To your 1st paragraph the answer is yes. Australia's ashes batting ave in the 30s was the 2nd lowest when you remove Bradman's runs. This is fair as it brings back that era its true standard so that you can then tell how much he distorted the average. By about 6 runs a wicket by his own efforts in fact.
The rest of your post is drivel as it is based on the distortion.
The only drivel is that you honestly belive that Allen and Voce were as good as Lindwall, Miller, Trueman, Davidson, Snow, Imran, Mahmood, Waqar, Wasim, Hadlee, Hall, Roberts, Holding, Croft, Garner, Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald Steyn, Pollock ect. because you are the only peron who does.
And this doesn't even factor in the
ONLY teams that Bradman averaged over a hundred againts, India and South Africa who were minnows of the order of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, there is a reason that no one rates Moyo higher than Viv even with his great year as it was primarily scored againts very weak attacks and minnows. When Weekes and Walcott plundered India it is used againts them (and they had Lindwall, Miller and Trueman to contend with otherwise), for Bradman it is the basis of his legend, because without them he would not have averaged near 100. Some use it againts Viv that he never faced an attack quite like his own, but Bradman never faced his own bowlers either who were the four best bowlers of his era in O'reilly, Grimmett, Lindwall and Miller.
I would give you Larwood who was only entering his true prime years when he was forced out of the game for practicing a form of bowling that was part of the game until the bouncer rule in the '90's (minus the field placings of course) and he had it pretty hard with the unhelpful pitches and the existing LBW rules as noted in his Wisden Obituary
"Around 5ft 8ins, but strongly-built with wide shoulders and long arms, he had a smooth, rhythmic approach and a high arm action. His speed was truly exceptional, and because of his lack of height, his bouncer tended to skid, veering into the ribs rather than wastefully over the head. The schoolboy Ray Lindwall drew upon this action after watching through the pickets at the SCG in 1932-33. In more recent times, the Pakistan express bowler Waqar Younis has had much of Larwood's movement about his run-up and delivery. Larwood's stock ball snapped in from the off, and in days when leg-before dismissals could be granted only from balls that pitched between wicket and wicket, he was denied many a dismissal that would have been given to succeeding generations of bowlers"
Do you understand how difficult is is for a right hand fast bowler to consistently get LBW decisions if they have to pitch in line with the stumps, which is why the Leg spinners and LH othrodox spinners were more effective than the fast bowlers and why combined with the pitches Australia had a derth of fast bolwers until the end of WW2.
How can anyone belive that a combination of all of these factors would not have contributed to an inflated average is lunacy, no one is suggesting that it would be cut in half, but it must have contributed, why is it so hard to see or admit that.
Protected by two great openers, strong batting behind him, for the most part relatively weak attacks except for a couple of series, flat pitches, favorable rules which were changed because of him and being able to gourge on some really weak teams didn't hurt either. He averaged 74 vs Martindale and Constantine, yet is suggested he would have averaged 100 vs the W.I in 83/84 can't buy it.
Once again not saying that his average would have beeen cut in half but to say if he played in a different era againts better bowlers and teams that his average would have stayed the same is what is drivel.
Even with Chucky included. But suely comparing one set of bowlers to 3 modern sets of bowlers from 3 countries is enough don't you think? A comparison with the McGrath/Warne Aussies will follow. Again you'll be unpleasantly surprised. 
