Paphitis you must be winding me up.
You're not giving me any arguments backed by independent sources at all. Plain denials with no links or evidence is not an argument. Anybody can respond saying 'no it wasn't' or 'no it didn't' it doesn't mean shit. You're not even reading my links properly, because you're making the most basic of errors.
Paphitis wrote:
Both the AIF and NZEF were not part of the British Forces. They were autonomous. Both Australia and NZ were independent nations and dominions of the Empire.
Britain did not force us to go to war.
I HAVE STATED SEVERAL TIMES THAT AIF WERE NOT PART OF BRITISH FORCES PER SE. WHY ARE YOU REPEATING SOMETHING THAT I HAVE AGREED WITH SEVERAL TIMES. IT MUST BE BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT TO WHAT I WROTE, AND ARE THEREFORE ARGUING FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE. 
THEY WERE PART OF BRITISH EMPIRE FORCES. YOU HAVE DENIED THEY WERE EMPIRE FORCES SEVERAL TIMES. YET BASIC LOGIC TELLS YOU THEY WHERE.YOU HAVE NOW CONCEDED THAT AUSTRALIA WAS PART OF THE EMPIRE, SO IF THEY WAS PART OF THE EMPIRE, AND THE FORCES IT RAISED (AIF) WERE SPECIFICALLY RAISED FOR BRITAIN AND THE EMPIRE IN WWI, AND ITS FORCES HAVE "IMPERIAL" I.E. EMPIRE IN ITS TITLE, FIGHTING FOR THE BRITISH SOVEREIGN WHO WAS HEAD OF AN EMPIRE, THEN HOW THE HELL WERE THEY NOT EMPIRE FORCES? IT IS NOT EVEN LOGICAL.
"British thrusts at Helles in early May failed to break the Turkish lines. A major Turkish attack on 19 May, which sought to drive the Anzacs back to the beaches, also failed with great loss. At Helles, and all along the Anzac line, the campaign by the end of May had entered a period of stalemate and trench warfare.
This was the very sort of campaign the British Empire forces had sought to avoid at Gallipoli. Overton’s scouting reports from the Anzac outposts suggested a way out of this impasse."
http://www.anzacsite.gov.au/1landing/nbeach3.htmlThis quote is clearly referring to the Forces at Gallipoli as British Empire Forces in this instance.
"Although Anzac Day, the anniversary of the first day of conflict, does not mark a military triumph, it does remind us of a very important episode in New Zealand's history. Great suffering was caused to a small country by the loss of so many of its young men. But the Gallipoli campaign showcased attitudes and attributes - bravery, tenacity, practicality, ingenuity, loyalty to King and comrades - that helped New Zealand define itself as a nation, even as it fought
unquestioningly on the other side of the world in the name of the British Empire." http://www.anzac.govt.nz/significance/index.htmlIF NEW ZEALAND FOUGHT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD IN THE NAME OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE, SO DID AUSTRALIA."
Australian flags were not even issued by the government to schools till 1951.The permitted by the ruling class display and use of the current Australian flag only began to change after the MUTINY in war time against
British imperialist control over our armed forces by Australia ,because of the Japanese threat to Australia.
The colonial blue ensign Australian flag with its British centrepiece so beloved by the labour aristocracy
has inherited the pro imperialist anti working class tradition of the British Empire flag
and demonstrates the historic Australian ruling class lackey subservience. The flag design itself reflects the assigned Australian place in the British colonial Empire at the time the
British made Australian constitution was imposed. A constitution only for those British citizens of "White Australians race" with a British Citizen franchise, a constitutional licence to manage under business licence the Australian land mass as part of the British Empire.
Under the U.K. Crowns direction and direct Governer Generals supervision. Using the new brand name "Australia". With the British flag ,the Union Jack , holding the important dominant in heraldic design pride of place on the flag and the federation star representing the colonies placed deliberately and subserviently directly UNDER the dominant St George Cross of England.
