years by 1941. Ships, especially in smaller yards, take years to build, plus cost enormous amounts of cash to field. How does Australia go from zero to hero in such a short period of time? Remember, even the Germans failed to build a formidable Navy in such a time frame. Then again comes the ability to man such a Navy. How many men in the US Navy in '41? I think over 100,000. How do 6 million people support such a force?

__________________
It's a sick, sick world. I'm a happy man.

hmmm a what if...
Well considering just for the sake of arguement that it WAS a superpower you have to assume that as a superpower australia had an impressive military.
Being a superpower...it obviosly would not be under british authority and thus her troops prob would not have been in europe.
At this point regarding where the Japanese attack depends on who has the most threatening navy.
If they both were consierable...then i could imagine surprise attacks at pearl and at what the major Australian base was. At that point it depends on how successful the attacks were...being that the carrier forces would have had to be split up damage would have been less...most obviosly at Pearl...and i guess the destruction would have been similar at the Austalian base.
Then the Japanese advances in the western Pacific and dutch east indies would have been according to how many australian and american units were at see.
I would assume the australian units were as unprepared as the US and defeated the same or withdrawn.
The Japanese would have captured the same amount of territory but slower.
In the campaign pushing Japan back...the Australians would have had a larger naval and land troops presence in the war...and maybe the war would have been a tad shorter depending on how fast the australians would have responded to the Japanese invasions of the Solomons and attempts at crossing the owen stanly mountains of new guinie. The US prob would have shared those battle with australian troops...as well as others...giving the allies that much more power if australia was a superpower.
However i think that a considerable amount of her navy would have been sunk in the begining of the war and would have had a tough time replacing losses (as did everyone except the US) The US managed to build a two ocean navy in about 2 years.
So thus as a Superpower i think the lines of battle could have ended up the same but maybe it would have been shortend because of the added benefits of another superpower's army and navy.

__________________
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. -- Sir Winston Churchill

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Cliff Weirmeir:
As for 'what ifs' what if the politicians had forced the Canadian conscripts overseas at the begining of the war not the end, how much sooner would the war have ended??? In italy, the only Canadians who fought were volunteers no conscrits at all when understrenght units got re-enforcements they were drawn from the motor pool, kitchens, bat men, and on and on, nothing from Canada, not till the end of the fighting in Europe did conscripts serve and very few at that...<hr></blockquote>

Hi Cliff, if this "IF" scenario were to occur Canada would have had some severe problems. Quebec would likely have burst into unmanageable riots and today it would not be part of Canada anymore. The issue of conscription in the World Wars is what created the Quebecois seperartist movement.

In the second World War we were determined to avoid conscription at all costs. Conscription was introduced "for home defence only." But pretty soon our divisions desperetly needed re-inforcements and the flow of volunteers was drying up. MacKenzie King pleaded to these conscripts to volunteer for overseas service to avoid having to send zombies. No conscripts were ever forced into overseas service.

In fact, King held a national plebiscite to free him from his pledge not to conscript men for overseas service. He won nearly two-thirds of the votes cast on 27 April, 1942; but, the fact that three-quarters of Quebecers voted against him was ample evidence that conscription was still a sensitive, potentially explosive issue.

Today in Canadian politics this is still a sensitive issue. Quebec has held two seperartist referendums and both times they narrowly failed.

To make things lighter--just think if the Aussies could train all their wild Kangaroos as infantry. They have a huge Kangaroo population (from what I have heard on the Animal planet channel)

The Japanese would stand no chance against Aussie Kangaroo Infantry.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

One of the more imaginative theories i've heard suggested here! HAHA

__________________
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. -- Sir Winston Churchill

I did so because some had actually been trained in Boxing. Either or--would have been neat to see. I could imagine hundreds of kangaroo Infantry hopping through some Japanese positions, punching their way through their liner or thumping their way through japanese lines.

No offense of anykind meant for our UK friends.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

What If Australia were a superpower.. To achieve that position must include all the resourses needed for that. human pop., good industry, infrasture, etc. It would have been a tough for the Japanese to handle. This is still what if?

Think of this. Canada at the time was almost the same as Australia. closely tied with Britain, small population, mostly agricultural, limited manufacturing industry. We were mostly into the raw nature resoures like forestly, mining, fishery. Our military before the war was undertrain, poorly equiped, undermanned, etc.. The army (Canadian corps first, then Canadian Army) because a tough enemy to those who fought them. Remember there were 3 allied armies that got landing beaches in Normandy, Juno Beach was for the Canadian Army. Also read the Italian Campaign and what the Canadian did there. At the end of the war our navy was the third largest allied navy, our airforce went from almost nothing to pumping out thousands of commonwealth pilots (all british colonies) to fight. All industries size at home explode to help with the demand for materials.

Now, Canadian and Australian battle honours and deed are very similar in bravery and victories. They do share many of them too. Read about WW1 honours and the Battle of Kapyong during the Korean war. If Canada did this in real life, then the "What if Australia was a superpower idea" could be possible and amazing to theorized about.