EU army

[Redleg]

It would've been very disappointing if it hadn't. That's the point of a civil war.
Were they natives? While I'm sure there were aborigines and maoris in the Australian and New Zealand armies that fought in WW2 on the British side, I'm pretty sure that the majority of these armies would have been composed of only recently resettled Europeans.

You might want to check the data a little more closely - in WW1 and WW2 most of the Australian and Canadian Armies consisted of citizens of those two nations and many were born there, not in Europe.

This site lists several of the allied nations -

http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/w...s/stats01.html

The First World War helped to foster a sense of Australian nationalism, even though national feeling was expressed within an Imperial framework. Western Australian troops identified with their fellow Australians, taking pride in their achievements and sharing a sense of common identity distinct from that of British soldiers. Australian troops compared very favourably in physique and stature to the average English soldier, showing initiative and a disrespect for authority which the British High Command often found difficult to accept.

http://www.liswa.wa.gov.au/federation/fed/040_wwar.htm

The colony of Western Australia was granted a constitution by the British Parliament in 1890. At that time it contained less than 50,000 colonists and an unknown number of Aboriginal inhabitants. It was a remote backwater, isolated by hundreds of kilometres of sand and sea. Connected to the rest of Australia by a single telegraph line from 1877 and a steamship service which braved the Southern Ocean, the colonists looked across the Indian Ocean towards Great Britain for trade, investment and guidance.

Australia became a Nation in 1890 by a measure passed by the British Parliament. So while part of the commonwealth - Australia is its own nation.

And that is just the first one by the Alphabet of the former colonies - that fought for the British. Should I continue?

Fair enough they didn't actually live in Europe. You are correct there, but since they were part of the British Empire, they would be expected to fight.

Again that was not the point of the orginial comment by that individual.
Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent.

Those individuals that fought under the Australian, Canadian, New Zealand, and 60 other nations fought under their own flags, for the allies - and because of where they came from they were not European.

You are making an unreasonable statement by picking the difference. All subjects of the British Empire would be expected to fight for the crown, so in a way, doesn't that make them British by proxy (and hence European)?

Not at all - it makes them only members of the British Commonwealth. So the Grukra's are European now? They fought with honor in both wars, how about the Indian Troops that fought in both wars for the british, are they also European?

Once again the unreasonable statement that needed to be ridiculed was Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent.

The British Empire couldn't possibly have sustained itself so large and so long if it depended entirely on soldiers born and raised in Britain. The only distinguishing feature between an Australian soldier in WW2 and a British solder in WW2 would be that the Australian soldier had lived in Australia.

Someone needs to study their history a little more.

While I wouldn't agree with your initial wording (which seemed crass and didn't get the point across) I will agree that the point you were trying to make is true after some explanation.

I treated the comments I was addressing exactly the way they deserved - with crass and ridicule.

I think it's a rather unfair comparison in that the fundamental difference between Europe and America is that one is not a single nation but a series of nations.

Not at all - the individual made that way when he made the statemetn of Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent. its a false statement and deserving of the ridicule in which I treated it. Once again it seems you Europeans like to point out and ridicule things about the United States, however don't like your little area of the world criticized in the same way. If you accept Europeans doing this exact same thing to America - but reject it when it is against Europe - well your arguement is hypocritical.

The nations in Europe up until the last 50 years have also been Empires that relied on foreign labour and soldiers to sustain themselves. Bordering nations inevitably go to war.

Hence the comment of Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent. is false even under that standard. However once again foreign labour and foreign soldiers - does not mean Europeans are doing it now does it?

If by Americans, I meant all those who live in the North American continent, then there have been great internal struggles there too and not all wars in America were settled just by Americans. The War of Independence could not have been won without the French and the North could not have won the Civil War without the Irish immigrant soldiers (do they count as Irish if they were born and lived most of their lives in Ireland?)

Again I have never stated such a ridiculous statement of Every time America was threatened, Americans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent. I am fully aware of the help the United States recieved in its revolution from England, and the help during the Civil War from immigrant soldiers (not just the Irish - they were just the major immigrant group that became soldiers during the civil war - there were others to include a German immigrant regiment.)