Now, because almost all historical information mentioned in this challenge I didn’t know about*, mainly because American history isn’t huge in Australian schools, my story is based on the Phillipines as I do know a little about this.
In 1965 after 400 years of Spanish rule a rebellion to liberate the Filipino people erupts. During a ceremony to commemorate the 400 years rule 1000’s of Filipinos rose up and took control of the government. The Spanish king was there to help with the celebration and was taken hostage, the ransom – Freedom for the Philippines.
Spain reacts by condemning the Filipinos and declares war on them. Australia and a majority of South-East Asia stand behind The Philippines, although no European countries support Spain because almost all of their empires have fallen as well. This standoff results in the Philippines becoming its own country, returning the king without harm, embracing its traditional culture and eventually creating a huge tourist scene. By the mid 80’s the Philippines is booming and it has become a holiday spot for the rich people of the western world. A new leader is voted in and begins to change some things about the way the country is run. The main changes being: the legalisation of drugs, introduction of government funding gambling houses, unrestricted prostitution and large amounts of funding to military.
In a speech by this leader at the Millennium celebration she describes how she plans to expand The Philippines and unite South-East Asia and Australasia under one banner. Although in the speech she describes this unification as one of diplomacy, it becomes apparent to those countries that refuse that the response to non-compliance is invasion. While some of the poorer, less developed countries were immediately interested in joining there was a number of them were not. This created a divide. My thinking is that there would Australia, Indonesia, New Zealand and possibly Papua New Guinea on one side and the rest of South East Asia on the other.
This is where my mind has stopped. I’m home sick from work and my brain isn’t communication to my hands too well. Tossing up the idea of there being no WW2 only a WW1, which is very different to our WW1, a peace treaty is signed banning all projectile weapons. Implementation of new rules of war such as: only hand held weapons, swords, knives, hand to hand. That’s just a thought though. But anyway that’s my idea for this. I
*Including the American-Spanish War, I know. That’s bad. But I’m Generation Y so I don’t care. I just get drunk and have no morals.
1 comment:
So let's think this through: a completely different WWI means -- what? No Gallipoli campaign? No Australians and New Zealanders getting slaughtered by the thousands under British "leadership"? No Anzac Day? No Lithgow Small Arms Factory getting established in NSW, so later, should Australia get cut off from Mother England and need to rely on its own resources for defence...
And what's Japan up to while all this is going on?
I really like your start here. I'd like to see you develop it further.
Post a Comment