Who did more to help the Allies win WW2 Fance or Austrailia?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The reason I ask is that it has come up a few times why France was given a permenant seat on the UN security council. Its pretty much acceptted that the winners of WW2 that being America, Britain, France, Russia, and China. Now I dont know for sure but it seems to me off the top of my head that Austrailia did a lot more than France so why werent they included. Was it a population thing or was it decided on military might?

[Redleg]

Well we all know why - Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and China are on the Security Council.

Austrialia is represented by the United Kingdom on the Security Council because if my memory serves me correctly Austrialia is still a member of the British Commonwealth.

Now France on the other hand - I to have always wondered why they were given a seat on the Security Council. It might have been done because of the East-West tension that immediately started after WW2, and France was seen as a western ally that would always vote against the communist block - and this was mostly true given the nature of the fighting in the French Colonies.

[ShadesPanther]

thats basically it. So The soviets were outnumbered 3:1

and Australia and New Zealand are members of the commonwealth.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Austrialia is represented by the United Kingdom on the Security Council because if my memory serves me correctly Austrialia is still a member of the British Commonwealth.

Ah I thought that might be it but it sort of sucks then. Austrialia is in reality a free and seperate nation is it not?

Akso I apologise to my Canadian friends out there as they also should have been incuded in this post and the security council IMHO. I guess they were left out for the same reason as Austrailia. The UK is such a confusing entity. He He since Britain joined the EU does that mean Austrailia and Canada are members also? ~D

[Byzantine Prince]

Well, who cares about the stupid ass UN anyways. How many times have you Gawain dissed the UN? Quite a lot, unless I am confusing you with some other conservative.

I wish we[Canada] could opt out and maybe others will follow as well. The UN is a poor excuse for an organization. Instead I hope NATO becomes more powerful then ever.

[Duke Malcolm]

Australia.
All the French did was get invaded. Australia mucked in to fight for the King and Country, for God and the Empire, for Kith and Kin, for Home, and for the Mother Country. They joined the war of their own free will (or so we tell them, but shh, they don't need to know), and fought damned hard.

[King Ragnar]

Australia.
All the French did was get invaded.

The french always get invaded:The Franco-Prussian wars,WW1,WW2. They cant put up much of a fight.
I agree with Byzantine Prince the UN Does suck, the UK should pull out for definate.

[sharrukin]

What do you suppose the result would have been had the British had a long border with the Germans...or the Australians? No nation that had a land border with the Germans could resist them except the Russians, who had a huge military and it cost them 20 million dead. No the French couldn't stop the Germans but then who could? It would not be for many years that any nation had the capacity to do so. If New England had been next door to the Germans in 1939, I think the results wouldn't have been very pleasant.

France has a seat on the UN council because it can field a powerful military force overseas. Power projection is what dictated who got a seat and who got a veto as it makes little sense NOT to give a Veto to someone you cannot enforce your resolutions against.

As a Canadian I am aware that the security council seats were not given out as rewards for dutiful service. IMHO Japan and Germany should also have been given a seat on the security council as well.

[Duke Malcolm]

Security Council seats were given to the winners of the Second World War. Australia didn't get a seat because it is a British Dominion, and was more-or-less represented by the British seat.
France was given a seat for the same reason as China, I think -- they experience the foreign occupation, and they were also a significant international force at the time.

[Idomeneas]

Didnt France had ''ze resistance''? ~;)
oups forgot.. that was a movie stereotype.

Aussies for me. They fought hard almost in every front even if they didnt had to at that point.

[Adrian II]

The french always get invaded:The Franco-Prussian wars,WW1,WW2. They cant put up much of a fight.They don't have an island to hide away and wait till Bubba comes to the rescue. I'm glad at least one civilised nation is on the Council. And I wholeheartedly agree with the honourable gentlemen that Britian should withdraw from it. It doesn't have a policy of its own; it can't wipe its own backside without permission from Washington.

EDIt And I do realise this thread is an excuse for French-bashing. If you guys stay sharp, I'll play along - if I get bored, I'm out.

[Brenus]

The french always get invaded:The Franco-Prussian wars,WW1,WW2. They cant put up much of a fight.
I agree with Byzantine Prince the UN Does suck, the UK should pull out for definate.

Right you are... Three time the French had to face a German aggression, but they are the baddies!!!! The victims of aggression have to be blamed...
Excepted, because that is history, the French declared war to Prussia (Germany was created after the Franco-Germans war), Napoleon II having fallen in Bismark's trap...

The WW1: France was one of the few countries without choice, being attacked by the Germans. The French won the war with their British allies, themselves involved because the British thought that to defend a neutral country attacked without warning is worth to do. The US intervention was a fatal blow for a yet defeated Germany, by a endless supply of men and material...
In Verdun, the German Plan was to obliged the French to fight iron with flesh. They did and they won.

The WW2, the French could have easily not be defeated by not declaring war against Germany when Hitler decided to invaded Poland. Most probably, Hitler will have turn against USSR, and end of the game. To be defeated happens in war and isn't a dishonor. To see and watch is. The French were the only country ready to sent troop to help Finland against Stalin aggression. Because the fall of Finland, these troops were used in Narvik, Never heard about it?
And to add this comment: the British weren't better: The BEF was as much defeated than the French army... Does that make the BEF a bunch of cowards? I don't think so...
The Free French fought alongside the US and UK troops in Africa, in Provence and Italy, providing the break in the battle for Monte Casino (battle of the Carigliano). They even provide one squadron of fighters on the Russian Front (Normandy/Niemen). Plus the french resistance inside France...

So, yes, the French did as much as the Australian and other countries to help to win WW2. Just read Churchill's speech to France after the armistice in 1940. Oh, perhaps you don't trust him. But to be in the front line isn't easy, and only the vast spaces of Russia succeeded to contain the Nazi assault.

UN is what the member states are willing the organisation to do.

[Redleg]

They don't have an island to hide away and wait till Bubba comes to the rescue. I'm glad at least one civilised nation is on the Council. And I wholeheartedly agree with the honourable gentlemen that Britian should withdraw from it. It doesn't have a policy of its own; it can't wipe its own backside without permission from Washington.

EDIt And I do realise this thread is an excuse for French-bashing. If you guys stay sharp, I'll play along - if I get bored, I'm out.

Now Now - lets not get all testy. At least two of us have not bashed the French on this thread. However it does seem that you have decided to bash the English.

I wonder is the pot trying to call the kettle black again?

[Duke Malcolm]

We didn't hide on our island until the US helped. We defended our shores well. We defended our Empire slighlty less well, but managed nonetheless. Had we been bordering Germany, we would have been relatively successful in defending our borders.

[Redleg]

We didn't hide on our island until the US helped. We defended our shores well. We defended our Empire slighlty less well, but managed nonetheless. Had we been bordering Germany, we would have been relatively successful in defending our borders.

Actually this is incorrect. The BEF was handed its collective rearend during the Invasion of France - just like the French were defeated by the German attack.

Hindsight is always 20-20. The French lost because the Germans used tactics that were French were not prepared for. France invisioned the war being fought like WW1 - and Germany fought a completely different type of war. France and England were equally unprepared for the German Attack into France.

[Duke Malcolm]

Britain, for God's sake, Britain!

And superior tactics like :- Going around the French defences. If Britain was in the same situation as France, then the Imperial Armies would have massed to defend the Mother Country. The BEF wasn't the whole Army, unlike the French Army.

[71-hour Ahmed]

France was the more powerful and important country by far, she was just unlucky enough to have a military commanded by out of date strategy and so gt crushed. France didn't really contribute much to allied victory after that (resistance was minimally important) but she didn't impair it much either so it balances out. Australia wasn't that important overall, we wouldn't have lost much without it - the Japanese would simply have held more positions in SE Asia before the Yanks crushed them

As for comment about this thread being about "French bashing" grow up... its a fair question that Gawain asked regarding nations contribution and hence subsequent recognition. Moreover Britain can't be described as cowering and waiting for America... the USA wasn't expected (or expecting ) to enter the war until the Japanese got a bit stooooopid at Pearl Harbour, and the British were fighting in Africa all that time. In fact even if America had remained neutral its not impossible that Britain (with lend-lease help) would have still won in Africa, Germany being focussed on the Soviet Union.

[Redleg]

Britain, for God's sake, Britain!

And superior tactics like :- Going around the French defences. If Britain was in the same situation as France, then the Imperial Armies would have massed to defend the Mother Country. The BEF wasn't the whole Army, unlike the French Army.

You are forgetting that the British forces were fighting with the same WW1 tactics of the French. The French and British had the better tanks during the time of the Invasion of France. Germany had the better tactics. The French Army in 1940 happen to be larger then the British Army if I remember correctly also. The BEF happen to contain the major combat units of the British Army at the time that were not engaged in the colonies. In a lightening attack such as the Germans pulled off against France - the colonies would not have had time to send troops to defend the motherland during the initial attack. And Britian did not have the land to trade for time like Russia or for that matter the United States

The English would not have fared much better then the French - if England was located with a land border next to Belgium or Germany.

For that matter nor would the United States against an initial land assualt with the Germany Army of 1940. The United States would have had to do the same tactics of Russia to survive the onslaught of the German attack - trade land for time.

[King Ragnar]

. It doesn't have a policy of its own; it can't wipe its own backside without permission from Washington..
Who do we have to blame for that the French, Maybe we could of held America longer if the French didn't help them in the War of independence.

[Lazul]

argh, why does it allways lead to talk about who did the most in WW2?

If the Germans had the chance to meet their enemies one by one they would crush them all.
BUT, since they had to face them all at once they lost. The German Warmachine was far superior against the other nations.
They had less tanks, and crappy tank in the begging but due to the fact that the germans had superios officers they won took Franche.
The allies won only couse they worked together.

as for the UN... yeah, it crap really.

[sharrukin]

We didn't hide on our island until the US helped. We defended our shores well. We defended our Empire slighlty less well, but managed nonetheless. Had we been bordering Germany, we would have been relatively successful in defending our borders.

Of the 50 or so infantry divisions available to england at the time, only 8 where fully equipped first line, and a further 12 where partially equipped second line. The rest where hardly worthy of the name "infantry division" consisting of reservists and Home Guardsmen with little training and equipment.

Most of these 'divisions' were simply light infantry grouped together and not in fact divisions in any real sense.

The Home Guard (Local Defence Volunteers ;LDV) would have been both valiant and pathetic due to the fact that they had no equipment and no training. Early units mostly wore civilian clothing and were equipped with rifles, shotguns, pikes or whatever else they could find. Some american .30 rifles from WW1, molotov cocktails and later thompsons smg's.

An Eye-Witness Account- By Ronald Ashford, born 1922

" In 1940, I was a volunteer in the Local Defence Volunteers (LDV), later to be renamed the Home Guard and I was one of thirty men serving under First World War veteran; Sir basil Eddis.

After drilling without weapons for some three months, we were each issued with 303 rifles and four clips of 303 ammunition- each clip holding five rounds."

That's a total of 20 bullets! Scarryyyy If you think THIS was going to stop the German army then you are as deluded as the French High Command was!

The United States would have been in some ways in a worse position than the Russians as New England held most of their industrial capacity at the time and they, unlike the Russians, lacked a large army or air force. The technical expertise in the American population would however have gone a long way to offset this.

[Adrian II]

argh, why does it allways lead to talk about who did the most in WW2?Yup. It's interesting to see what kind of reasoning comes up, though. You know what they say about the political uses of rewriting history. France's UNSC seat is a pain the Neocon butt, so let's rewrite its history to make it look as if they didn't deserve it in the first place. The reason for that not being their diverging political views or different national interests, but a moral deficit that hopefully appeals to uninformed Americans: cowardice. An open & shut case of Neocon propaganda, methinks.

[PanzerJaeger]

What do you suppose the result would have been had the British had a long border with the Germans...or the Australians? No nation that had a land border with the Germans could resist them except the Russians, who had a huge military and it cost them 20 million dead. No the French couldn't stop the Germans but then who could? It would not be for many years that any nation had the capacity to do so. If New England had been next door to the Germans in 1939, I think the results wouldn't have been very pleasant.

The French had superior numbers in their army. They had a huge defense system which limited that "long border". They had superior tanks and other equipment. France was simply inferior to Germany, just like Britain, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Greece, Yugoslavia, Austria, The Netherlands, and Russia. All of their militaries failed in the face of Germany before combining to finally topple the country.

