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

[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.

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! [/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

[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



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

[sharrukin]

Actually the thread title asks about the mythical lands of

Fance
and
Austrailia



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

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!

[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!

[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!

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!

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.

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.

[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?