Paphitis wrote:I REST MY CASE!THANKS SIMON.
You posted a great link, so hats off to ya...
Moreover, an Australian government had simply gone along with Britain's war declaration, adding one of its own, - as again happened at the outset of WWII.
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/ ... lipoli.htmSo as you can see, Australia was independent and its AIF were completely separate to any British Forces.
As an independent country, Australia declared war against Germany in WW1 and WW2.
Australia had gone along with Britain's War declaration as an ally and a dominion, but it was still a sovereign decision that Britain could not enforce upon Australia. Australia was at war as a nation and with its own Military force, and you attempt to claim credit for the bravery of the ANZACs is disgraceful.
I have never 'claimed' the bravery of ANZAC as British at all, you are making up rubbish so as to give yourself more credibility. I was referring to British Empire Forces. I have constantly clarified this point and yet all you do is keep repeating the same rubbish without acknowledging nor even referring to what I have said. It's a sure sign of someone who is fast running out of arguments and therefore just desparate to get the last word in.
Paphitis now you're really acting stupid. This is a desperate attempt to paper over the cracks and I know that you don't even believe it yourself. Australia went along with Britain's war declaration without question or hesitation! Why? Because it was a part of the Empire and
it had no independent foreign policy of its own. It went to war because Britain did and to
defend the Empire, the Empire that you claimed it wasn't a part of, and then only ceremonially a part of!
You take one sentence of the article I posted, and assumed because Australia declared war (which obviously it would have to as a self-governing dominion) that it was fully independent. Yet you conveniently leave out all the other evidence proving beyond doubt that Australia was not completely independent. Here it is again:
"Let me begin by considering what, if anything, Australia contributed to the decision to invade Turkey in 1915?
Now, we must ask that question because, as we know, the Gallipoli campaign holds a very special place for Australians. Indeed it's said to be the event which above all others, brought Australia to nationhood, - through which 'we came of age'. And yet,
if 'nationhood' means anything, it would have to include the making of independent decisions in the best interests of Australians, of its own people.
Yet, clearly, that did not apply to Australia's decision to join Britain in its war against Germany, - or Turkey.
In fact most Australians were then, - and have since remained, - entirely ignorant of the reasons behind Britain's decisions for war, and, needless to say, they were not consulted on its wisdom or conduct. Moreover, an
Australian government had simply gone along with Britain's war declaration, adding one of its own, - as again happened at the outset of WWII.
And so when in November 1914, our first volunteer troops left Albany, West Australia for France, as they were given to understood,
the decision to disembark them in Egypt, then commit them to the invasion of Turkey was an entirely British one.
Now while it goes without saying that from beginning to end of that campaign our troops fought most valiantly and selflessly under the most difficult of conditions, the very real sacrifices involved can in no sense justify or compensate for
the total lack of independent Australian decision-making. After all,
this would have required a close knowledge of Britain's strategic thinking,
Australia's agreement to become involved, and its full participation in the planning of operations involving Australian troops, -
none of which applied.
Based on transcript of an ANU Emeritus Faculty talk of April 16, 2008 by Ian Buckley, adapted from his chapter 4 of 'Australia's Foreign Wars'. "
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/ ... lipoli.htm
To any person with a working brain cell, the above quote is clearly stating the following:
Truly independent 'Nationhood' means the making of independent decisions.
Australia did not make independent decisions.
Australians were (and most still are) ignorant of the reasons for war and nor where they consulted.
The decision to disembark Australian troops in Egypt, and then fight at Gallipoli was entirely a British one.
There was a total lack of independent Australian decision-making.
Australia did not independently decide to go to war.
The decision was a formality. It wasn't even questioned. (Perhaps it was ceremonial independence as I said earlier
).
Australia did not have full knowledge of Britain's strategic thinking, nor did it have full participation in the planning of operations involving Australia's troops.
Australia had no independent foreign policy.
Here is more evidence:
You stated Australia was not fighting for Britain or the Empire. Not according to the PM at the time:
"As the likelihood of Britain being involved in a European war became more likely, the leaders of both major parties (in Australia) pledge their support. Opposition Leader Andrew Fisher states in a speech at Colac, Victoria Australians
will stand beside her own (Britain) to help and defend her to our last man and our last shilling. Prime Minister Joseph Cook states in Horsham, Victoria "
All of our resources in Australia are ... for the preservation and the security of the empire".
"Close to 20% of those who served in the 1st AIF had been born in the United Kingdom"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Aust ... rial_Force
Seems like the Australian Imperial Force was more British than you think!
How about Western Australia approaching Britain to leave the Federation, which you again denied?
"In April the Collier Government put forward its Secession Bill, proposing that a
delegation be sent to London to act with the Agent-General
to put the case for secession before the Imperial Parliament. As expected, the
British Parliament did not accept the petition and support for secession in WA gradually receded."
http://john.curtin.edu.au/mccallum/deputy.html
THE GOVERNMENT WENT TO THE BRITISH IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT TO ASK FOR SECESSION! SO HOW IS THAT INDEPENDENCE? PLEASE TELL ME!