Even though im one of those evil conservatives, i dont think there is any reason to bash the french as bad soldiers. If you do that, you'll have to bash all of Europe besides Germany (which is fine too ~;) ).

[PanzerJaeger]

Yup. It's interesting to see what kind of reasoning comes up, though. You know what they say about the political uses of rewriting history. France's UNSC seat is a pain the Neocon butt, so let's rewrite its history to make it look as if they didn't deserve it in the first place. The reason for that not being their diverging political views or different national interests, but a moral deficit that hopefully appeals to uninformed Americans: cowardice. An open & shut case of Neocon propaganda, methinks.

Which Neocons are pushing to get the french kicked off the Security Council?

[Redleg]

Yup. It's interesting to see what kind of reasoning comes up, though. You know what they say about the political uses of rewriting history. France's UNSC seat is a pain the Neocon butt, so let's rewrite its history to make it look as if they didn't deserve it in the first place. The reason for that not being their diverging political views or different national interests, but a moral deficit that hopefully appeals to uninformed Americans: cowardice. An open & shut case of Neocon propaganda, methinks.

LOL - your own baised views is spewing forth from the cess pool in which you claim is the Neocon view. Your propaganda is no better then the Neocon propaganda.

When I decide to bash the French it will be for something other then WW2.

[sharrukin]

What do you suppose the result would have been had the British had a long border with the Germans...or the Australians? No nation that had a land border with the Germans could resist them except the Russians, who had a huge military and it cost them 20 million dead. No the French couldn't stop the Germans but then who could? It would not be for many years that any nation had the capacity to do so. If New England had been next door to the Germans in 1939, I think the results wouldn't have been very pleasant.

The French had superior numbers in their army. They had a huge defense system which limited that "long border". They had superior tanks and other equipment. France was simply inferior to Germany, just like Britain, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Greece, Yugoslavia, Austria, The Netherlands, and Russia. All of their militaries failed in the face of Germany before combining to finally topple the country.

Even though im one of those evil conservatives, i dont think there is any reason to bash the french as bad soldiers. If you do that, you'll have to bash all of Europe besides Germany (which is fine too ~;) ).

I agree with you on this one hundred percent! The French could have won the battle for France in 1940 if they had understood modern warfare. Their equipment was good and they had the numbers and quality needed to do it. They lacked good NCO's and officers.

The British were I believe soldier for soldier better than his French counterpart. He may even have been better than his German counterpart. The British were hampered by the same problem the French were, which is incompetant leadership. Their tanks being designed by German secret agents didn't help (at least this is the only logical explanation I can find for what they produced).
As one German general said of the British "Lions led by Donkey's".

As for all the French bashing, what is that all about? Is it just because they fought by the American side in the First Gulf War and didn't in the Second?

[Lazul]

Yes, as I said before, it was the leadership of the germans that made them so succesfull, even the americans had a nasty defeat in North Africa, not sure of the name but, Kasserine Pass right?
Think it was shortly after Operation Torch. (wich holds more intresting details).

Rather intresting, the german tanks rolled over them, and reached the supply stations and then when Rommel looked at the huge amounts of supplies he realized that they might loose North Africa now that the US entered the war.

[Redleg]

Yes, as I said before, it was the leadership of the germans that made them so succesfull, even the americans had a nasty defeat in North Africa, not sure of the name but, Kasserine Pass right?
Think it was shortly after Operation Torch. (wich holds more intresting details).

Rather intresting, the german tanks rolled over them, and reached the supply stations and then when Rommel looked at the huge amounts of supplies he realized that they might loose North Africa now that the US entered the war.

Yep the Kasserine Pass where the 1st Infantry Division got its rear-end handed to them by the Germans.

[Papewaio]

The head of state for Australia is the Queen of Australia who also is the Queen of Britain, Canada and New Zealand.

At the end of the war it was still really British Empire... so maybe that is the main reason.

Bit more murky then that since Australia has been the Australian Commonwealth since 1901, so it has in some ways been independent, just with very strong cultural ties to Britain and the USA and of course NZ and other (British) Commonwealth countries.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The head of state for Australia is the Queen of Australia who also is the Queen of Britain, Canada and New Zealand.

You Brits really confuse me. Now theres the British army. What counries are represented here. Canada ans Austrailia have there own sepearate armed forces but I dont belive Scotland ,Ireland or Wales do among others. It seems if all of these are still part of the British common wealth then UK must be the next most powerful nation in the world and a super power. Its really quite confusing. Does the Queen of England or the English Parliment have any sway over the laws and people of these countries or is this just a vestigial union ? If so when did they really become independent?

[Spetulhu]

The WW2, the French could have easily not be defeated by not declaring war against Germany when Hitler decided to invaded Poland.

Out of interest... Was the French-UK pact with Poland only against German aggression or did they declare war on the Soviets too? Everyone seems to conveniently forget that Stalin had a pact with Hitler and attacked Poland too, taking the eastern areas.

The world would look quite different if the Allies had to fight both Hitler and Stalin. ~:eek:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Out of interest... Was the French-UK pact with Poland only against German aggression or did they declare war on the Soviets too? Everyone seems to conveniently forget that Stalin had a pact with Hitler and attacked Poland too, taking the eastern areas.

I had a whole thread on this in the monastary and its been discussed many a time and I have brought up the same point more times than I care to count.

[kiwitt]

I think "de Gaulle" at that time was very influential to the other western powers. Britain spoke for Aust/NZ/Canada

[Productivity]

Note, while Australia has the same queen as England, she is in a different capacity. She is the Queen of Australia and the Queen of England rather than being the Queen of England (which then includes Australia).

While Australia has received a lot of law previously, this cannot occur anymore, and you can no longer appeal to the english court system after you've exhausted the australian system. In essence, Australia is it's own country, with some tenuous links to the UK (shouldn't it be UQ at the moment?).

As for why, well a couple of years ago, our lovely prime minister, decided he was going to sabotage the referendum on the republic, setting up a situation in which the republic would never win, even though it is supported by the majority of australians. This is just another in his long line of agenda pushing, sleazy lies and misconstructions.

Words cannot express my disgust for him.

[bmolsson]

Can't really understand why the Americans are against the French ? Without them, no US. I think that the French support for terrorism has done at least one good thing.... ~D

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Can't really understand why the Americans are against the French ? Without them, no US.

Because it was a totaly different France and government. It was the king of france who suppoerted us. What happened to him for helping us. The new French beheaded him . Also you cant state unequivably that no help from France no US.

[Spetulhu]

I had a whole thread on this in the monastary and its been discussed many a time and I have brought up the same point more times than I care to count.

Never visited the monastery. Thanks for the tip, I'll check it out.

[bmolsson]

Also you cant state unequivably that no help from France no US.


I just did.... And it felt great..... ~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I just did.... And it felt great.....

The feeling will be fleeting, believe me. ~:)

[Franconicus]

[QUOTE=Brenus]The WW1: France was one of the few countries without choice, being attacked by the Germans. The French won the war with their British allies, themselves involved because the British thought that to defend a neutral country attacked without warning is worth to do. The US intervention was a fatal blow for a yet defeated Germany, by a endless supply of men and material...
In Verdun, the German Plan was to obliged the French to fight iron with flesh. They did and they won.

The WW2, the French could have easily not be defeated by not declaring war against Germany when Hitler decided to invaded Poland. Most probably, Hitler will have turn against USSR, and end of the game. QUOTE]
Sorry, but it is not that simple! :dizzy2:

[Duke Malcolm]

You Brits really confuse me. Now theres the British army. What counries are represented here. Canada ans Austrailia have there own sepearate armed forces but I dont belive Scotland ,Ireland or Wales do among others. It seems if all of these are still part of the British common wealth then UK must be the next most powerful nation in the world and a super power. Its really quite confusing. Does the Queen of England or the English Parliment have any sway over the laws and people of these countries or is this just a vestigial union ? If so when did they really become independent?

Britain consists of Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The British Parliament has control over England, and reserved powers outlined in the Scotland Act 1997 (and other acts of devolution), which include immigration, benefits, fire-arms, taxes, and defence.
HM the Queen (God bless Her) is not Queen of England, she is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith (although the legality of the title is disputed, by those who say it should stay with the previous title before the Statute of Westminsterin 1931).

The UK is a single state within the British Commonwealth of Nations (not Cromwell's Commonwealth in the 17th century). The BCN is a commonwealth of nations which have experienced directly or indirectly the effects of direct of British rule (except Mozambique), and is headed by HM the Queen (God bless Her), although the role is only a formality. The British Parliament has little control over it except that it is probably formed in and Act of Parliament. Well, it does until I become Prime Minister...

[GodsPetMonkey]

You Brits really confuse me. Now theres the British army. What counries are represented here. Canada ans Austrailia have there own sepearate armed forces but I dont belive Scotland ,Ireland or Wales do among others. It seems if all of these are still part of the British common wealth then UK must be the next most powerful nation in the world and a super power. Its really quite confusing. Does the Queen of England or the English Parliment have any sway over the laws and people of these countries or is this just a vestigial union ? If so when did they really become independent?

The Queen has no political power here is Australia, she's just a figure head, and only really serves to have her head on the back of our coins.

Australia gained independence by an act of the British parliament that came into effect 1/1/1901, we call it federation (all the colonies joined in the federation that is the Commonwealth of Australia as states). You could still appeal to the Privy Council in Britain, which was a special court for colonial affairs (not attached to the UK's legal system), but this has since been removed by our federal parliament. The Privy Council was still obliged to abide by Australian laws but as the highest court, it was not bound by any common law decisions. In theory, the British parliament could repeal Australian federal legislation, but it never did, and it removed this power from itself in the early 1930's.


Now I dont know for sure but it seems to me off the top of my head that Austrailia did a lot more than France so why werent they included. Was it a population thing or was it decided on military might?

We had major roles in Greece, Crete and North Africa, including the Siege of Tobruk *snif*

After Japan entered the war, we mostly pulled out of Europe (we still had alot of pilots in the RAF though) and proceeded to take part in most of the major engagements in the Pacific war, as well as being the major base of operations in the West Pacific. Whilst normally overshadowed by the US contribution, we gave alot considering our small population at the time.

[Duke Malcolm]

The Queen has no political power here is Australia, she's just a figure head, and only really serves to have her head on the back of our coins.

It's the front of coins on which HM the Queen (God bless Her) appears.


Australia gained independence by an act of the British parliament that came into effect 1/1/1901, we call it federation (all the colonies joined in the federation that is the Commonwealth of Australia as states). You could still appeal to the Privy Council in Britain, which was a special court for colonial affairs (not attached to the UK's legal system), but this has since been removed by our federal parliament. The Privy Council was still obliged to abide by Australian laws but as the highest court, it was not bound by any common law decisions. In theory, the British parliament could repeal Australian federal legislation, but it never did, and it removed this power from itself in the early 1930's.

While the power was technically repealed, it can b brought back by either an amendment to the Statute of Westminster, or an appeal to the either the Courts of Appeal or of Session, although I doubt that this shall happen.

[GodsPetMonkey]

While the power was technically repealed, it can b brought back by either an amendment to the Statute of Westminster, or an appeal to the either the Courts of Appeal or of Session, although I doubt that this shall happen.

It would also need an act from our federal government, as its not a constitutional element. Indeed, any power the UK had to re-introduce the power it once had was destroyed in the Australia Act, this would need to be amended for the UK parliament to do anything.

[Duke Malcolm]

If it was an Act of the British Parliament, like the Canada Act, then the Courts of Appeal and Session could over-turn it on the basis that one parliament restricted the succeeding parliament's powers.

[Papewaio]

If it was an Act of the British Parliament, like the Canada Act, then the Courts of Appeal and Session could over-turn it on the basis that one parliament restricted the succeeding parliament's powers.

Isn't there a ninety nine year rule on uncontested land or something like that?

[Duke Malcolm]

There was a treaty with China in 1898 to say that we would give back the New Territories 99 years later, along with Hong Kong and Kowloon. I don't know of any other 99 year rule...

[Papewaio]

Wasn't that part of the Falklands war?

[Duke Malcolm]

I can't say that I have heard of it in the Falklands' War.

[GodsPetMonkey]

If it was an Act of the British Parliament, like the Canada Act, then the Courts of Appeal and Session could over-turn it on the basis that one parliament restricted the succeeding parliament's powers.

