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

[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?

[Redleg]

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]

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

and Australia and New Zealand are members of the commonwealth.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[sharrukin]

What do you suppose the result would have been had the British had a long border with the Germans...or the Australians? No nation that had a land border with the Germans could resist them except the Russians, who had a huge military and it cost them 20 million dead. No the French couldn't stop the Germans but then who could? It would not be for many years that any nation had the capacity to do so. If New England had been next door to the Germans in 1939, I think the results wouldn't have been very pleasant.

France has a seat on the UN council because it can field a powerful military force overseas. Power projection is what dictated who got a seat and who got a veto as it makes little sense NOT to give a Veto to someone you cannot enforce your resolutions against.

As a Canadian I am aware that the security council seats were not given out as rewards for dutiful service. IMHO Japan and Germany should also have been given a seat on the security council as well.

[Duke Malcolm]

Security Council seats were given to the winners of the Second World War. Australia didn't get a seat because it is a British Dominion, and was more-or-less represented by the British seat.
France was given a seat for the same reason as China, I think -- they experience the foreign occupation, and they were also a significant international force at the time.

[Idomeneas]

Didnt France had ''ze resistance''?
oups forgot.. that was a movie stereotype.

Aussies for me. They fought hard almost in every front even if they didnt had to at that point.

[Adrian II]

The french always get invaded:The Franco-Prussian wars,WW1,WW2. They cant put up much of a fight.

They don't have an island to hide away and wait till Bubba comes to the rescue. I'm glad at least one civilised nation is on the Council. And I wholeheartedly agree with the honourable gentlemen that Britian should withdraw from it. It doesn't have a policy of its own; it can't wipe its own backside without permission from Washington.

EDIt And I do realise this thread is an excuse for French-bashing. If you guys stay sharp, I'll play along - if I get bored, I'm out.

[Brenus]

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.

Right you are... Three time the French had to face a German aggression, but they are the baddies!!!! The victims of aggression have to be blamed...
Excepted, because that is history, the French declared war to Prussia (Germany was created after the Franco-Germans war), Napoleon II having fallen in Bismark's trap...

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. To be defeated happens in war and isn't a dishonor. To see and watch is. The French were the only country ready to sent troop to help Finland against Stalin aggression. Because the fall of Finland, these troops were used in Narvik, Never heard about it?
And to add this comment: the British weren't better: The BEF was as much defeated than the French army... Does that make the BEF a bunch of cowards? I don't think so...
The Free French fought alongside the US and UK troops in Africa, in Provence and Italy, providing the break in the battle for Monte Casino (battle of the Carigliano). They even provide one squadron of fighters on the Russian Front (Normandy/Niemen). Plus the french resistance inside France...

So, yes, the French did as much as the Australian and other countries to help to win WW2. Just read Churchill's speech to France after the armistice in 1940. Oh, perhaps you don't trust him. But to be in the front line isn't easy, and only the vast spaces of Russia succeeded to contain the Nazi assault.

UN is what the member states are willing the organisation to do.

[Redleg]

They don't have an island to hide away and wait till Bubba comes to the rescue. I'm glad at least one civilised nation is on the Council. And I wholeheartedly agree with the honourable gentlemen that Britian should withdraw from it. It doesn't have a policy of its own; it can't wipe its own backside without permission from Washington.

EDIt And I do realise this thread is an excuse for French-bashing. If you guys stay sharp, I'll play along - if I get bored, I'm out.

Now Now - lets not get all testy. At least two of us have not bashed the French on this thread. However it does seem that you have decided to bash the English.

I wonder is the pot trying to call the kettle black again?

[Duke Malcolm]

We didn't hide on our island until the US helped. We defended our shores well. We defended our Empire slighlty less well, but managed nonetheless. Had we been bordering Germany, we would have been relatively successful in defending our borders.

[Redleg]

We didn't hide on our island until the US helped. We defended our shores well. We defended our Empire slighlty less well, but managed nonetheless. Had we been bordering Germany, we would have been relatively successful in defending our borders.

Actually this is incorrect. The BEF was handed its collective rearend during the Invasion of France - just like the French were defeated by the German attack.

Hindsight is always 20-20. The French lost because the Germans used tactics that were French were not prepared for. France invisioned the war being fought like WW1 - and Germany fought a completely different type of war. France and England were equally unprepared for the German Attack into France.

[Duke Malcolm]

Britain, for God's sake, Britain!

