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

[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?

[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....

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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

[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?