I'm not sure how it was setup in Canada, but here there was sister legislation which allowed the UK parliament to repeal our federal legislation.

It's all got to do with the part of our constitution that deals with our government being held hostage to a foreign power.

[Duke Malcolm]

And also perhaps that your constitution is British legislation...

[English assassin]

If it was an Act of the British Parliament, like the Canada Act, then the Courts of Appeal and Session could over-turn it on the basis that one parliament restricted the succeeding parliament's powers

No they couldn't. First no British court has the power to overturn an Act of Parliament, its not like the US supreme court. Although as the courts believe that they have been instructed by Parliament to give supremecy to EU law, they will at present disapply parts of Acts that they consider to be contrary to EU law. The statutory authority for this is the European Communities Act 1972, and, as that Act predates some acts which have subsequently been disapplied it should be a clue that the old consitutional doctrine that no parliament can bind its successor is not strictly correct. (Though I can see how I could construct an argument to the contrary if I had to.)

The trouble with things like the 1931 Act, and indeed the 1972 Act, though, is that the "Parliament" before and after are not the same body. Before the 1931 Act the Westminster Parliament, in theory at least, had legislative power for quite large bits of the world, albeit it did not use that power. (For the very good reason that it was not at all obvious that the courts in those parts of the world would have recognised the effectiveness of the Axcts passed.) After passing the 1931 Act the Westminster Parliament no longer claimed those powers. In effect the pre-31 parliament abolished itself and replaced itself with a lesser body. Whereas the greater body have have had the power to become lesser, it does not at all follow that the lesser body has the power to become greater again. (We'll hear all about this if we every try to repeal the 1972 Act)


Indeed, any power the UK had to re-introduce the power it once had was destroyed in the Australia Act, this would need to be amended for the UK parliament to do anything

This also raises the very important point that, consitutional masturbation like the discussion above put aside, if the courts in Australia fail to recognise the validity of an Act of the Westminster Parliament you could legislate until you were blue in the face and it would make not a blind bit of difference.

Am I right that some US bodies claim extraterritorial powers? I thought maybe it was the right to prosecute a crime against an amercian citizen anywhere in the world, or it might have been something to do with tax.

[Duke Malcolm]

The Court of Session has the powers to over-turn laws, since under Scots law, parliament is not sovereign, and hence cannot legislate on whatever it wishes. Any Act of Parliament which breaches fundamental laws, i.e. constitutional laws, can be over-turned by the Court of Session, as was stated by some lord of session or another in 1953 at the coronation of HM the Queen (God bless Her).

[English assassin]

No disrespect but I really don't think it does. There is an argument that it could overturn any law contrary to the Act of Union 1707 though personally I doubt it. Its just a fiction to maintain that the Westminster Parliament has a different constitutional position when it is acting as the successor to the English parliament or the pre-union Scottish parliament. After all, in the 1600s the English judges were also asserting that they could strike down any Act that was contrary to natural justice or God's law, but that certainly has not been the position for 300 years.

It could overturn an act of the Scottish parliament that was outside the power of that parliament but that is a completely different thing.

[el_slapper]

Back on topic, the reason why France had the seat is that Churchill desesperately wanted not to be alone against the big boys. France was the biggest "winner" available not far, had high projection capabilities thanks to the remnants of its empire, and had some potential, plus a rather efficient chief(though certainly arrogant), De Gaulle. So France could be "sold" as the 5th seat, thus allowing Britain more manoeuvering in the council.

For the rest, french tanks weren't that great. Of course they had armor & guns, but they lacked mobility. That weakness made difficult any tactical adaptation to German's modern style of combat. Not that our 1940 generals would have been able to make the adjustments, anyways..... :embarassed:

[Duke Malcolm]

No disrespect but I really don't think it does. There is an argument that it could overturn any law contrary to the Act of Union 1707 though personally I doubt it. Its just a fiction to maintain that the Westminster Parliament has a different constitutional position when it is acting as the successor to the English parliament or the pre-union Scottish parliament. After all, in the 1600s the English judges were also asserting that they could strike down any Act that was contrary to natural justice or God's law, but that certainly has not been the position for 300 years.

It could overturn an act of the Scottish parliament that was outside the power of that parliament but that is a completely different thing.

I assure you, it can. It can certainly overturn laws contrary to the Act of Union 1707. That act cannot be amended by the Parliament of Great Britain, no mater how much it tries. Any amendments to it can be over-turned as long as the Union stands.

[KukriKhan]

English Assassin wrote:
"...Am I right that some US bodies claim extraterritorial powers? I thought maybe it was the right to prosecute a crime against an amercian citizen anywhere in the world, or it might have been something to do with tax."

Under Maritime Law (a whole different can of worms) US Federal courts prosecute some crimes against US citizens outside territorial US. Also, it's UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), and SOFA's (Status Of Forces Agreements) are used to prosecute crimes by or against its citizens and soldiers in places where they are stationed (technically: everywhere an Embassy exists).

I always find it fascinating to read about the UK's constitution-less Parliament's ability to 'un-do' not only its laws, but even itself. ~D

[Al Khalifah]

Look at the contemporary names of the security council nations to understand:

1. The United States of America
2. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
3. The Commonwealth and Empire of Great Britain
4. The Republic of China
5. The Repbulic and Empire of France

If you look at what these territories contained at the time, you basically have most of the globe covered. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, India.... is covered as part of the British seat, most of the eastern bloc is covered as part as the USSR's seat.

The theory behind the formation was that most of the world would be directly under the control of its actions. Failure to include France would've left a major power not under the influence of the security council's permanent members.

Oh and by the way... STOP HAVING THE WHO WON WORLD WAR II AND WHO LOST WORLD WAR II ARGUMENT. Sorry for the caps, but it had to be done.

[Redleg]

Oh and by the way... STOP HAVING THE WHO WON WORLD WAR II AND WHO LOST WORLD WAR II ARGUMENT. Sorry for the caps, but it had to be done.

STOP ATTEMPTING TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY CAN ARGUE ABOUT AND WHAT THEY CAN NOT.

I am not sorry about the caps at all. Who are you to tell people what they can discuss and what they can not. Are you the owner of this board? Are you the moderator of this particular area of the Org?

Even though I often find some discussions pointless - its up to the individuals particpating in the discussion to decide if they want to discuss an issue or not to discuss an issue.

[Al Khalifah]

I am not sorry about the caps at all. Who are you to tell people what they can discuss and what they can not. Are you the owner of this board? Are you the moderator of this particular area of the Org?

I was working under the assumption that the topic of conversation in a thread is the threads title. Unfortunately too many threads here seem to end up debating who was the most responsible for winning World War II and how badly or well the French fought. If people want to discuss that issue, make a thread about it and they can argue about it there. The issue never goes anywhere anyway. It just tends to go backwards and forwards with no new opinions ever coming forward.

People can choose to listen to my request if they want. I'm not telling people what to do. I just think it would be in the best interests of the board if this conversation were held less and in conversations about it, because it just ends up in bashing of the respective nations involved.

[Ser Clegane]

I was working under the assumption that the topic of conversation in a thread is the threads title. Unfortunately too many threads here seem to end up debating who was the most responsible for winning World War II and how badly or well the French fought.

As the thread title directly refers to the role France played in WWII, I do not have the feeling that the discussion went OT very far - certainly less than in most threads I have seen in the Backroom (and personally I feel that sidetracks are in the nature of "Tavern"-discussions, so I do not judge them too harshly)

[Brenus]

Out of interest... Was the French-UK pact with Poland only against German aggression or did they declare war on the Soviets too? Everyone seems to conveniently forget that Stalin had a pact with Hitler and attacked Poland too, taking the eastern areas.

The world would look quite different if the Allies had to fight both Hitler and Stalin. ~:eek:
I did. Read my message about troops (13 Demi Brigade Legion Etrangere and Chasseurs Alpin, mainly) sent to Finland against Staline's agression.
Imagine the French not defeated in 1940? In one front, fighting with the Russians, on an other front, fighting against...

[Brenus]

The WW2, the French could have easily not be defeated by not declaring war against Germany when Hitler decided to invaded Poland. Most probably, Hitler will have turn against USSR, and end of the game. QUOTE]
Sorry, but it is not that simple! :dizzy2:[/QUOTE]

Of course, not! It was just a comment about try to do something and failed or sit and wait.

[ShadesPanther]

The Allies thought they would win or almost certainly stop their advance. The had more men and tanks (superior tanks) they were slightly outnumbered in aircraft as well as defending. But it was tactics that mattered, German tactics were superior and thats what mattered.


woo 900 posts :balloon2:

[KukriKhan]

As the thread title directly refers to the role France played in WWII....

Actually the thread title asks about the mythical lands of

Fance
and
Austrailia

~D

p.s. I know, I know: cheap shot. It's just that sometimes the spelling, punctuation and grammar used here cracks me up. No offense intended.

edited for spelling ~:cool:

[sharrukin]

Actually the thread title asks about the mythical lands of

Fance
and
Austrailia

~D

p.s. I know, I know: cheap shot. It's just that sometimes the spelling, punctuation and grammar used here cracks me up. No offense intended.

edited for spelling ~:cool:

Spelling!
Try this one.

I Got The Perfect Solotion For That Unrest Problem:

Europa Barnarom Modders Lisen Up I Think There Should A New Building Fight Arnea (wicth Can Be Upgraded) And Works Smilmuler To A Collumsem And Removes Squlor Com Plenty (well Not Completly)

tell what bartix and the faction that replaces armenia got then??

(so we don't bush and musithians)

French tanks were in fact better than German tanks except that the turrets were too small. This forced the commander to divide his attention between too many tasks.

Overall I would say that France contributed more than Australia as they had close to 10 divisions with the allies in europe and the Australians IIRC had less than this overseas in a secondary theatre.

[Adrian II]

Unfortunately too many threads here seem to end up debating who was the most responsible for winning World War II and how badly or well the French fought. If people want to discuss that issue, make a thread about it and they can argue about it there. The issue never goes anywhere anyway.I say 'Alailailailailailailailai' to that!
:bow:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Overall I would say that France contributed more than Australia as they had close to 10 divisions with the allies in europe and the Australians IIRC had less than this overseas in a secondary theatre.

How long did the Aussies fight on the side of the Allies and how many Aussies joined the Axis?

[Papewaio]

France has to look at its total contribution minus its total threat (Vichy France).

So manpower * length of service for the Allies minus manpower * length of service for the Axis.

Australia had a length of service in WWII about 12 times that of France on the allied side. Also Australia had a million men serving.


overseas in a secondary theatre.

Typical arrogant Euro-centric BS that Asia was a secondary theatre.

[marcusbrutus]

Surely both World Wars were just that. Australia would have fallen ten times quicker than France if they bordered Germany and the evil French would not have come to the Allies aid if they were in Australia's place.

Just my opinion man.

The US - late for 2 yes ALL World Wars!

:charge: :charge: :charge:

[Tribesman]

ypical arrogant Euro-centric BS that Asia was a secondary theatre.
It also seems to ignore the Balkans , N.Africa and the Middle-East (where strangely enough they fought the French , while at the same time they had 2 French Brigades attached to them ~;) )
how many Aussies joined the Axis?
It was 4 I think . oh and 1 Kiwi as well .

[Redleg]

France has to look at its total contribution minus its total threat (Vichy France).

So manpower * length of service for the Allies minus manpower * length of service for the Axis.

Australia had a length of service in WWII about 12 times that of France on the allied side. Also Australia had a million men serving.



Typical arrogant Euro-centric BS that Asia was a secondary theatre.


Thats because Papewaio the Europeans have always ignored the Pacific aspect of WW2.

[Papewaio]

Australia would have fallen ten times quicker than France if they bordered Germany

Why? The Japanese didn't fare to well when they got to PNG...

[discovery1]

Surely both World Wars were just that. Australia would have fallen ten times quicker than France if they bordered Germany and the evil French would not have come to the Allies aid if they were in Australia's place.

Just my opinion man.

The US - late for 2 yes ALL World Wars!

:charge: :charge: :charge:


Maybe. Look at Australia. Huge areas of desert with little infrastructure. Much larger than North Africa. Germany's tanks might well break down from the dust that will get into the gears and other parts long before they reach major population centers

[sharrukin]

Surely both World Wars were just that. Australia would have fallen ten times quicker than France if they bordered Germany and the evil French would not have come to the Allies aid if they were in Australia's place.