The British Imperialist flag ruled Australia O.K..
Especially in relation to the first world war and the Anzacs .
This was a war fought by British soldiers for the British imperialist Empire who signed on with an oath not to defend Australia, but to serve the British king as "British" citizens . Not as Australians in their own right. . Their army was not called the Australian Infantry Force AIF ,but the Australian IMPERIALIST Force. An AIF fighting under British command and flag for British empire. Even its medals were awarded by permission and certified by the British Imperialists.WW1 oath .
I ..... swear that I will well and
truly serve our Sovereign Lord the King in the Australian Imperial Force from ..... until the end of the War, and a further period of four months thereafter unless sooner lawfully discharged, dismissed, or removed therefrom; and that I will resist His Majesty's enemies and cause His Majesty's peace to be kept and maintained; and that I will in all matters appertaining to my service, faithfully discharge my duty according to law.
So help me God."
http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/image/an ... book-imageTHIS IS ARGUING EXACTLY WHAT I AM.
AND BEFORE YOU START SAYING HE WAS THE KING OF AUSTRALIA - NO HE WASN'T!"
Before 1927, King George V reigned as king in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Irish Free State, South Africa, etc.,
each of these states, in effect, as dominions, amounting to a subset of the United Kingdom. After 1927, he reigned as King of Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa, etc."
"
Whereas before 1927, it was correct in law to talk about the British monarch reigning in the dominions, after 1927, there was technically a King of Australia, etc., even if that title was never used formally..."
IN 1914, THE BRITISH MONARCH STILL REIGNED IN THE DOMINIONS!ANOTHER THING YOU GOT WRONG.
AS AN AUSTRALIAN YOU DON'T SEEM TO KNOW MUCH ABOUT AUSTRALIAN INDEPENDENCE DO YOU?
I also noticed that you have dropped the "fully independent" for just "independent" now.
Does this signify more backtracking? I have always accepted that Australia was self-governing, but fully independent in 1901? No chance.
"There is no doubt that Australia did not gain independence after the proclamation of the Constitution in 1901. Some may argue that it has been obvious since following Britain into both World Wars..."http://www.cheathouse.com/essay/essay_v ... y_id=72537"The establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia is commonly taken as the date of Australia's independence from the United Kingdom,
but matters are more complicated than that. The Constitution provided the Commonwealth with all the powers associated with a sovereign state, including the power to engage in foreign affairs and to raise its own army.
But the United Kingdom still retained the power to engage in foreign affairs on behalf of Australia, and to make laws for it. In the early years Australia continued to be represented by the United Kingdom as part of the British Empire at international conferences.The Constitution provided that the British monarch be represented in Australia by a Governor-General, who was originally appointed on the advice of the British, not the Australian, government, and was generally a British aristocrat. Finally, the Constitution provided that any law of the Australian Parliament could be disallowed within a year by the British monarch (acting on the advice of British ministers), though this power was never in fact exercised.
In summary, the constitutional position of the Commonwealth as a whole in relation to the United Kingdom was, originally, the same as that of the individual colonies before Federation."A fundamental change in the constitutional structures of the British Commonwealth (formerly the British Empire, and not to be confused with the Commonwealth of Australia) did occur, however, in the late 1920s. Under the British Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, which implemented a decision of an earlier Commonwealth conference, the unified Crown that had heretofore been the centre point of the Empire was replaced by multiple crowns worn by a shared monarch.
"The next major constitutional change came about with the pie of the British Parliament known as the
Statute of Westminster of 1931. This was associated with the transformation of the British Empire into the British Commonwealth.
