Home » Activism » New World Order » How Australia Feared the New World Order in 1940

How Australia Feared the New World Order in 1940

Written by The Informed Aussie
Published on Monday, April 30th, 2012
Globalist Report

The notion of the new world order is nothing new and has been around for almost 100 years. Recently, the first blueprints for world governmentwere revealed and other evidence of world government and the new world order is emerging every day.

In Australia, the new world order is still a relatively new concept and subsequently many Australians are reluctant to even discuss it. However, what many Australians don’t know is that the concept of the New World Order has been well-known within Australia’s political circles for many years.

The earliest record of the concept of the new world order in Australia was identified from a plaque that was posted at the “Cole Book Arcade” in Melbourne in 1883 (see image below).

Australian Globalist New World Order Propaganda from 1883

Australian Globalist New World Order Propaganda from 1883

To gain an appreciation of how much Australia’s political leaders feared the new world order and how they thought Nazi Germany may have been the conduit for the New World Order, the Globalist Report has found an article written by Thomas Bavin that demonstrates their fear.

Thomas Bavin, Born in Kaiapoi New Zealand, was a lawyer who emigrated to Australia and became Premier and Treasurer of New South Wales on 18 October 1927.

To briefly summarize, this article is about how Thomas Bavin and the Australia’s politicians feared the prospect of a New World Order under the auspices of Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler.

What’s interesting about the article below is how Australian politicians had begun to prepare for a New World Order in 1940.

After reading the article, the question I would like you to think about is, what’s the difference between what Australian politicians feared in 1940 and what we have to fear from the Globalist threat today? Remember, Nazi Germany was 5,000km away Australia and the threat from Japan was more real than the threat from Germany.

The reality is that although Nazi Germany was 5,000km from Australia, if they had won the war, Australia’s freedoms and liberties would be non-existent.

Therefore, the threat to Australia from Germany in world war two is the exact same threat we all face from the Globalists. For many, the Globalists appeared to be distant and irrelevant, however the truth is that the threat from the Globalists we face is real and closer than you think.

The Globalists want to destroy your freedoms, the Globalists want to poison you and your children by medicating your water supplies, the Globalists want to create global government, steal your money and reduce the population by 80%. The Globalists want you to submit, bow down and allow them to be the ruler of you, your family and your country.

A New World Order?

Author: Thomas Bavin
Source: The Australian Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Sep., 1940), pp. 5-11
Published by: Australian Institute of Policy and Science

Last year, in my presidential address, I concluded with the hope that our next annual meeting could be held under conditions happier than those in which we then found ourselves that the shadows of impending war would have disappeared, and that the nations of Europe would have found some means of settling their differences other than those of the savage or the wild beast.

Those hopes have unhappily proved baseless, and we meet tonight under the shadow of what threatens to be the greatest tragedy in human history. It is not merely that millions of lives may be lost in all the horrors of modern warfare: that the economic foundations of the modern world are crumbling: that starvation and famine loom darkly over tens of millions of innocent people: that all the roads leading to material progress and comfort are being closed: and that practically the whole of the material resources of Europe, over and above what are necessary for bare subsistence, are being devoted to the insane purposes of remorseless and indiscriminate slaughter.


These are the probable material consequences of the struggle in which we, even in this remote and hitherto unthreatened corner of the world, are more closely and directly involved than we have ever hitherto been and God knows, they are bad enough. But the purpose for which the world has been plunged into this terrible plight, the aims of those who have thus deliberately shut the gates of mercy on mankind, makes the prospect even darker than any threat of mere material ruin could make it.

That purpose, openly expressed, is to establish, at any rate in Europe, a new set of moral values, and to destroy, as a basis for civilized life, the simple virtues of honesty, of charity, of toleration, of good faith, and to substitute for them a mechanical and soulless efficiency which regards weakness as the only sin, and brute strength as the only virtue which worships the State as the sole and final form of human organization, which allows no place for the free spirit of man, which tolerates no independence of thought or judgment, which recognizes no art, nor culture, nor science, nor religion except what contribute to the strength and stability of the all embracing State.