Just my opinion man.

The US - late for 2 yes ALL World Wars!

:charge: :charge: :charge:

They came to Polands aid when nobody else wanted to (even them). Britain and France declared war on Germany and France was next door to Germany and the French knew the price would be high for doing so. To imagine they would not do so when they were in a remote position like Australia doesn't make sense. They did not need to go to war if they were willing to let the Germans have what they wanted. They chose to go to war which is more than most did. Most had that choice made for them.



France has to look at its total contribution minus its total threat (Vichy France).

So manpower * length of service for the Allies minus manpower * length of service for the Axis.

Australia had a length of service in WWII about 12 times that of France on the allied side. Also Australia had a million men serving.

Typical arrogant Euro-centric BS that Asia was a secondary theatre.

Vichy France was not a threat to the allies.

The free French;

At end 1941, the total number of Free French Forces was some 50 000 men in combat units.
70 000 men (July 1942)
560 000 men (1 September 1944)
1 million men (end 1944)
4 Infantry divisions (December 1943) fighting in Italy, 1 Infantry division holding Corsica, 3 Infantry and 4 Armoured divisions in north africa
Of 6.25 million troops of the western allies in europe 1.2 million were French

Just before the war ended they had 7 Infantry and 3 Armoured divisions fighting in Germany. How many Australian divisions where there in Germany? How many Australian divisions were on Okinawa? How many Australian divisions were serving outside of Australia? I am NOT denigrating Australia's contribution to defeating the Axis powers or the price they paid for making it. I am saying the French paid a price as well and their contribution did NOT end with the occupation of France by the Germans.

Being occupied did NOT stop some nations from contributing to the war effort and the reward they get is contempt for not defeating an enemy no one could have!

The Polish contribution;
two Polish divisions (First Grenadier Division, and Second Infantry Fusiliers Division) took part in the defense of France, while a Polish motorized brigade and two infantry divisions were in process of forming.

1st Polish Armoured Division
2nd Polish Grenadier Armoured Division
4th Division
3rd Carpathian Division (italy)
5th Kresowa Division

75,000 poles fought with the 2nd corps in the middle east
Polish Airborne bde (arnhem)

Another 12 divisions served in Russia

This does not include the French or Polish resistance in occupied europe which tied down Germans divisions and reduced the economic gain they might have had from these territories.

The American who were attacked by the Japanese on dec-7, 1941 had no love for the Japanese but they also conceded that the Japanese were not as great a threat as the Germans for numerous reasons.


How long did the Aussies fight on the side of the Allies and how many Aussies joined the Axis?

How many Australians were under German occupation? Well no matter, if they had been, they would doubtless have been the exception among all the nations

How many French served with the German armed forces? c.20,000, 33rd Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS "Charlemagne"

How many Lithuanians? 36,800 in frontline units, 20 Policiniai Batalionai ,

How many Poles? 16,000 (Polnische Polizei)

How many Ukrainians? 21 Schutzmannschaft bns, at least 270,000 Ukrainians from the concentration camps chose to live by killing rather than death by starvation. Sumy and the 'Halychyna' Galician (Ukrainian) SS division

How many Russians? 310,000+ in frontline units, Red Army General Andrei Vlasov's unit and "by the end of 1942, the Wehrmacht employed about a half million ex-Red Army men in its anti-guerrilla operations, most of whom were Russian" 29.Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (russische Nr. 1)

How many Latvians? 3,000+, "In time, more than 100,000 Latvians were to wear a German uniform. " Waffen SS 19th and 15th division

How many Byelorussians? Graukopf Battalion (10,000 men), Kaminskii Brigade (commander was shot by the Germans for cruelty)

How many Estonians? 12 full Estonian police battalions, 10,000 in frontline units, 20th Estonian SS Division

As well as;
29.Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (ital. Nr. 1)
25.Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS "Hunyadi" (ung. Nr. 1)
26.Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (ung. Nr. 2)
28.SS-Freiwilligen-Panzergrenadier-Division "Wallonien" (bde strenth)
3.Waffen-Gebirgs-Division des SS "Handschar" (kroat. Nr. 1)
21.Waffen-Gebirgs-Division der SS "Skanderbeg" (alban. Nr.1)
23.SS-Freiwilligen-Panzergrenadier-Division "Nederland"
34.SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division "Landstorm Nederland"

115,000 Osttruppen served with the Germans in Normandy against the allies on D-day
162nd Turkish Infantry Division

[Papewaio]

If Vichy France was not a threat then why was the Allies in such a hurry to sink their fleets?

[Papewaio]

On a slightly lighter note it is interesting how many Italian prisoners of war ended up marrying locals in Australia...

[PanzerJaeger]

If Vichy France was not a threat then why was the Allies in such a hurry to sink their fleets?

If i remember correctly they also fought in North Afrika. Not very well, but they were still shooting real bullets at the allies.. i think that constitutes a viable threat.

[sharrukin]

If Vichy France was not a threat then why was the Allies in such a hurry to sink their fleets?

Because when the French told them they would scuttle their navy rather than let the Germans have it, the British didn't believe them.

In the event when the Germans tried to capture the French fleet they did exactly what they said they would do and scuttled their navy.

[sharrukin]

If Vichy France was not a threat then why was the Allies in such a hurry to sink their fleets?

If i remember correctly they also fought in North Afrika. Not very well, but they were still shooting real bullets at the allies.. i think that constitutes a viable threat.

People tend to do that when you invade their country! ~;)

Darned uncivilized of them I realize but it is the first reaction of most nations.

And there were no Germans in French North Africa so it wasn't the Germans the allies were attacking.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

People tend to do that when you invade their country!

Was it THEIR country? I dont think so. The reason the French didnt serve in German units I believe but Im not sure is the Vichy had their own armed forces. Those are who we fought in Africa. If it was their country then the French fought the allies not helped them.

[sharrukin]

Was it THEIR country? I dont think so. The reason the French didnt serve in German units I believe but Im not sure is the Vichy had their own armed forces. Those are who we fought in Africa. If it was their country then the French fought the allies not helped them.
It was as much their country as Texas is American! The Mexicans might argue they have a prior claim but I suspect that they would get shot at if they marched in next week.

Yes the Vichy did defend THEIR country and how exactly were they supposed to help the allies with an army of 100,000 men when we invaded north africa because WE didn't think we could take them on in France itself?

[KafirChobee]

The reason I ask is that it has come up a few times why France was given a permenant seat on the UN security council. Its pretty much acceptted that the winners of WW2 that being America, Britain, France, Russia, and China. Now I dont know for sure but it seems to me off the top of my head that Austrailia did a lot more than France so why werent they included. Was it a population thing or was it decided on military might?

Some people never cease to amaze me. Stuck as they are in the early 60's philosophy that the USA is always right - even after ... all of it - the French and those that aided our nation in its infacy were bad guys.

With out the French, there would be no USA. Put quite simply had we lost, it would give us more rights, medical care, social assistance, etc., than we have. Is almost a shame we won that damn war. Before you (of all peeps) say anything, I had ancestors fight in it (for freedom from the crown). Had they known what it was really about? No doubt they woulda done it any way - were a buncha greedy bastards from what I know of them. Though, they did object to the genecide England was perpetuating against Ireland (though the Brits at the time simply called it "the final solution of the Irish"). Still, they were not real nice guys, even if they did fight for the "REVOLUTION", it was for their own benefit - not for "freedom", 'cept from taxes maybe.

Now, arguements against the French are bogus, versus the Aussies being vunderbar. The Brits desserted them at Dunkirk - had no choice I suppose (kicking the French troops off of boats. leaving them to drown in the surf, shooting them if they tried to gain hold on a boat?). Well, we must be nice about talking how things were recorded, versus what happened - I suppose, it all depends on ones perspective. As in, if you are trying to get away from hell, or being forced to stay in it. Grasp past reality, and maybe one can grasp as it stands - or a perception that is ral beyond their own prejudice. Then again, maybe not for some so endowed with the knowledge or fear that the "white race" is doomed. Yuck, yuck. :dizzy2:

But, to exclude one of the most prolific nations of (for) diplomacy by proclaiming some kind of "we be better" axiom?
What guff. What BS. The French, of course think of themselves as being rational, having perspective, and their nation as being the center of the Universe. So? What else is news? So does China, Japan, UK. Russia, and the USA ... to name but a few.

What really irritaes me is how you attempt to superimpose the accomplishments of the Aussie as an excuse to attack the French. That demonstrates the stretch some are willing to make to win favor by some to make their point. What garbage. What was your purpose? Your point? Your attitude, we know ... but how could you possibly think your arguements could actually influence someone that had a mind, brain, could think beyond the first digit, be impressed with the nonsense or hyperbole presented - as though it were a question versus a challenge to those that can actually think beyond their father's beliefs. What guff. Shame on you and your followers.

You ought to feel shame for the discussion you brought here. I, imagine, you feel satisfied that anyone contributed to your side of it. Shame on me for feeling compelled to answer.

:balloon2:

[Papewaio]

Actually the question relates back to why the five permanent members of the security council are that.

The reason being they are the winners of WWII.

So why doesn't NZ have a permanent seat?

[PanzerJaeger]

Yea Gawain, for shame bringing an interesting, debatable topic into the backroom!

Honestly, no one has attacked the French that i am aware of. The question is valid. Australia, NZ and Canada are all independent nations in reality. This topic has been so tame it could reside in the monestary.

[Meneldil]

Just a easy, rapid explanation :

As being a part of the UK commonwealth, Australia would never have gotten a seat in the security council, because Stalin would then have legitimately asked for one for Ukrainia and/or Bielorussia (which he did at first, claiming that France and UK were a part of the West just as US, and that the East should have had as many seats as the West).


Honestly, no one has attacked the French that i am aware of.


All the French did was get invaded. ... They joined the war of their own free will


The french always get invaded:The Franco-Prussian wars,WW1,WW2. They cant put up much of a fight.

And a few others. But for once, I was quite surprised by this statement :

Even though im one of those evil conservatives, i dont think there is any reason to bash the french as bad soldiers. If you do that, you'll have to bash all of Europe besides Germany (which is fine too ).

And well, France (and Britain aswell) deserved a seat just because they were the first country that tried to stop Hitler. They didn't want to, and they could likely have not entered the war, but when Poland get invaded, they declared war to Germany (and to USSR). They were the former allies (while almost all other developped country did wait to be invaded or attacked before entering the war), so yeah, both those country deserved a seat.

[Papewaio]

Legitmately?

Ukraine was not an independent country.

It is like saying that every state of the USA should get a seat and every wine growing region in France should get a seat.

Australia is not a province or state, it is a Commonwealth in itself.

[Meneldil]

Well, for the Western allies, it wouldn't have been legitimate, but for Stalin, it was. I'm fairly sure Ukrainia and Bielorussie both had a seat at the UN (I'm not speaking about the Security Council). I'll have to check that, but he did ask for more seat in the Council, and then he asked for USSR to have the same weight as 3 other countries (claiming that the War wouldn't have been won without Russia, Ukrainia and Bielorussia).

[sharrukin]

The French have the seat because they have power and as someone pointed out the French Empire was of considerable size and not to include them would have been foolish. Canada (I am a Canadian) should NOT have a seat because we have no ability to project power, nor does New Zealand or Australia. Japan and Germany do not have a seat for historical reasons though they should. Today of course the U.N. is less relevant to world affairs due to the way it has developed. No one wants to get in a furball over something that doesn't much matter. As a sounding stage the U.N. has it's uses and so continues despite it's problems.

The question is how many divisions can ____________ (nation X) put on the ground 2000 miles from home? Power makes a difference.

The French stand against the American position regarding the 2nd Gulf War upset people NOT because they were weak but because they would not buckle under and agree to what the Americans wanted. Many other countries that disagreed with the war went along to get along and others let themselves be bribed or pressured into silence or grudging support. They did not do our allies and friends the Americans any good service by this. Disagreements between allies will remain with us regardless and thought should be given to the reasons for such disagreement. No nation has cornered the market on wisdom and listening to your allies is always a good idea. It is also silly to suggest they feared to go to war when they did exactly that in the 1st Gulf War side by side with the Americans. they also had more 'contracts' to lose in the 1st Gulf War as well but went anyway.

[Papewaio]

So by your statement the USA should have more votes at the UN because it can project more military power further?

[sharrukin]

So by your statement the USA should have more votes at the UN because it can project more military power further?

