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

[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.

[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....

[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!

[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.....

[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.

[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.