The declared purpose of those who are responsible for plunging Europe, and millions outside Europe, into all the misery which darkens the world to-day, is to set up a New Order (New World Order) not merely a new political order, based on political frontiers different from those set up by

the Treaty of Versailles, not merely a new economic order, based on different methods of producing, exchanging, and distributing material goods between communities, not merely a new social order, based on different relationships of classes within the community: but a new moral order, based on a new conception of the relation of individuals to the State, and a new idea of the relations between man and man.

Never before, I believe, in all human history, and here I speak with diffidence in the presence of students who are better qualified to offer an opinion than I am, have different sections of the human race been involved in a struggle in which the issues are so fundamental, so far reaching in their results on the future of mankind.

Of course the suggestion that we can usefully occupy our time by discussing problems of post-war reconstruction and shaping the world after the war, according to our own hopes and ideas, assumes that we are going to win, or at least, that we shall be in such a position after the war that Germany will not be able to set up what her spokes men are pleased to call a “New World Order” without consulting us. It is pretty clear, that if we are defeated or if, at any stage in the future Germany, with the acquiescence of Russia, is strong enough to maintain her hold on those portions of Europe she has overrun, without our being able to affect the position, that our discussions about the post-war world will be merely interesting academic exercises. We shall not be consulted in the matter.

But in spite of the bombast to which we are becoming accustomed, in spite of Germany’s undoubted capacity to inflict the gravest in and disaster on the people of Britain, it seems to me to become in singly clear that an ending of the war that will leave Germany free to impose her own will, without let or hindrance from Great Britain, the whole of Eastern Europe, is more and more unlikely. I do not se to go into the reasons for this view. I state it, because it is foundation of my belief that, in discussing, and formulating our ideas about the problems that must arise when the war is over, about the ends at which we should aim, and the form which the post-war organization of Europe should take we are not merely beating the air.

I go further than that, and express my belief that it is vitally important that, as part of our war propaganda, we free peoples of the Empire should formulate, and publish to the world our ideas at least as to the principles upon which what Hitler calls the new order in Europe should be founded. It is clear that we cannot go on fighting merely to restore the “old order” in the sense of the state of things, the political boundaries, the economic relationships, the precarious balance of power politics that existed before the war. That would simply mean a restoration of the conditions that have brought about the present war, and the continuance on an ever more burdensome scale, of the crushing weight of military and naval preparation. We must find some more positive, more constructive aim than that, and we should let not only the communities that are now cowering under the brutal tyranny of Germany, but the whole world, know what it is. Even our absorption in the business of winning the war should not be allowed to prevent us from thinking about these things, because in a sense, they are part of the business of winning the war.

Hitler, as you know, has exploited the admitted defects and weaknesses of the pre-war world to the full. His exculpatory propaganda for months past has stressed the political disorder of Europe for the last twenty years, the economic and social inequalities of Britain and France, the chronic unemployment, the anomalies of our monetary system, as his justification for his efforts to create a new and better Europe.

This propaganda, as we know, has contained a liberal admixture of the most grotesque falsehood. But it has enough truth in it to call for some reply from us. “Preoccupied though it is by the needs of defence and offence,” wrote the London Times the other day, “the British Government should not allow Hitler’s challenge to go by default. Much harm may be done to our cause, both in Europe, and overseas, by the insinuation that we stand for the old order, and that our only aim is to restore the status quo in Europe, and maintain it at home. This charge should be emphatically and authoritatively refuted.”

So that, in suggesting that we should apply our minds to these problems, I am not suggesting that we should merely wander in a mist of academic unrealities.