In reality it does! If the Americans don't like something it's not easy to get that something to happen. They control the purse strings and have tremendous political sway. Nigeria with a large population but no power projection or money may have a lot of deep thoughts on the subject but no one cares. What Australia thinks is considered of more importance because they have more money and influence. It really cannot be any other way because if you want something done...someone has to do it. And that means they must have the wherewithal to get it done. "You take the king's silver then you do the king's bidding". We do not live in a perfect world.

[bmolsson]

I like France. It has it's ups and downs, but still the French people I know here are great, as long as you don't speak foreign politics with them..... ~;)

[sharrukin]

I like France. It has it's ups and downs, but still the French people I know here are great, as long as you don't speak foreign politics with them..... ~;)



Well everyone likes France, some are just too shy to admit it.

So where does all this hostility towards France come from? It's envy, plain and simple. The suave, sophisticated Frenchman is a threat to those with social problems. We envy them their success with women, they are the very essence of what women want. Frenchmen understand the endless contradictions that constitute what women want. Dark sexy and very handsome, unbelievably talented, witty, humorous and utterly charming. Envy isn't just wanting what you don't have; it's hating, even just a little bit, those who do. Let's face it, we all want to be Frenchmen.

Pepe Le Pew




http://img97.echo.cx/img97/3651/tlbsmeter9od.gif (http://www.imageshack.us)

[Duke Malcolm]

Blasphemy!

[el_slapper]

I like France. It has it's ups and downs, but still the French people I know here are great, as long as you don't speak foreign politics with them..... ~;)

Errrrm... I'm not sure it is a good idea to ask which part is irony, & which part isn't.....

Anyways, the question has been answered : The french empire is the reason why we got a seat in 1945. Of course it did vanish in 17 years after that, as the British one did, which is the reason why 5 seats are no more enough to cover the globe. Brazil & India should have one, maybe Indonesia. It is a shame noone in Africa does have the level.

[Al Khalifah]

Brazil & India should have one, maybe Indonesia. It is a shame noone in Africa does have the level.
Problem is if India gets one that Pakistan will want one too. Then if Pakistan gets one, why shouldn't other Islamic nations and so on.
If Brazil gets one, Argentina would definately want one too.

It's a good question though, who else deserves a U.N permanent security council seat?
A shortlist would be:
Norway
Sweden
Argentina
Brazil
Canada
Japan
India
Pakistan
Indonesia
Germany
Israel
Egypt
South Africa
But of those very few would meet with widespread approval except maybe Canada and South Africa.

[Duke Malcolm]

Not Canada.
South Africa and India, yes.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It's a good question though, who else deserves a U.N permanent security council seat?
A shortlist would be:
Norway
Sweden
Argentina
Brazil
Canada
Japan
India
Pakistan
Indonesia
Germany
Israel
Egypt
South Africa
But of those very few would meet with widespread approval except maybe Canada and South Africa.

Yes and lets give them all veto power ~:) Then the UN will finally be totaly useless.

[Al Khalifah]

Woah! I didn't say all of them, I just think 1 or 2 of them.
I agree the U.N is already useless enough as it is.

[PanzerJaeger]

The French stand against the American position regarding the 2nd Gulf War upset people NOT because they were weak but because they would not buckle under and agree to what the Americans wanted.

As i said earlier, bashing the French in WW2 is only ok if you bash the rest of Europe. BUT, the French position on the Iraq war is nothing to put on a pedastal. They were deeply invested in Iraq and Saddam both legally and illegally..

Thats not to say they should be bashed for wanting to protect their cash cow in the middle east. Most nations do what they can to protect their interests. However, they should not be praised either for taking some "Moral stand against America and George Bush" because that was simply not the case.

It's a good question though, who else deserves a U.N permanent security council seat?
A shortlist would be:
Norway
Sweden

I can see why the others on that list could possibly be suggested for a seat but why these two? Im not sure but i doubt either of them could field even as many divisions as Brazil... maybe im wrong.

[Brenus]

Just an idea: French Seat in the Security Council because Nuclear Power after the lost of their Empire?

[Lazul]

Sweden eh? sounds good hehe :bow:

[sharrukin]

Norway; no
Sweden; no
Argentina; no
Brazil; yes
Canada; no
Japan; yes
India; yes
Pakistan; no
Indonesia; no
Germany; yes
Israel; no
Egypt; no
South Africa; no

Germany, India, Japan and Brazil make sense. The others really do not. They do not have the power and/or the money to make much of a difference.

It would never happen due to the infighting and politics.


PanzerJager
Thats not to say they should be bashed for wanting to protect their cash cow in the middle east. Most nations do what they can to protect their interests. However, they should not be praised either for taking some "Moral stand against America and George Bush" because that was simply not the case.

Well I agree the French stand against the American position was not based on morality. My point was that you need strong nations on the security council who are willing to disagree and can make it stick or the whole thing becomes more pointless than it already is. And just because something is amoral doesn't mean it's wrong. The cynical viewpoint is always worth listening to.

[Duke Malcolm]

Japan and Germany? Over my cold, decomposing dead body. They lost the war which the UN is trying to stop.

[Ser Clegane]

Japan and Germany? Over my cold, decomposing dead body. They lost the war which the UN is trying to stop.

That's a very strange argument.

Anyway - I'm might remind you of your statement when the time comes ~;)

Personally, I believe that India and Brazil should definitely be included. An African country would probably make more sense than an additional European one.

The one thing I definitely don't want to see is veto rights for new permanent members.

Actually IMO veto rights should be removed altogether but it's probably a bit unrealistic to expect that the current permanent members not only allow additional members in but would also give up their veto rights - so it just ain't gonna happen...

[sharrukin]

Japan and Germany? Over my cold, decomposing dead body. They lost the war which the UN is trying to stop.

Actually the war is over and ummm...has been for some time.

It's time to come out of the jungle now!


Personally, I believe that India and Brazil should definitely be included. An African country would probably make more sense than an additional European one.

It's not a sympathy vote. We should include Tuvalu to represent the pacific islands as well if that was the case. It is who will be an effective member, has a military and money and is capable of standing up to the larger nations if it comes to a difference of opinion. In africa Egypt is the only nation that comes close to this.

[Ser Clegane]

Actually the war is over and ummm...has been for some time.

It's time to come out of the jungle now!


Personally, I believe that India and Brazil should definitely be included. An African country would probably make more sense than an additional European one.

It's not a sympathy vote. We should include Tuvalu to represent the pacific islands as well if that was the case. It is who will be an effective member, has a military and money and is capable of standing up to the larger nations if it comes to a difference of opinion.

Who is talking about a sympathy vote? I disagree that only the raw "power" of a nation should be the criteria for being a permanent member (in this case Brazil would have no place there). IMO fair representation of the global population should play an important role when it come to selecting permanent members.

If Tuvalu would reperesnt a significant portion of the global population then it should by all means have a permanent seat - however, last time I checked this was not the case.

[sharrukin]

Who is talking about a sympathy vote? I disagree that only the raw "power" of a nation should be the criteria for being a permanent member (in this case Brazil would have no place there). IMO fair representation of the global population should play an important role when it come to selecting permanent members.

If Tuvalu would reperesnt a significant portion of the global population then it should by all means have a permanent seat - however, last time I checked this was not the case.

And what exactly do you suppose the security council made up of China, India, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Mexico, Japan, Philippines, Brazil, Egypt, Ethiopia and Vietnam would do when the United States wanted something? They would ask "how high did you say?" They mostly lack the money to have an independent policy. China, India, Japan and Brazil might be somewhat independent but it would make little difference as the others know which side their bread is buttered on and not being fools would act accordingly.

And when it came time for military action what exactly would Mexico, Ethiopia or Bangladesh do in that regard? Demand that other nations send their militaries? And what if they said no? How lame would that be? And without money OR the military strength to back it up you would eventually have the situation of those nations who did have these things would quietly dictate policy behind the scenes anyway.

And where would the money come from? Do you really think that most nations would simply open their treasuries without any say in how those monies are spent?

And given the internal conditions of many of these nations what policies do you think they would adopt?
Do you think human rights would be any great concern for them? Money! Just give me money! that would be their policy because they are NOT idiots and if you have a poverty stricken nation then money is your first concern.

[Ser Clegane]

And what exactly do you suppose the security council made up of China, India, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Mexico, Japan, Philippines, Brazil, Egypt, Ethiopia and Vietnam would do when the United

~:confused:

Could you please tell me how exactly you come to these conclusions based on my posts?
Where exactly did I say that the permanent council members should be the one with the highest population?

I believe that a representation of all major region by at least one member should be one important criteria for selecting permanent council members.
If you choose to make up a completely different scenario and pretend that it was something I suggested - fine, but don't expect me to argue on that level.




And given the internal conditions of many of these nations what policies do you think they would adopt?
Do you think human rights would be any great concern for them? Money! Just give me money! that would be their policy because they are NOT idiots and if you have a poverty stricken nation then money is your first concern.

Are you suggesting that the current permanent council members are not primarily driven by their own interests

[sharrukin]

~:confused:

Could you please tell me how exactly you come to these conclusions based on my posts?
Where exactly did I say that the permanent council members should be the one with the highest population?

I believe that a representation of all major region by at least one member should be one important criteria for selecting permanent council members.
If you choose to make up a completely different scenario and pretend that it was something I suggested - fine, but don't expect me to argue on that level.


I guess it was this!

IMO fair representation of the global population should play an important role when it come to selecting permanent members.

And no I am not making this up these are your words! And what level you argue on has more to do with you than it does with me!

[Ser Clegane]

I guess it was this!

IMO fair representation of the global population should play an important role when it come to selecting permanent members.

And no I am not making this up these are your words! And what level you argue on has more to do with you than it does with me!

For your convenience I marked the part in my statement that you chose to ignore...

[Redleg]

I guess it was this!

IMO fair representation of the global population should play an important role when it come to selecting permanent members.

And no I am not making this up these are your words! And what level you argue on has more to do with you than it does with me!
+

Actually I believe you misread and mis-understood Ser Clegane point. He was speaking in fair representation of each area of the globe because the way the planets population is spread out - not by population density.

[sharrukin]

+

Actually I believe you misread and mis-understood Ser Clegane point. He was speaking in fair representation of each area of the globe because the way the planets population is spread out - not by population density.

That is entirely possible that I misread and misunderstand his point. And if he had simply and politely pointed that out as you have I would have responded in kind. However the part that I did not misread or misunderstand is the personal attack!

If you choose to make up a completely different scenario and pretend that it was something I suggested - fine, but don't expect me to argue on that level.

I like argument to remain civilized and intelligent and personal attacks have no part in that.

If I want anything of the sort we have this thread;
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=47080

And he is far more entertaining.

[Ser Clegane]

I like argument to remain civilized and intelligent and personal attacks have no part in that.


So do I.

After your flippant response to my first post


It's not a sympathy vote. We should include Tuvalu to represent the pacific islands as well if that was the case.


I politely clarified my position. However, in your next post you again chose to put words into my mouth and went on a rant about how unqualified countries (of which nobody suggested that they get a council seat) were.

Now you accuse me of personal attacks... intersting...

EDIT: OK, I suggest that this thread goes back on topic.
sharrukin, if you have the feeling that my comments were a personal attack (which was not the intent), I will be glad to discuss this issue via PM. :bow:

[Idomeneas]

Well everyone likes France, some are just too shy to admit it.

So where does all this hostility towards France come from? It's envy, plain and simple. The suave, sophisticated Frenchman is a threat to those with social problems. We envy them their success with women, they are the very essence of what women want. Frenchmen understand the endless contradictions that constitute what women want. Dark sexy and very handsome, unbelievably talented, witty, humorous and utterly charming. Envy isn't just wanting what you don't have; it's hating, even just a little bit, those who do. Let's face it, we all want to be Frenchmen.

Pepe Le Pew




http://img97.echo.cx/img97/3651/tlbsmeter9od.gif (http://www.imageshack.us)

ever heard about greek lovers?? ~:cool:

[sharrukin]

ever heard about greek lovers?? ~:cool:

I tried to resist, I really did! ~D

http://img161.echo.cx/img161/6375/1480925sheep3002ez.th.jpg (http://img161.echo.cx/my.php?image=1480925sheep3002ez.jpg)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Here we go

http://axis101.bizland.com/SSfrenchShield01.jpg

http://axis101.bizland.com/FrenchSSpressPhoto2.jpg



Charlemagne SS Division

8. Freiwillgen Sturmbrigade der SS FRANKREICH

Before incorporating the LVF into the Waffen-SS, individual Frenchmen of German heritage had successfully enlisted in SS formations. From the very start of the occupation, these men served under the "TOTENKOPF," "DAS REICH" and "WIKING" Divisions.

