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

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-02-2005, 16:06

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** · 05-02-2005, 16:12

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** · 05-02-2005, 16:17

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

and Australia and New Zealand are members of the commonwealth.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-02-2005, 16:19

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?

**Byzantine Prince** · 05-02-2005, 16:34

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** · 05-02-2005, 16:38

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** · 05-02-2005, 16:49

Originally Posted by King Malcolm

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.

**KafirChobee** · 05-04-2005, 06:07

Originally Posted by 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?

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** · 05-04-2005, 06:54

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** · 05-04-2005, 07:16

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** · 05-04-2005, 07:24

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** · 05-04-2005, 07:36

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** · 05-04-2005, 07:39

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).