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 desperate to get the last word in.
Paphitis wrote:
And so you shouldn't because your incompetence killed them in their thousands.
The ADF will never forget your sheer stupidity and arrogance.
So your now admitting that I didn't? So stop accusing me of it then and bringing it up every post!
Simon wrote:
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!
Paphitis wrote:
How can you say that when we had our own Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister?
Just because back then, the majority of Aussies were Monarchists and wanted to support the Empire does not mean Australia was not independent. We didn't even have to go to war if we didn't want to, so thank your lucky stars we did, because you got to see real men fight you cowards....
Monarchists? Those quotes never mentioned the Queen. They were talking about defending Britain and the Empire! Having your own Ministers proves nothing. History shows that Australia blindly followed Britain because it wasn't independent from the Empire, and its forces were expected to follow and fight for Britain. This is what they did and history doesn't lie. The decision was a formality and wasn't even questioned. The independent quote I gave you states this clearly. I don't think you are in any position to call British Forces cowards. That is extremely disrespectful to those that have sacrificed their lives. You really are a low life Paphitis. You're having a tough time coming to terms with the truth. Give it time and you may accept it.
Simon wrote:
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.
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!
Paphitis wrote:
First of all, your level of comprehension is very suspect.
How is it very suspect? Are you going to tell me the quote does not state what I have spelled out above for you? Which part is wrong? Or are you just going to post silly one line denials with no arguments?
Paphitis wrote:
Australia did not join Britain in the war.
Of course it did! Britain declared war, and Australia joined Britain by declaring war itself! It then gave its Forces over to be used by the Empire! Under British command, directed by the British War Cabinet. What a stupid comment!
Paphitis wrote:
Australia declared war on Germany and went to war as a nation with its own Military Force.
As part of the Empire Forces, under British Empire command, under the direction of the British War Cabinet, taking directions from BRITAIN all the way!
Go to sleep Paphitis. You're clueless. You either act completely stupid by denying the plain obvious, or you simply are very stupid.
Simon wrote:
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
Paphitis wrote:
If you go back, I'm the one that mention this and Britain refused to get involved because it did not have the Authority to interfere within the Commonwealth. Western Australia approached Britain in order to undermine The Commonwealth and secede. Western Australia was a former British Colony that approached Britain because The Commonwealth was not allowing the secession to take place.
Yes thanks for bringing it up, you shot yourself in the foot there!
You denied they even went to Britain for help! Britain did have the authority to get involved. The British Parliament was still the Imperial one as the quote states above. They refused to because they didn't support secession. The Colonies (before the Constitution was agreed) requested the right to be able to petition Britain on Constitutional matters. If Britain didn't have the right to do anything, they wouldn't have been able to petition in the first place.
Simon wrote:
Australia did not have an independent foreign policy:
Paphitis wrote:
Yes it did!
Another one line contradiction with no evidence to support it. You haven't even addressed the points in that quote that I gave you. Australia blindly followed Britain with no questions, nor did you have any representation on the War Cabinet. You were not even involved in the major strategic planning of your own Forces for the most part.
And you're trying to tell me you had an independent foreign policy? You blindly followed Britain and everyone knows it! Paphitis:
And in WW2, Australia was far closer with the US than Britain. We were fighting alongside the Yanks throughout the Pacific.
In fact, the Yanks were committed to defending Australia whilst many of our troops were still in Europe.
Irrelevant. You have no arguments about what we are debating, so you talk about something completely different.
Just shut up Paphitis. Yeah, they were in Europe defending Britain. Simon wrote:
"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. Australian Lieutenant General John Monash reported to BRITISH GENERALS! A BRITISH COMMANDER WAS IN CHARGE OF ANZAC!
Therefore, me categorising ANZAC as British Empire Forces was completely legitimate and the same is done above.
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.
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.
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
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.
Paphitis wrote:
The AIF were not British Forces and can't be categorised so.
If you keep insisting with this mentality then I will categorise the British Military in Timor as ADF.
Face up to the facts Simon...The ADF is superior, our soldiers are better, our Officers are better....and yes...at the ADF....we respect Turkish Officers more than the British because they at the very least could be deemed as rather normal human beings, whereas your officers are just mere wankers...
After everything I stated above, this is the best you could come up with? Not addressing my arguments at all, nor providing proof contradicting anything I've said. Because you can't! You're just repeating your debunked arguments (if they can be called that).
AIF were a part of the British Empire Forces as I've said a million times and provided proof for it, whilst you've provided nothing. The clue is 'Imperial' i.e. Empire.
The rest about Australian troops being superior etc is irrelevant and not even worthy of a serious response.
The evidence in my posts have been completely ignored by you. It is because you have nothing to say.
Here is confirmation which you may have missed:
"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 STATUTE 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!
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 IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT WAS DECIDING WHAT WOULD BE IN YOUR OWN CONSTITUTION! HOW IS THAT PROPER INDEPENDENCE? THE COLONIES ENSURED 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] [size=24]Legally, this is often regarded as the moment of Australia's national independence. [/size]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonweal ... tution_Act
I have proved my point beyond all doubt Paphitis so any more silly one line rebuttals will simply be ignored.