In July 1943, recruiting office was set up at 24 avenue du Recteur Poincare in Paris where some 1500 applications were received. University students were prominent among the volunteers.

By August 1943, 800 French candidates were drafted into the Waffen-SS and sent to a training camp at Sennheim in Alsace. In November 1943, 20 French Officers were sent to the SS training camp at Bad Tolz and 100 NCO's to SS school at Posen Treskau. The French volunteers received German Waffen-SS uniforms. In March 1944, 1538 Frenchmen along with trained Officers and NCO's were assembled as a complete formation at the Waffen-SS training camp located at Beneschau near Prague. On 30 June 1944, the unit was designated as the "8. Freiwilligen Sturmbrigade Frankreich." Other sources referred to the brigade number as 7th, nevertheless the French unit was commonly referred as the "SS Sturmbrigade Frankreich."

In July 1944, the Sturmbrigade was ordered to form an emergency battle group. The 1st battalion under the command of SS-Haupsturmführer Pierre Cance was selected for the Eastern Front. Henri Fenet was in charged of the 1st Company.

In early August the 1st battalion was sent to reinforce the battle group of the "18th SS Division HORST WESSEL." This division was engaged at Mielec in the bend of the Vistula Front.
These men fought with great courage, earning praise from the commander of the 18th SS Division, SS-Oberführer Trabandt. In that battle the French lost 7 Officers and 130 men killed with 661 wounded. A total of 58 2nd class Iron Crosses were awarded, (many posthumously).
They were pulled out of the frontline and sent to regroup at Schwarnegast near Danzig.

Meanwhile, the 2nd battalion was transferred to the Waffen-SS barracks in West Prussia, northeast of Konitz, where it was joined by survivors of the 1st battalion. In September 1944, the assault brigade, French Navy personnel and members of the LVF were united to form a Waffen-SS Grenadier-Brigade. By this date much of France had been liberated and hundreds of French collaborators were evacuated along with the retreating German Wehrmacht. Himmler managed to draft various groups of retreating Frenchmen in order to complete the new Waffen-SS division, the “33. Waffen Grenadier-Division der SS Charlemagne.”
SS French Picture

Never before seen SS propaganda picture showing the Vichy General Secretary Joseph Darnand who was granted an honorary commission as an SS-Obersturmführer, shown here visiting French SS volunteers of the 1st Regiment before departing to the Eastern Front.

33. Waffen Grenadier-Division der SS CHARLEMAGNE

This division was composed of 7340 men and was divided into two regiments. The 57th Regiment had former LVF and the 58th Regiment formed from SS Sturmbrigade and Milice personnel. The divisional commander was German SS-Brigadeführer Dr. Gustav Krukenberg, second in command former LVF, Edgar Puaud with the rank of Waffen-Oberführer. The division was placed at Wildflecken Depot station, about 40Kms away from Schweinfurt, Germany. Many Frenchmen were selected for special training and were dispatched to courses in remaining areas of the Reich. The division was provided with leftover German and Italian armament and provisions.

On 24 February 1945, two regiments of the division without divisional support were sent to the front lines near the railroad station in the village of Hammerstein.

The Division was attached to the German XVIII Gebirgs-Korps of the 2nd Army, commanded by General Houchbaum, which was part of Army Group Vistula in Pomerania. The Corps was tasked to defend a front line running from Landeck to Konitz, 45 Kms long. The Corps had already two Divisions defending the region, the German 32nd Infantry Pomeranian Division and the 15th Waffen-SS Latvian Division.

Meanwhile the Russians were already launching an offensive attack near Hammerstein-Neustettin Sector. The SS-French troops unaware what was going on went on the offensive but were immediately pull back towards Hammerstein from the Russian onslaught. Orders were immediately given to have the SS-French troops to assemble at Neustettin.

The Battle of Neustettin

By midday on the 26th February 1945, the bulk of the SS-French Division had reached Neustettin. Of the 4500 troops that formed the Division, 1000 of them including 15 officers were missing in action. Overall about 50 Russian tanks were destroyed and inflicted more then double of Russian casualties.

At Neustettin about thirty Iron Crosses were awarded.

This caused the French forces to re-organize in Neustettin with three small battle groups. By the 2nd of March 1945, the new organization consisted of the following battle groups, which consisted of two battalions:

The first group was referred as "Regiment of Marche," which had the best elements of men, under the command of Ostuf. Fenet.
The second group was mostly made up of ex-LVF and Miliciens under the command of Hstuf. Bassompierre.
The third group was a Reserve unit of two small battalion size groups placed under the command of Hstuf. Monneuse.

During the 3rd & 4th March 1945, these battle groups were surrounded. One battle group tried to escape under cover of the fog, unfortunately the fog cleared, and they were exposed to a murderous fire from the Russian artillery. Oberführer Puaud was among those missing. Another battle group, which was composed mostly of former miliciens thought that the Baltic ports were in enemy hands and attempted a fighting retreat westward. All were either killed or taken captive including Bassompierre. The third group was trapped in a pocket on the Baltic coast in Danzig. SS-Brigaderführer Krukenberg, received orders to evacuate his remaining troops via the German Navy. The remnants split into small groups and dispersed in all directions. During this withdrawal, the group of mostly LVF veterans engaged ex-German POWs of the "Seydlitz Division." This German Division fought on the Soviet side.

On the 10th March the French SS reached the Oder and crossing by pontoon bridge they broke the Soviet circle. In mid-March all that was left of the division regrouped at Neustrelitz. A regimental strength and a small battalion size of men were reorganized.
SS French Picture

Press photo showing two French SS men dug in an underground trench. The soldier manning the machine-gun looks like Henri Fenet. He would later fight defending Berlin earning him the Knight Cross.
In the background you can see another trench with some soldiers, one of them is wearing what seems to be a black fur cap. Notice the clear image of the soldier wearing a German issued "French SS" shield attached on the left sleeve of his SS uniform. The helmets are void of any insignia they seem well worn or smother with mud and dirt.

The Battle of Berlin

In Neustrelitz, Krukenberg received a telegram ordering him to reach Berlin with one battalion. He asked for volunteers, those who didn't want to continue fighting were absolved, one officer and 300 other ranks elected to call it quits.

In spite of fighting a loosing war 500 men volunteered. They eventually reached Neukolln, East Berlin. However, due to the very heavy Russian air attack 100 of them perished on their way.

In East Berlin the remaining 400 men were attached to the 11th SS Panzer-Grenadier Division Nordland. They fought with undeniable heroism and terrible losses, 30 Russian tanks were destroyed at the very beginning of the battle. Street fighting raged on, within a week it's strength had been reduced to 120 men. Every street and house was hotly contested by French SS men.
By 29 April, 60 more Russian tanks had been knockout. Such was the courage of the "CHARLEMAGNE" Division.

Three Frenchmen "Apolot" "Fenet" and "Vaulot" have received the Knights Cross to the Iron Cross during the Battle for Berlin.
It is estimated that more than 100,000 Frenchmen collaborated with the Germans during World War II.
It should be noted that Frenchmen from Alsace and Lorraine were drafted into the German Army. Alsace and Lorraine was annexed by Germany on August 1940.


SS French Shield

Official Waffen-SS French Tricolore Shield

In July 1944, the first official SS pattern French shield was introduced in the Neweklau training camp during the formation of the French SS-Sturmbrigade. This shield differed noticeably from the LVF counterpart because it only shows the national tricolore stripes on a black field. Interestingly upon receipt of the first French sleeve shields it was the German instructors who were first to sport them, whereas the Alsatian NCOs held out as long as possible. According to SS-FHA regulations the national shield was to be worn on the left sleeve directly under the SS sleeve eagle as shown in the example below.


SS French Shield

This is another SS official pattern variation noticeably similar to the LVF counterpart but with curved sides and the word "FRANCE" at the top. In spite of SS regulations most wore the shield on the forearm. It should be noted that privately made insignia was worn prior to its official introduction.
EKII and EKII Award Document to Frenchman in the Charlemagne Division
EKII Award Document

During January and early February 1945 the French SS Brigade was expanded into the "33. Waffen-Gren der SS Charlemagne." The defensive battles in Pomerania started on the 23 February 1945 with the Charlemagne Division refitting at Hammerstein Camp. On 8 March 1945, the remnants of the Division assembled in Jargelin North-west of Anklam. During that time Brigaderführer Krukenberg awards 16 EKII to French volunteers. The EKII Document was given to SS Rottenführer Andre Lamy. It is dated 15 March 1945 and handstamped with the Divisional Seal of the Charlemagne. The document also has the signature of SS-Brigadeführer Krukenberg who would later command the remaining remnants of the Nordland Division. Also shown is the original EKII awarded to the Charlemagne volunteer.

[ Front Page] [Top ][Previous Page] [

LINK (http://axis101.bizland.com/Charlemagne1.htm)

[PanzerJaeger]

The SS was very successful in many countries that had large populations of people who hated communism.

If I was a young Estonian for example and my country was threatened by the USSR, i would definately join the SS over the Estonian army. Better weapons and leadership.

Doesnt really excuse the french though, they werent directly threatened..

[sharrukin]

Well I did mention the French participation regarding the 'Charlemagne' division.

How many French served with the German armed forces? c.20,000, 33rd Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS "Charlemagne"

I am not saying that they did not have some who joined the Germans.

I am saying that every country in europe had some who did exactly the same thing. This is not an indictment of the French but an indictment of human nature. The Spanish fielded the Blue Division for service with the Germans but I do not see condemnations of them for this. They were not even occupied by the Germans but did this because they chose to do so. Why are the French especially guilty of anything here besides being French, and that's burden enough I should think.

[PanzerJaeger]

Why are the French especially guilty of anything here besides being French, and that's burden enough I should think.

Well i know the question wasnt directed at me but ill give my opinion. As i eluded to countries in Eastern Europe that were directly threatened with such a horrible system that communism was had a valid excuse IMO for having SS legions.

The french are no more guilty than the dutch or the norwegians however.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So are we saying maybe Hitler wasnt so wrong or as I suggested we should have sided with Germany against Russia. Theres a way France could have avoided getting trounced ~D . Imagine that Engalnd and France declare war on Russia for invading Poland and ally with Germany. Now Germany has no reason to attack France ~:) What would the results have been and what would the world look like now? The arabs would probably be happy as I doubt there would have been an Israel.

[Don Corleone]

Oh come on Gawain. You know as well as I do that Hitler was weighing the possiblity of German-Americans actually siding with him and refusing to take up arms in defending the US in an invasion. There's no way with that mindset he wasn't going to invade France at some point. Your argument actually sounds a little like Neville Chamberlain's logic.

I think France got the permanent seat on the Security Council because they had the ability to project overseas power at the time. As others have said, the idea was that when the UN decided something, WHO would actually enforce that decision.

As we've now shifted to 'we'll pass resolutions and hope you'll follow them', the need for a Security Council is gone. I don't believe in disbanding the UN altogether, but it needs to decide what it wants to be and be it. If they want to be a bunch of humanitarians that decry unrest and illegal invasions, fine. But don't act like a world government if you have no intention of ever enforcing your own resolutions. That just strengthens those leaders that defy world opinion. "HA, I knew the UN wouldn't do anything if I killed 50K of my people. I bet I could kill a couple of hundred thousand more..."

[sharrukin]

So are we saying maybe Hitler wasnt so wrong or as I suggested we should have sided with Germany against Russia. Theres a way France could have avoided getting trounced ~D . Imagine that Engalnd and France declare war on Russia for invading Poland and ally with Germany. Now Germany has no reason to attack France ~:) What would the results have been and what would the world look like now? The arabs would probably be happy as I doubt there would have been an Israel.

That was not exactly what I said but it would make for a very interesting alternate world. It is a tough question as to who was worse the Nazi's or the Communists. I suspect there would probably still be an Isreal though their position would probably be a lot different. Without the sympathy created by the events of world war two they would have needed to be more self reliant and the early yeras would have been harsher. Maybe it would have been better for them in the long run?