Germany, of course, has her plan for the new world order, as she conceives it. We know, approximately, what it is. It is based first of all, so far as Western and Central Europe are concerned, on the supremacy of the German race. It excludes any liberty of speech, of thought, of religion. It envisages, of course, the destruction of any semblance of democratic government in any of the countries it covers. It proposes a new economic organization of Western Europe which would de-industrialize all the countries that are at present under Germany’s heel, including France, and make them merely the suppliers of agricultural produce, and raw materials, for their German over lords.

It promises a new monetary system, which would bind these countries irrevocably to the financial chariot wheels of Germany. It plans a sort of Monroe doctrine for Europe, under which, of course, Germany will settle all European problems, without interference by outsiders. It plans in short, to isolate Western and Central Europe entirely from the rest of the world. What part Russia is to play in this grandiose scheme is not quite clear. Presumably, she is to be a voluntary partner if agreeable, with a sphere of influence of her own in Eastern Europe and Asia.

Or, if not agreeable, a Germany freed from the threat of interference from any other quarter and with all the resources of Western and Southern Europe at her command, will be strong enough to settle the question in her own way. A Germany so fortified, would soon be strong enough in sea and air power to wrest the command of the sea from Great Britain so that, even if the attempted invasion of England fails the British Empire, its component parts isolated from one another, and shut out from any participation in the markets of Europe, falls into poverty stricken pieces. I do not know how the United States of America fits into this modest plan, but presumably it would not be left indefinitely outside the sphere of such beneficent ambitions.

It is hardly necessary to say much about this new world order which to us, sounds like the dreams of a paranoiac. The fact that the German plan seems to us fantastic, and certain to break down under its own weight, to say nothing of the weight of sullen but bitter hostility it arouses in tens of millions of victims, who do not share the German view of the supreme beneficence of German rule does not render it less necessary, or less useful, for us to point our own way to a better ordered world.

In some matters which are of the essence of the German plan, we have no difficulty. We are under no childish and unhistorical delusions about our own, or anyone else’s race supremacy. We do not propose to build a new and better world, on the suppression of the free spirit of man, or on the denial of his right to act, to think, to speak, to worship freely, within the limits imposed by law.

We do not intend to enthrone the spirit of brute force, or to trample under foot those gentler virtues of toleration, of charity, of mercy, of justice, of truth, that in every age have alone given dignity and beauty to human life. Nor, coming down to a more material plane, do we wish to divide the world into watertight compartments, but to open to the widest extent possible, the channels of cultural and commercial intercourse. We have, I say, no difficulty about these things. But we can hardly, if we are going to offer the world a practical policy of post-war reconstruction content ourselves with these general statements of ethical principle. There are political, economic and social problems of the greatest difficulty to which a solution must be found, if we are to lay the foundations of any durable system.

I can do no more tonight than indicate some of these as possible topics of discussion for us during the year’s discussion which may help towards the end which all our discussions should keep in view the formation of a sound and well-informed public opinion. There is, first, the question which provided the Peace Conference of 1919 with so many difficult problems, the question what should be the boundaries of the States which constitute the new Europe.

Are we to adhere to the boundaries fixed by the Treaty of Versailles, or do those boundaries require readjustment? Then, assuming Europe again to be a collection of independent national States, how are they to be organized, for the purpose of avoiding future conflicts? Obviously, if they are all to retain their full independence and sovereignty without any limitation imposed either by some agreement to which all, or nearly all, are parties, or by some form of federal organization, the world will be faced again with all the evils of power politics the diplomatic intrigues, the rivalry in armaments which brought us to the pass in which we find ourselves to-day. Are we to meet these dangers by a revival, in some form of the League of Nations, or by the establishment of some kind of federal system? And if a federal system, what are to be the conditions of entry into it, and what is to be the form of its constitution? I leave the answers to these questions to you.

Then there is the extremely difficult problem of what is called “peaceful change.” The difficulty of bringing about change, in any given state of international relationships, has always been one of the most fruitful causes of international conflict. And yet in a dynamic and changing world, changes in political boundaries, or in the rights and obligations of States, must be made. It was one of the chief criticisms of the League of Nations Covenant that although in theory it provided for change, in actual practice, change was difficult, if not impossible under it, and that therefore it had become merely a buttress for the status quo.