And superior tactics like :- Going around the French defences. If Britain was in the same situation as France, then the Imperial Armies would have massed to defend the Mother Country. The BEF wasn't the whole Army, unlike the French Army.

[71-hour Ahmed]

France was the more powerful and important country by far, she was just unlucky enough to have a military commanded by out of date strategy and so gt crushed. France didn't really contribute much to allied victory after that (resistance was minimally important) but she didn't impair it much either so it balances out. Australia wasn't that important overall, we wouldn't have lost much without it - the Japanese would simply have held more positions in SE Asia before the Yanks crushed them

As for comment about this thread being about "French bashing" grow up... its a fair question that Gawain asked regarding nations contribution and hence subsequent recognition. Moreover Britain can't be described as cowering and waiting for America... the USA wasn't expected (or expecting ) to enter the war until the Japanese got a bit stooooopid at Pearl Harbour, and the British were fighting in Africa all that time. In fact even if America had remained neutral its not impossible that Britain (with lend-lease help) would have still won in Africa, Germany being focussed on the Soviet Union.

[Redleg]

Britain, for God's sake, Britain!

And superior tactics like :- Going around the French defences. If Britain was in the same situation as France, then the Imperial Armies would have massed to defend the Mother Country. The BEF wasn't the whole Army, unlike the French Army.

You are forgetting that the British forces were fighting with the same WW1 tactics of the French. The French and British had the better tanks during the time of the Invasion of France. Germany had the better tactics. The French Army in 1940 happen to be larger then the British Army if I remember correctly also. The BEF happen to contain the major combat units of the British Army at the time that were not engaged in the colonies. In a lightening attack such as the Germans pulled off against France - the colonies would not have had time to send troops to defend the motherland during the initial attack. And Britian did not have the land to trade for time like Russia or for that matter the United States

The English would not have fared much better then the French - if England was located with a land border next to Belgium or Germany.

For that matter nor would the United States against an initial land assualt with the Germany Army of 1940. The United States would have had to do the same tactics of Russia to survive the onslaught of the German attack - trade land for time.

[King Ragnar]

. It doesn't have a policy of its own; it can't wipe its own backside without permission from Washington..

Who do we have to blame for that the French, Maybe we could of held America longer if the French didn't help them in the War of independence.

[Lazul]

argh, why does it allways lead to talk about who did the most in WW2?

If the Germans had the chance to meet their enemies one by one they would crush them all.
BUT, since they had to face them all at once they lost. The German Warmachine was far superior against the other nations.
They had less tanks, and crappy tank in the begging but due to the fact that the germans had superios officers they won took Franche.
The allies won only couse they worked together.

as for the UN... yeah, it crap really.

[sharrukin]

We didn't hide on our island until the US helped. We defended our shores well. We defended our Empire slighlty less well, but managed nonetheless. Had we been bordering Germany, we would have been relatively successful in defending our borders.

Of the 50 or so infantry divisions available to england at the time, only 8 where fully equipped first line, and a further 12 where partially equipped second line. The rest where hardly worthy of the name "infantry division" consisting of reservists and Home Guardsmen with little training and equipment.

Most of these 'divisions' were simply light infantry grouped together and not in fact divisions in any real sense.

The Home Guard (Local Defence Volunteers ;LDV) would have been both valiant and pathetic due to the fact that they had no equipment and no training. Early units mostly wore civilian clothing and were equipped with rifles, shotguns, pikes or whatever else they could find. Some american .30 rifles from WW1, molotov cocktails and later thompsons smg's.

An Eye-Witness Account- By Ronald Ashford, born 1922

" In 1940, I was a volunteer in the Local Defence Volunteers (LDV), later to be renamed the Home Guard and I was one of thirty men serving under First World War veteran; Sir basil Eddis.

After drilling without weapons for some three months, we were each issued with 303 rifles and four clips of 303 ammunition- each clip holding five rounds."

That's a total of 20 bullets! Scarryyyy If you think THIS was going to stop the German army then you are as deluded as the French High Command was!

The United States would have been in some ways in a worse position than the Russians as New England held most of their industrial capacity at the time and they, unlike the Russians, lacked a large army or air force. The technical expertise in the American population would however have gone a long way to offset this.

[Adrian II]

argh, why does it allways lead to talk about who did the most in WW2?