[Al Khalifah]

The Vatican City for the Security Council !

Those Swiss Guards look vicious, plus, how many wars has the Vatican City started? And also, ever wonder what the dome of St. Peter's is really for? Art? Looks to me like the roof of a missile silo.

Seriously though, I think the world should let Norway and Sweden into the Security Council, possibly as a joint entity. Wherever peace keepers are needed the Norsemen are there and whenever international aid is needed they are there.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Oh come on Gawain. You know as well as I do that Hitler was weighing the possiblity of German-Americans actually siding with him and refusing to take up arms in defending the US in an invasion. There's no way with that mindset he wasn't going to invade France at some point. Your argument actually sounds a little like Neville Chamberlain's logic.

So you think idf France ghad immeadiatly side with the Germans they would have attacked them anyway? Ridiculous. I think they still would have their hands full with the Russians and besides what of their other allies now. Theyd realize theyd have to fight us all. Even Hitler wasnt that dumb.

[Don Corleone]

Gawain,
It was a matter of when, not if. If England and France had immediately come right out and signed on with Nazi Germany to take out Stalinist Russia, Hitler would have welcomed their help and patted them on the back. When Russia was gone, he would have moved on to other targets, such as the USA possibly. When those were gone, he would have certainly moved on to England and France. He was talking about an Aryan world. He didn't even want the Italians, Japanese or Spanish to survive. I can't honestly believe you think that if France had signed on with Nazi Germany, they would have done anything but bought themselves some time.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

When Russia was gone, he would have moved on to other targets, such as the USA possibly. When those were gone, he would have certainly moved on to England and France. He was talking about an Aryan world. He didn't even want the Italians, Japanese or Spanish to survive. I can't honestly believe you think that if France had signed on with Nazi Germany, they would have done anything but bought themselves some time.

Im sorry i dont agree with you here. As I said I dont think he was that stupid or that he ever had any intentions of going to war with the US or Britain. His mistake was thinking Britain would give him a pass. I dont believe for a minute that he intended to conquer the wole world by force but rather by propaganda. He could never hope to turn on France and not realise he would have to face the rest of the world against him. I think the main reason we went with the russians is the pact between Germany and Japan. Thus when Japan attacks us Germany becomes our enemy. Again in this scenario there are too many variables to make a concrete argument one way or another.

[Meneldil]

Gawain as usual, you're wrong on many points.
From the day he took the power in Germany, Hitler was planning to invade France, because it was 'Germany biggest opponent'. He was planning to destroy France economy so it could never be a threat anymore to Germany (hopefully for my parents and grand-parents, he also thought french didn't deserved to be exterminated as they were 'a civilised people, unlike russians or jews').
Anyway, the conquest of France strategy was decided long before the war beginning.
He also wished to rule UK (though he wasn't really thinking about invading the country), mainly because Brits are supposedly Anglo-saxons, and thus, a Germanic people who deserved to be in the Great Reich. The same would likely have applied to US and other Anglo-Saxon countries (Hitler did his best to protect Australia from the Japaneses, as he feared they would start some genocide against the white -anglo-saxon- population).
His goal was probably not to rule the whole world, but to rule the whole germanic population, and to exterminate everything that was a threat for it -mainly the Eastern Europe people.

You can find all the infos about that in a book whose french name is 'Entretiens secrets de Hitler' (I can't translate it because of my lack of English skill, sorry). It's not published anymore in France, but it might be available in US (with all the neo-nazi and KKK guys, it would seem quite normal).

As for Don Corleone speech, he's kinda right. If Germany and Japan would have won the war, they would likely have ended up fighting each other, as both of them thought they were a superior people that deserved to rule the others.
Furthemore, Hitler clearly said that "Their would be no winner or loser in this war, but only exterminated and surviving people" (my translation, which is likely wrong).

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain as usual, you're wrong on many points.

Says you.


From the day he took the power in Germany, Hitler was planning to invade France, because it was 'Germany biggest opponent'.

No Russia was. He certainly had no love for the French and I have no doubt that he wanted to take back the land lost after the first world war. However if France and Britain had alled with him I dont see any way he could then turn around and attack France.


Anyway, the conquest of France strategy was decided long before the war beginning.

I never denied that


Anyway, the conquest of France strategy was decided long before the war beginning.
He also wished to rule UK (though he wasn't really thinking about invading the country), mainly because Brits are supposedly Anglo-saxons, and thus, a Germanic people who deserved to be in the Great Reich. The same would likely have applied to US and other Anglo-Saxon countries

Thats what I said. He never planned on actually having to fight these countries.

So other than me insisting he saw Russia as his main antagonist you agree with me on everything yet accuse me of being wrong as usual ~:confused:

[Don Corleone]

Gawain,

It was all a question of when, not if. Long term, he saw one-world, one Aryan race. Yes, the Jews were first on his list, and Slavs weren't far behind. But as time wore on, after conquering Russia, he would have invaded France and killed every last Frenchman. Ditto for Spain, Italy, or any other place in the world. When he got to America, he would have sorted the Germans out and killed all the Americans who weren't of his master race. I'm amazed that somebody who knows as much about history as you is claiming he only really had it in for Eastern Europe.

[PanzerJaeger]

Not true. Hitler had no intentions of mass killings of everyone that was non-aryan. He saw the aryans being masters of other races, but who would do the menial work?

He didnt like the jews and the subhumans in the east but ive never heard or read anything about him wanting to kill all the other Europeans he controlled. The Nazis treated the french and other European nations relatively well compared to the countries in the east and there was much fraternization.

Maybe im wrong, but ive never heard of that.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Ill go with Panzers view. If this is true why didnt he kill them all when he conquered France ,nevermind set up a puppet government?


he would have invaded France and killed every last Frenchman

He did and he didn't as I said. He ivaded it but sure as hell didnt even come close to killing every Frenchmen. Would you like me to dig up the stats on how many French colaborated with the Germans or how many had children by them? Nevermind all those who joined the SS. Tell me they had no choice but to. His main beef with the French was losing WW1 and the stupid treaty .

[bmolsson]

Not true. Hitler had no intentions of mass killings of everyone that was non-aryan.


I do believe that over 6 million dead in death camps is a rather strong evidence against that......

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I do believe that over 6 million dead in death camps is a rather strong evidence against that......

Horrible as it was you ignored my post. Theres nothing to back up this claim


he would have invaded France and killed every last Frenchman

In fact history proves it wrong. Or are the French Aryans now?

[bmolsson]

Theres nothing to back up this claim


Are you joking ? ~:confused:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Are you joking ?

No !!!!!!!

[bmolsson]

No !!!!!!!

So you dispute that people was slaughtered in death camps based on Hitlers orders ? That an order to exterminated jews was give ?
:dizzy2:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So you dispute that people was slaughtered in death camps based on Hitlers orders ? That an order to exterminated jews was give ?

How in holy hell did you get that from my posts? ~:confused:

[bmolsson]

How in holy hell did you get that from my posts? ~:confused:

I read that from Panzers post which you defended.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I read that from Panzers post which you defended.

OK ....How in holy hell did you get that from Panzers post?

[PanzerJaeger]

bmollson,

Hitler killed the jews - no one is disputing that.

Hitler did not kill all europeans who were not aryan, and he never planned on that.

Clear?

[bmolsson]

bmollson,

Hitler killed the jews - no one is disputing that.

Hitler did not kill all europeans who were not aryan, and he never planned on that.

Clear?

He planned to remove everyone that where not aryan or was needed for the Third Reich.

One example is the Romani (gypsies).

Holocaust (http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5121/holcaust.htm)

I am pretty sure that Hitler would have gone ballistic against any group that could benefit his goals. Lives did just not have a value for that man.

[PanzerJaeger]

The man was bad enough by himself, you do not need to add policies to his extensive credentials that did not exist.

Show me someone who has researched Hitler who says that he planned to kill the french, the italians, the dutch, ect. Ive never heard of this.

[PanzerJaeger]

The first sentence of your link:

Roma were the only other population besides the Jews who were targeted for extermination on racial grounds in the Final Solution.

The only other population..

[bmolsson]

The first sentence of your link:

Roma were the only other population besides the Jews who were targeted for extermination on racial grounds in the Final Solution.

The only other population..

True, but that is on racial grounds. Add to that communists, homosexuals, mentally ill, etc
The man lost it and you would either have to accept to be re-educated or terminated. I would see that as totally killing of any other population and their culture in Europe.

I need to add that I see from where you are coming. First I got the impression you defended the man, Sorry about that..... :embarassed:

[Byzantine Prince]

The first sentence of your link:

Roma were the only other population besides the Jews who were targeted for extermination on racial grounds in the Final Solution.

The only other population..
You forget the slavs. They wre considered quite low in their pyramid as well, and a lot of normals from other countries were brought to the concetration camps. Some even non-slavs, like some Canadians even. Pretty much every ethnicity had some representatives in the big solutions even some germans.

[Brenus]

Can I remind people then the Aryan race is a lie, that the jews were French, Dutch, Germans and other nationalities (it is a RELIGION!!!).
Panzer, I don't know if Hitler was ready to kill all the French, what I know is in a place maned the Struthoff, in Alsace, France, there is a Concentration/Extermination Camp, with Gas Chamber and all the material needed. The local population, considered as Germans, were supposed to joined the Werhmacht and SS. When they refused, hop! families in Struthoff.
That is for the free will of the French to join the SS.

Let's go for the Statistic:
LVF: 6249 men. Phalange Africaine: 212 men. NSKK Motorgruppe Luftwaffe: 2500 men. Kriegsmarine: 93 officer, 3000 NCO and men, 680 technicians. Waffen SS: between 15000 and 20000 men, Flack units: around 7000 men. TODT organization: 2000 men. I speak here only about Volunteers.
I pass on the minor units...
French Petainist Milice: around 30000 men

Free French:
FFI: Impossible to know, by definition, so let's quote the General Eisenhower: "Throughout France the Resistance had been of in value in the Campaign. Without their great assistance the liberation of France would have much longer time and meant greater losses to ourselves". Estimatiom 200000 men and women.
FFL:
Royal Navy 10000. RAF,: 3500 men (150 French aces -5 confirmed kills) in the Soviet Air Force 1 figther group.
In UK: 4 fighter Groups, 3 bomber Grups, 2 transport groups
Under US Command:
9 fighter groups, 6 bomber groups, 1 reconnaissance groups, 1 transport group.
To be short in mid 1944, the Free French Forces numbered about 500000 men.

That also explain why the French got the seat in UN and why they also sighed the German's capitulation.

And why to plan to put people in slavery seems to be better than to exterminated then? Yes, the Slavs were on the list: see what happened to the Russia War Prisoners...
The Serbs, how many killed by the Croatian puppet state in camp like Jasenovac? I have to add that was an initiative from Ante Pavelic (blue brassar with P -for Pravo Slav) for the Serbs and the David Star for the Jews.

[PanzerJaeger]

True, but that is on racial grounds. Add to that communists, homosexuals, mentally ill, etc

You forget the slavs. They wre considered quite low in their pyramid as well, and a lot of normals from other countries were brought to the concetration camps. Some even non-slavs, like some Canadians even. Pretty much every ethnicity had some representatives in the big solutions even some germans.

This is very frustrating. You both seem not to have read the thread.

The argument was whether Hitler had plans to kill all non aryan europeans. That has yet to be substantiated.

I do not need an education on the holocaust, that is not what was being discussed.

[ICantSpellDawg]

All the French did was get invaded.

not only did they "get invaded", but after the governement was pushed out to vichy, the LEGITIMATE government of the french began is collaboration policies with germany

French industries began to mobilize behind the german war machine

the french did more help us LOSE the was than win it
and if the LEGITIMATE french government had had its way, de gaulle wouldnt have even gone to england

[ICantSpellDawg]

Can I remind people then the Aryan race is a lie, that the jews were French, Dutch, Germans and other nationalities (it is a RELIGION!!!).


actually - many of the jews in northern and western europe are semites (to an extent) - those are many of the jews of which the aryan myth was speaking
the eastern european jews are of slavic and mixed heritage

many in the west are of the ashkenazi stock while many in the east are descendents of both ashkenazi and Khazar (among many other things)

[Brenus]

not only did they "get invaded", but after the governement was pushed out to vichy, the LEGITIMATE government of the french began is collaboration policies with germany

French industries began to mobilize behind the german war machine

the french did more help us LOSE the was than win it
and if the LEGITIMATE french government had had its way, de gaulle wouldnt have even gone to england

LEGITIMATE: When did the French vote for Petain? It was a coup d'Etat, not a democratic election wich put him as a President. Petain was a dictator, friend with Franco and welcome the French defeat... He was popular for a moment, but lost this support when the plunder of France was too obvious. It is probably what you quote as French Industries began to mobilize.
If the French, even Petiniste would have put all what was left with the Germans, I am not sure that Malta would have succeeded resisting the assault and Rommel would have been defeated. The French had the second Navy in the Mediterranean sea. Even after Mers el Kebir, Dakar, Madagascar the Vichy France didn't declare war against the Allies.
And why the US didn't imposed a Governorate or something like that if France wasn't considered as allied?
Stop prejudices and study history, please...

