On the 29th November 1917, the Prime Minister of Australia (Billy Hughes) was giving a speech on conscription when a man threw an egg at his head, knocking off his hat. In our timeline, Hughes lunged at the crowd and reached into his coat for a revolver that should have been there, but wasn't. However, what would happen in an alternate timeline where Hughes had had his revolver in his pocket and in a fit of rage shot into the crowd, potentially killing people?
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Alternate Egg Throwing Incident
- Thread starter Venocara
- Start date
- Pronouns
- he/him
I believe the assailant was Irish. Hughes was convinced the anti-conscription campaign was being masterminded by the Catholic Church (it really wasn't.)
Australia had a long tradition of sectarianism.
So the idea of the Prime Minister murdering a Catholic dissident in front of a crowd of people could have rather dramatic social consequences- the arguments after the war about how to talk about Irish independence could get much nastier, for one.
That being said, you could use this as the POD for a timeline where:
1. Hughes falls from office and doesn't go to Versailles.
2. The backlash against the Racial Equality Clause loses its strongest proponent- Hughes's replacement is distracted for, um, reasons, Wilson waits too late to spend his political capital... look, just go with it.
3. The inclusion of a Racial Equality Clause is a major symbolic victory for Japan, and convinces younger nationalists that their nation is being taken seriously by the west after all.
4. Japanese democracy survives! Manchuria isn't invaded! The Nanjing Decade becomes the Nanjing Decades!
5. Peace and Love and Prosperity for Asia!
6. Look to the Egg, coming soon from Sealion Press!
Well, it would be fun.
Australia had a long tradition of sectarianism.
So the idea of the Prime Minister murdering a Catholic dissident in front of a crowd of people could have rather dramatic social consequences- the arguments after the war about how to talk about Irish independence could get much nastier, for one.
That being said, you could use this as the POD for a timeline where:
1. Hughes falls from office and doesn't go to Versailles.
2. The backlash against the Racial Equality Clause loses its strongest proponent- Hughes's replacement is distracted for, um, reasons, Wilson waits too late to spend his political capital... look, just go with it.
3. The inclusion of a Racial Equality Clause is a major symbolic victory for Japan, and convinces younger nationalists that their nation is being taken seriously by the west after all.
4. Japanese democracy survives! Manchuria isn't invaded! The Nanjing Decade becomes the Nanjing Decades!
5. Peace and Love and Prosperity for Asia!
6. Look to the Egg, coming soon from Sealion Press!
Well, it would be fun.
- Pronouns
- he/him
What do you mean? Eggs are a traditional instrument of expressing displeasure at politicians: look at John Prescott being egged by a protester while on campaign in... 2001? Not having a revolver, he settled on punching his assailant in the face.
- Pronouns
- he/him
...
I just laid out an admittedly whimsical scenario that talks about the potentially dramatic effects the absence of Billy Hughes could have on the Paris Peace Conference.
I also pointed to the dangers of increased sectarian violence in an already divided society, both during and after the war.
It's your thread- tell you what, why don't you post a few ideas to spark some discussion?
I just laid out an admittedly whimsical scenario that talks about the potentially dramatic effects the absence of Billy Hughes could have on the Paris Peace Conference.
I also pointed to the dangers of increased sectarian violence in an already divided society, both during and after the war.
It's your thread- tell you what, why don't you post a few ideas to spark some discussion?
Last edited:
...
I just laid out an admittedly whimsical scenario that talks about the potentially dramatic effects the absence of Billy Hughes could have on the Paris Peace Conference.
I liked your whimsical scenario.
It's your thread- tell you what, why don't you post a few ideas to spark some discussion?
I think the absence of Hughes could have the following effects:
- Smaller reparations for Germany to pay
- The passage of the Racial Equality Clause, improving relations between Japan and Britain and straining them between Britain/France and America
- This will obviously change the Pacific War, and although I still believe that Japan will intervene in China, they may be more restrained in their approach
- Calls for decolonisation in the Empires and civil rights in America will grow louder
- The increased rise of the Country Party in Australia, and a closer alignment between them and the Nationalists
Now I picture Britain & France saying "so you know everything we've said about Don't Do That In China? Well, bugger China if you give us a hand against Germany" to a friendlier Japan. (Though what would Australia think, since Japan's closer to them?)
- Pronouns
- he/him
I'm not sure about that one, to be honest- the problem with flipping the alliances in the Pacific War, and you see this with every 'KMT joins the Axis' thread, every 'Japan joins the Allies,' et cetera- is that there's just no good reasons for anyone to flip.
Japan can't meaningfully contribute against Germany, save through not diverting allied resources- but a free hand in China overturns a literal century of British and American policy and threatens those countries' positions in the region. Worse, if the allies back Japan they risk their alliance with the Soviets, since the Japanese leadership has always been explicit that the whole purpose of seizing China's resources was to build themselves up against the USSR.
China can't meaningfully contribute to Germany- but Germany can't meaningfully contribute to China once the war has begun and the shipping routes closed. From 1937 China is entirely surrounded by more powerful countries that control its vital supply lines, and keeping their favor is far more important than the presence of German advisors.
I think it's far more likely for there to be no war in China then one in which Japan is, even tacitly, backed by the West.
Japan can't meaningfully contribute against Germany, save through not diverting allied resources- but a free hand in China overturns a literal century of British and American policy and threatens those countries' positions in the region. Worse, if the allies back Japan they risk their alliance with the Soviets, since the Japanese leadership has always been explicit that the whole purpose of seizing China's resources was to build themselves up against the USSR.
China can't meaningfully contribute to Germany- but Germany can't meaningfully contribute to China once the war has begun and the shipping routes closed. From 1937 China is entirely surrounded by more powerful countries that control its vital supply lines, and keeping their favor is far more important than the presence of German advisors.
I think it's far more likely for there to be no war in China then one in which Japan is, even tacitly, backed by the West.
Last edited:
I'm not sure about that one, to be honest- the problem with flipping the alliances in the Pacific War, and you see this with every 'KMT joins the Axis' thread, every 'Japan joins the Allies,' et cetera- is that there's just no good reasons for anyone to flip.
Japan can't meaningfully contribute against Germany, save through not diverting allied resources- but a free hand in China overturns a literal century of British and American policy and threatens those countries' positions in the region. Worse, if the allies back Japan they risk their alliance with the Soviets, since the Japanese leadership has always been explicit that the whole purpose of seizing China's resources was to build themselves up against the USSR.
Can’t Japan seize Vichy territories in Asia and the Pacific? And would Japan be willing to stop with Manchuria?
- Pronouns
- he/him
Yes?
Sorry, I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Sorry, I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Yes?
Sorry, I'm not sure where you're going with this.
What I’m saying is that that would be a good reason for Japan to get involved in the war; it could affect Axis trade and supplies coming from those areas (and it would be a general nuisance) which is good for the Allies, and Japan get some more land, which is good for them.
- Pronouns
- he/him
It's also done entirely to threaten China and the Dutch East Indies, and compromises a power and its colonies that the Allies are trying to bring on to their side.
So no, I don't think that's good for the Allies.
So no, I don't think that's good for the Allies.