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

**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).

**sharrukin** · 05-04-2005, 07:46

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.