As soon, however, as you begin to consider this question, you find yourselves confronted with another set of problems, which are closely bound up with it, as they are with nearly every question of international relationships. These are the problems which arise out of the ideal of national self-sufficiency. They are mainly of course, economic. The difficulties which have arisen out of the pursuit of this ideal are, I believe, at the bottom of many of the worst troubles which afflicted Europe after the last war, and until we can devise a Europe in which the tariff and currency and quota barriers obstructing international trade and intercourse are thrown down, the restrictions on the free supply of raw materials removed, the obstacles to the free movement of population reduced, I can see no hope of getting rid of those troubles. If this freedom can be achieved, if increasing populations in densely populated countries can support themselves by the proceeds of foreign trade, or can find living room in other countries, the questions of political boundaries, or of the distribution of colonies, would lose much of their importance.

There are many other practical problems connected with the organization of Europe after the war which will suggest themselves to you. There are all the special problems connected with our own position in the Pacific, and our relations with our neighbours. We have all the material we want for study and discussion during the coming year, and I hope you will agree with me that the effort to use it for the purpose of helping to form Australian public opinion has, or should have, some practical value. It is as much beyond my purpose, as it is beyond my capacity, to offer cut and dried solutions of the problems I have mentioned. I shall be satisfied if I have indicated useful and practical fields of inquiry and discussion.

There are of course, even on the assumption with which I began, that we shall at the end of the war be in a position to make our influence felt, still some elements of uncertainty that must make any efforts at post-war planning more or less tentative. We do not know, for instance, what kind of Germany we shall have to deal with. All we do know is that it cannot be Hitler’s Germany. Obviously any idea of reasonable arrangements with any authority inspired by the spirit and following the policy of the Nazis is impossibility. Any plans we can imagine must be based on the assumption that there is a sane, reasonable, honest Germany and that it is that Germany with which we shall have to negotiate.

Then, unfortunately, we do not know at present the disposition of France. It is a tragedy for us and for France that it should be so, but there is the fact. We hope and believe that a free France will align herself with ourselves and with the other democratic peoples of Europe; and we hope and believe that by our efforts France will again herself and be free. Our plans for a new Europe must be based on this assumption.    

There is the uncertainty as to the position of Russia. No plans for a reconstructed Europe can leave her out of account. All one can say is that there seems to be nothing in the recent history of Russia which makes it impossible to hope that she would take her part in a Europe reconstructed on reasonable lines.

Finally, there is the uncertainty as to the part the United States of America is prepared to play, and the share she is prepared to take if any, in an organization or a policy, directed to the maintenance of world peace. It would be out of place for me to say more than this, that we know at least that her ideals are the same as ours, and that whether or not she lends her positive aid to our efforts to establish a better ordered world, she will place no obstacle in our way.

Men have always dreamed of a golden age or a millennium in which, if we cannot achieve immunity from all the consequences of human weakness and folly, we can at any rate secure peace among men, security for our lives and our possessions, and a fuller opportunity for the millions of ordinary men and women to realize in their own experience, something more of the happiness and self-fulfilment which human life offers, but which hitherto has been the monopoly of a favoured few.

Up to the present these dreams have been disappointed. Even the tragic experiences of the last war seem to have taught us little, except the cynical conclusion that the only lesson we learn from experience is that we learn nothing from experience. If, with the know ledge available to us of the meaning of modern warfare, from all we have experienced and shall experience in this conflict if, with all the control over natural forces we have gained with the progress of scientific research if, with all our experience of the disaster that follows the pursuit of merely material and selfish ends we once more prove unequal to the task of translating our dreams of a better world into a living reality, the outlook for humanity seems dark indeed. Our chances of doing so will not indefinitely recur.