Yup. It's interesting to see what kind of reasoning comes up, though. You know what they say about the political uses of rewriting history. France's UNSC seat is a pain the Neocon butt, so let's rewrite its history to make it look as if they didn't deserve it in the first place. The reason for that not being their diverging political views or different national interests, but a moral deficit that hopefully appeals to uninformed Americans: cowardice. An open & shut case of Neocon propaganda, methinks.

[PanzerJaeger]

What do you suppose the result would have been had the British had a long border with the Germans...or the Australians? No nation that had a land border with the Germans could resist them except the Russians, who had a huge military and it cost them 20 million dead. No the French couldn't stop the Germans but then who could? It would not be for many years that any nation had the capacity to do so. If New England had been next door to the Germans in 1939, I think the results wouldn't have been very pleasant.

The French had superior numbers in their army. They had a huge defense system which limited that "long border". They had superior tanks and other equipment. France was simply inferior to Germany, just like Britain, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Greece, Yugoslavia, Austria, The Netherlands, and Russia. All of their militaries failed in the face of Germany before combining to finally topple the country.

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 ).

[PanzerJaeger]

Yup. It's interesting to see what kind of reasoning comes up, though. You know what they say about the political uses of rewriting history. France's UNSC seat is a pain the Neocon butt, so let's rewrite its history to make it look as if they didn't deserve it in the first place. The reason for that not being their diverging political views or different national interests, but a moral deficit that hopefully appeals to uninformed Americans: cowardice. An open & shut case of Neocon propaganda, methinks.

Which Neocons are pushing to get the french kicked off the Security Council?

[Redleg]

Yup. It's interesting to see what kind of reasoning comes up, though. You know what they say about the political uses of rewriting history. France's UNSC seat is a pain the Neocon butt, so let's rewrite its history to make it look as if they didn't deserve it in the first place. The reason for that not being their diverging political views or different national interests, but a moral deficit that hopefully appeals to uninformed Americans: cowardice. An open & shut case of Neocon propaganda, methinks.

LOL - your own baised views is spewing forth from the cess pool in which you claim is the Neocon view. Your propaganda is no better then the Neocon propaganda.

When I decide to bash the French it will be for something other then WW2.

[sharrukin]

What do you suppose the result would have been had the British had a long border with the Germans...or the Australians? No nation that had a land border with the Germans could resist them except the Russians, who had a huge military and it cost them 20 million dead. No the French couldn't stop the Germans but then who could? It would not be for many years that any nation had the capacity to do so. If New England had been next door to the Germans in 1939, I think the results wouldn't have been very pleasant.

The French had superior numbers in their army. They had a huge defense system which limited that "long border". They had superior tanks and other equipment. France was simply inferior to Germany, just like Britain, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Greece, Yugoslavia, Austria, The Netherlands, and Russia. All of their militaries failed in the face of Germany before combining to finally topple the country.

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 ).

I agree with you on this one hundred percent! The French could have won the battle for France in 1940 if they had understood modern warfare. Their equipment was good and they had the numbers and quality needed to do it. They lacked good NCO's and officers.

The British were I believe soldier for soldier better than his French counterpart. He may even have been better than his German counterpart. The British were hampered by the same problem the French were, which is incompetant leadership. Their tanks being designed by German secret agents didn't help (at least this is the only logical explanation I can find for what they produced).
As one German general said of the British "Lions led by Donkey's".

As for all the French bashing, what is that all about? Is it just because they fought by the American side in the First Gulf War and didn't in the Second?

[Lazul]

Yes, as I said before, it was the leadership of the germans that made them so succesfull, even the americans had a nasty defeat in North Africa, not sure of the name but, Kasserine Pass right?
Think it was shortly after Operation Torch. (wich holds more intresting details).

Rather intresting, the german tanks rolled over them, and reached the supply stations and then when Rommel looked at the huge amounts of supplies he realized that they might loose North Africa now that the US entered the war.

[Redleg]

Yes, as I said before, it was the leadership of the germans that made them so succesfull, even the americans had a nasty defeat in North Africa, not sure of the name but, Kasserine Pass right?
Think it was shortly after Operation Torch. (wich holds more intresting details).

Rather intresting, the german tanks rolled over them, and reached the supply stations and then when Rommel looked at the huge amounts of supplies he realized that they might loose North Africa now that the US entered the war.

Yep the Kasserine Pass where the 1st Infantry Division got its rear-end handed to them by the Germans.

[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?