"In 1933, Western Australia voted in a referendum to leave the Australian Federation, with a majority of two to one in favour of secession.[20] However, an election held shortly before the referendum had turned out the incumbent "pro-independence" government, replacing it with a government which did not support the independence movement. Respecting the result of the referendum,
the new government nonetheless petitioned the Agent General of the United Kingdom for independence, where the request was simply ignored".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perth,_Western_Australia
Australia did not have an indepedent foreign policy:
"Although the Dominions and Crown Colonies of the British Empire made significant contributions to the Allied war effort,
they did not have independent foreign policies during World War I. Operational control of British Empire forces was in the hands of the five-member British War Cabinet (BWC). However, the Dominion governments controlled recruiting, and did remove personnel from front-line duties as they saw fit. From early 1917 the BWC was superseded by the Imperial War Cabinet, which had Dominion representation. The Australian Corps and Canadian Corps were placed for the first time under the command of Australian and Canadian Lieutenants General John Monash and Arthur Currie,
who reported in turn to British generals".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_I
Control of
BRITISH EMPIRE FORCES were in the hands of the
BRITISH WAR CABINET. THE DOMINIONS DID NOT EVEN HAVE ANY REPRESENTATION ON THIS CABINET UNTIL 2 YEARS AFTER GALLIPOLI. Australian Lieutenant General John Monash reported to
BRITISH GENERALS! A BRITISH COMMANDER WAS IN CHARGE OF ANZAC!
Therefore, me categoising ANZAC as British Empire Forces was completely legitimate and the same is done above. Also read below:
"Australia fires its first shot in World War I at Fort Nepean in Victoria. The German merchant ship Pfalz was leaving Port Phillip Bay at 12.10am when news of involvement in the war had just reached the fort. The battery fired shots across its bows forcing the ship to surrender.
This is believed to be the first shots fired in anger by British Empire forces during the war".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1914_in_Australia
BRITISH EMPIRE FORCES.
Then there is the Balfour Convention which also supports what I'm saying if you read my long post that you didn't reply to. Balfour replaced the hierarchical relationship that existed during WW1. Read below which is further confirmation of my argument:
"The Balfour Declaration of 1926 and the subsequent Statute of Westminster, 1931, ended Britain's ability to pass or affect laws outside of its own jurisdiction. Significantly, it was Britain which initiated the change
to complete independence for the Dominions. World War I had left Britain saddled with enormous debts and the Great Depression had further reduced Britain's ability to pay for the defence of its empire. In spite of popular opinions of empires,
the larger Dominions were reluctant to leave the protection of the then-superpower. For example, many Canadians felt that being part of the British Empire was the only thing that had prevented them from being absorbed into the United States."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion#T ... estminster
BALFOUR AND THE SUBSEQUENT TREATY OF WESTMINSTER COMPLETED INDEPENDENCE FOR THE DOMINIONS. THE DOMINIONS WERE UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE EMPIRE. JUST AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. AUSTRALIA WAS NOT FULLY INDEPENDENT IN 1901!
Then there was the quote I posted which showed that dominion in the late 19th century and onwards meant semi-autonomous. It only meant fully independent later.
Here is further confirmation regarding the Constitution of Australia:
"Before the Bill was passed, however, one final change was made by the imperial government, upon lobbying by the Chief Justices of the colonies, so that the right to appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council on constitutional matters concerning the limits of the powers of the Commonwealth or States could not be curtailed by parliament."
THE COLONIES INSURED THAT THEY COULD APPEAL TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS AFTER 1901. AGAIN, THIS IS NOT FULL INDEPENDENCE!
Even further clarification:
"Although Federation is often regarded as the moment of "independence" of Australia from Britain,
legally the Commonwealth was a creation of the British Imperial Parliament, through the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp),
which applied to Australia by paramount force. As a result, there was continued uncertainty as to the applicability of British Imperial laws to the Commonwealth. This was resolved by the Statute of Westminster 1931, adopted by the Commonwealth via the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942.
The Statute of Westminster freed the Dominions, including the Commonwealth, from Imperial restrictions.[3] Legally, this is often regarded as the moment of Australia's national independence.
However, Imperial laws continued to be paramount in Australian states. This was resolved by the Australia Act 1986, which was passed in substantially the same form by the parliaments of Australia, the United Kingdom, and each of the states. In addition to ending the British Parliament's power to legislate over Australian states, the Australia Acts also cut the last avenues of appeal from the Australian courts to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. As a symbol of the significance of this legislation, Queen Elizabeth II travelled to Australia to personally sign the proclamation of the law.
One result of these two laws is that Australia is now a fully independent country, and the text of the Constitution is now regarded as fully separated from the text in the original Act, since only the Australian people can amend the Constitution, by referendum"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonweal ... tution_Act
So basically Paphitis, any argument you have has been utterly defeated. You have switched and swapped your arguments all the way through, and are still arguing now, in order (it seems) to satisfy your desire to have the last word
but all you're doing is showing yourself up more and more.
Australia was part of the British Empire in 1914 and the AIF was a part of the British Empire Forces.
CASE CLOSED.
So I suggest you run along with your tail between your legs.