[ICantSpellDawg]

LEGITIMATE: When did the French vote for Petain? It was a coup d'Etat, not a democratic election wich put him as a President. Petain was a dictator, friend with Franco and welcome the French defeat... He was popular for a moment, but lost this support when the plunder of France was too obvious. It is probably what you quote as French Industries began to mobilize.
If the French, even Petiniste would have put all what was left with the Germans, I am not sure that Malta would have succeeded resisting the assault and Rommel would have been defeated. The French had the second Navy in the Mediterranean sea. Even after Mers el Kebir, Dakar, Madagascar the Vichy France didn't declare war against the Allies.
And why the US didn't imposed a Governorate or something like that if France wasn't considered as allied?
Stop prejudices and study history, please...

coup d'etat?
it was like hell

the president appointed the vice-premier to the position of prime minister after PM Reynaud resigned

that is legitimate

they had alternatives, such as moving the government - but decided that an armistice with Germany would have been the better alternative

your country then eliminated the offensive capabilities of the French Navy as they were seen as a likely enemy in the years that were to come

the third republic was then VOTED OUT OF EXISTANCE by a MAJORITY in the assembly after all of this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_Government

[sharrukin]

Vichy France allied with Germany?

German aircraft would have been able to interdict the Gibralter straits, sealing off the mediterranean to most British shipping. The only way to resupply Egypt and the troops fighting Rommel would be around africa and the through the Suez canal. The British Malta convoys had a free ride until they got to within range of German aircraft flying out of Cagliari on Sardinia. It was a close thing as it was, but if they had been subject to air attack from Vichy French territory as well they would have failed.

French troops allied with the Germans would almost certainly have tipped the balance in the desert in favour of Rommel. The addition of hundreds of French pilots and aircraft alone would have given the advantage to the Germans.

Full cooperation with Germany would have greatly increased industrial production from the factories inside Vichy territories. In june of 1940 when fighting the Germans the Dewoitine-520 fighter was being delivered at the rate of 10 a day. Four fighter groups were deployed against the Germans and destroyed 147 German aircraft vs 85 lost. If all of this had been in service to the Axis powers Britain would have been defeated in the desert and very possibly during the Battle of Britain as well. The British were able to fend off the Germans in this very hard fought aerial battle but the addition of the French airforce may well have spelled defeat at this critical time.

The Vichy French were NOT allies of the Germans and it is well for us that they were not.

[Brenus]

Wrong, the III Republic was dissolved by the majority of the Deputies present at the moment. Pierre Laval just prevent all the Deputies opposed to this motion to show-up or didn't organise their travel or worst (not in his mind) just sent them somewhere else.
It was a coup, like Napoleon did, like his nephew (Napoleon the III) did.
And even under theses circumstances, plan went wrong and was near to collapse. They had to put some deputies under arrest and moved troops inside the building...
Just the fact they dissolved the Republic is the proof it was a coup, and it was illegitimate...
The 17th of June, Petain surrendered, the 18th de Gaulle made his speech from London...
I don't like De Gaulle too much, but the legitimacy was on his side...

And you still don't answer the question: Why the US and UK didn't put a transitional administration in France like they did for all German Allies, as you suggest France was?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wrong, the III Republic was dissolved by the majority of the Deputies present at the moment. Pierre Laval just prevent all the Deputies opposed to this motion to show-up or didn't organise their travel or worst (not in his mind) just sent them somewhere else.
It was a coup, like Napoleon did, like his nephew (Napoleon the III) did.
And even under theses circumstances, plan went wrong and was near to collapse. They had to put some deputies under arrest and moved troops inside the building...
Just the fact they dissolved the Republic is the proof it was a coup, and it was illegitimate...
The 17th of June, Petain surrendered, the 18th de Gaulle made his speech from London...
I don't like De Gaulle too much, but the legitimacy was on his side...

And you still don't answer the question: Why the US and UK didn't put a transitional administration in France like they did for all German Allies, as you suggest France was?


you were born in 59 and majored in history, so i will stop arguing - even though i thought legitimacy was on the vichy side


what i dont understand is how the legitimacy could have possibly gone with degaulle
he was elected to be nothing
DeGaulle held no political office that i can remember before the war
he was just a high-up general
and what do you mean "transitional administration"?
he was the transitional authority into the 4th Republic i thought

i am most probably wrong - but is there anyone else who agrees with Brenus so that i don't feel so bad modifying my opinion because of the rebuttal of one?

[Brenus]

I born in 59 and graduated in history but I can be wrong, too often on my own judgment.

I understood what you said and I disagreed because your analysis was based on partial information. To be totally honest, none of the protagonists had legitimacy, neither Petain nor De Gaulle.
The last legitimate PM was Reynauld and after France disappeared as an independent country and state. The President had no power in the III Republic.

Petain betrayed his own country, taking power by a coup. He betrayed the Jews in France allowing the Racial Law that the German never asked him to do. He stripped these men who fought bravely in Verdun, under his command, of their nationality, their medal, their Legion d’Honneur and gave then to the Nazi.
He accepted the Collaboration and he met with Hitler.
Because of his status of Hero, he fouled French patriots who could have gone to England to fight earlier.

De Gaulle got his legitimacy because his arrogance to proclaim he was the real France. He was one of the rare general with a short success against the Germans (even it was over estimated by his followers) at Montcornet. He was briefly sous secretaire in the ministry of Defense. But from 700 men and women he succeeded to build an army about 500 000 men and to be part of the signatory of the Nazi’s capitulation (Gal De Lattre) and even Japan (Gal Leclerc) which always amaze me for the last part. He also succeeded to convince the Communist party and their FTPF to join the democratic debate (and to give-up the idea of armed revolution) and to recognise him as the leader of liberated France. He succeeded to unite all the different movements of Resistance under his authority (the French resistance was made of all the spectrum of the political landscape, from Royalists, Conservators to Socialists and Communists).
So, he won his legitimacy inside France but also outside. Roosevelt deeply distrusted him (he started after Dakar), Churchill had also his doubts even he recognise in De Gaulle a real patriot.
So, at the end he got his legitimacy.

The Transitional Administration was a body created by the Allies to administrate the countries allied with Germany. As I understood you were saying that France was an enemy of the Allies, to pinpoint the mistake, I just made the point.
For what I know, it was in the intention of Roosevelt to imposed this status to France because the vacuum of power and only De Gaulle will to enforce his own administration in the liberated territories put the Allies in no choice than to comply or to face BIG problems in France (200 000 civilians in arms and 500 000 troops). And the war wasn’t over.

[ICantSpellDawg]

As I understood you were saying that France was an enemy of the Allies, to pinpoint the mistake, I just made the point.


ah

ok - i just meant technically enemies- not literally
but it was an iffy statement anyway

[el_slapper]

ah

ok - i just meant technically enemies- not literally
but it was an iffy statement anyway

The main help they've got from France was done through plundering. For example, the powerful Toulon fleet - which had the most modern equipments(except for electronics & radars, but Germans could have easily added those) of their time, did sink itself when the German tried to seize it..... Plundering also when they did capture 250 brand new Somua Tanks at the doors of their factory :embarassed: . But direct aid was limited to some Renault trucks(Renault's factory were nationalized at the liberation as a punition).

OTOH, french resistance's role is often misunderstood. The amount of destructions delivered is really negligible. Their main effect was on logistics. It took seven weeks for Germans based in Brittany to reach combat in Normandy - mainly because local resistants were constantly limiting the possibilities to deploy efficiently by forcing the forces to defend themselves 24/24. They finally reached the front at nearly full strength - but at a time the tide could no more be stopped! The dream of Hitler was a landing in France so that he could crush its opponents there - but he couldn't gather enough troops for that quickly enough due to the combined effects of air bombings & local resistance.

[Papewaio]

OTOH, french resistance's role is often misunderstood.

The Mouse was French?

[Brenus]

The Mouse was French?
Can you explain? I don't understand... Is it a joke or something funny. Sorry, I need the subtitles...

[ShadesPanther]

I think he is refering to the movie Valiant (kids computer generated film) I think where a mouse was the leader of the resistance

[Papewaio]

The White Mouse... Nancy Wake. (http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-heroes/white_mouse.htm)

[Brenus]

I am impressed by the woman. Thanks for the link. I don’t want to be too much technical, but, by law, she WAS French. She was one of the women who JOINED the resistance
But, still:
Historian Robert Paxton contends that the number of active Resistance participants officially recognized after the war was "about 2% of the adult French population [or about 400,000]." H e goes on to say that "there was no doubt, wider complicities, but even if one adds those willing to read underground newspapers, some two million persons, or around 10% of the adult population, seem to have been willing to take that risk." However, historian John Sweets argues that while "a definition that is limited to active members of organized groups has the advantage of greater precision, such a limitation may prohibit an adequate appreciation of the phenomenon of resistance." Sweets maintains that "the existence of an extensive network of sympathizers and accomplices beyond the framework of the organized resistance has sometimes been overlooked or underestimated in scholarly accounts of the Vichy period."

They were helped by the trained agents of the Special Operation Operative and many of the paid the high price in fighting the Nazi occupation. Torture, deportation, execution, villages burned to the ground.
It was not the high politicians or the general who fled to London, North Africa or USSR, nor the adventurers of the OSS or the SOE who constituted the French Resistance. They were ordinary men and women from all origins and political landscape. They were without uniforms or proper arms, living in the shadows defied and fought the might of the Nazi military machine and Vichy collaborators.
They just wanted the invaders out. They were helped by Republican Spanish, anti-fascist Italian, anti-Nazi Germans, and other nationalities (some apparently New Zealander). They have to be remembered.

But excepted if the all the rest of the world parachuted their communists and their women on France, the vast majority was French.
If a proof of the contrary is provided, my grand father (and grand mother) from my mother’s side were Partisans, I will able to apply for a New Zealander citizenship.

On a monument in France is written: Ou je meurs renait la Patrie, Where I died re-births my country.

[Meneldil]

No Russia was. He certainly had no love for the French and I have no doubt that he wanted to take back the land lost after the first world war. However if France and Britain had alled with him I dont see any way he could then turn around and attack France.


Well, from what Hitler said to some highly important Nazi people, he feared France much more than USSR (at least until he saw his army kicked our butts in a few weeks). He knew France and UK would never have allied with him, and he signed the Germano-sovietic pact only because he feared France and UK would side with USSR and invade Germany on 2 fronts just as during WWI.

I haven't read 'Mein Kampf' (sp?) -it's not published in France, unhappilly -, so I can't really say what he was thinking about France when he was in jail, but there are account of how he wanted France to be 'hammered and trampled' as soon as possible, cause it has always been 'Germany most powerful opponent' as early as 1934.

About Vichy and De Gaulle, neither of those was legitimate. If French were kinda happy during the first few months of the Vichy State, they quickly understood that Petain's aim was to do whatever the Germans wanted.
Petain was known for being a combative guy, and as he fought (and won) against the Germans during WWII, people thought he would manage to sign a defeat in the honor, yet he just did the contrary and agreed with every decision made by the 3rd Reich.
On the other hand, De Gaulle had no democratic support, though he was supported by the vast majority of the population. He could very well have turned into a populist dictator in 1946, but he didn't.

[Papewaio]

I am impressed by the woman. Thanks for the link. I don’t want to be too much technical, but, by law, she WAS French. She was one of the women who JOINED the resistance

Actually she has multiple-citizenships. It is a bit of a wonder though a foreign raised person would become the most sought at person in the French Resistance by the Nazis... :duel: Yes I am having sport here... you need to read more about Nancy Wake to see here true feelings about the Australian government (not good ~D ).