The UK government recognised Australia (and its other dominions, such as Canada and New Zealand) as independent...""However, for various reasons, the Statute of Westminster did not apply to the Australian States (at their own request),
so that they remained, in relation to the United Kingdom, in the position of substantially self-governing colonies...""Final independence was achieved March 3rd, 1986 with the passing of the Australia Act 1986. Independence of Australia from the United Kingdom, rather than occurring as a single event in history, has, in legal terms, been a continuing process. Some of the significant milestones discussed above have been the following:
mid-1800s: acquisition of substantial internal self-government by the colonies
1901: establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia
1927: development of the "shared" monarchy
1931: passing of the Statute of Westminster
1986: passing of the Australia Act "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituti ... _australiaWhilst I accept that by 1986 Australia was practically independent anyway and the Australia Act was just a formality, this was certainly not the case in 1901. And Australia was certainly not fully independent in 1901 either, as I have proved many times with several links and quotes saying exactly what I am. All the above supports exactly what I was saying.
Billy Hughes (the Australian PM) actually said:
"Australia is part of the empire to the full, when the empire is at war so is Australia at war." And this was the beginning of Australia's involvement in WWI.
NOT FULL INDEPENDENCE FROM THE EMPIRE. THEREFORE WHEN AUSTRALIA FOUGHT, ITS FORCES WHERE EMPIRE FORCES BECAUSE THEY WERE IN THE EMPIRE "TO THE FULL" AS THE PM PUT IT."Before 1901 Australia was a collection of separate colonies. Each was part of the British Empire, but they were not formally linked together, other than by being on the same area of land and all being British colonies.
Federation changed that. The Federation process of the 1890s resulted in the creation of a new nation, Australia, by the voluntary joining together of the six separate colonies. Each colony gave up some of its powers to the new national parliament,
though each remained tied to Britain, as did the new Commonwealth of Australia".http://dl.screenaustralia.gov.au/module/1437/"TIED TO BRITAIN". AGAIN NOT FULL INDEPENDENCE. How much more evidence can I give you?
"There had been 50,000 AIF personnel at Gallipoli so the casualty rate was one in two,
a rate twice that of the British empire forces as a whole."
http://www.abc.net.au/federation/fedsto ... ulture.htmThe last part "a rate twice that of British Empire Forces
as a whole" is clearly including Australia as Australia were part of the Empire.
"Instead they met a determined and resourceful opponent. At critical moments Turkish and German commanders took quick and decisive action and
at no time did the British Empire forces manage the breakthrough which they so desperately sought."http://www.anzacdaytoursturkey.com/Again, a reference to British Empire Forces, which obviously includes Australia as Australia was part of the Empire as you admitted.
"This was Australia’s contribution to the various armed forces provided by the member nations of the British Empire." (ALL OF WHICH OBVIOUSLY CAN BE CLASSED AS BRITISH EMPIRE FORCES AS THEY WERE PART OF THE EMPIRE. IT IS COMMON SENSE PAPHITIS!)http://www.reffell.org.uk/heroes/ww1ausarmyindex.php"The British declaration of war on Germany and its allies
also committed the colonies and Dominions, which provided invaluable military, financial and material support."
http://wapedia.mobi/en/British_Empire?t=5.#5.
BRITISH DECLARATION OF WAR COMMITTED THE DOMINIONS."The name Australian Imperial Force was chosen by its first commander, Brigadier General W. T. Bridges, as representing its
dual Australian and Imperial mission." http://www.unsw.adfa.edu.au/~rmallett/JUST AS I WAS STATING. THEY WERE AUSTRALIAN FIGHTING FOR THE EMPIRE AND AUSTRALIA DUE TO ITS POSITION IN THE EMPIRE.
THERE WAS AN IMPERIAL MISSION. BRIDGES WAS BORN IN BRITAIN HIMSELF AND
HIS ALLEGIANCE WAS TO THE EMPIRE.
"Australia became a
self-governing dominion of the British Empire in 1901. Although the federal government
was appointed by a British governor, the two-tier parliament was elected by adult suffrage."
Self-governing, not fully independent, just as I said all along.
Simon wrote:
Quote:
"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.
Paphitis wrote:
The forces were not British Empire Forces, and any links from wikipedia that state this are absolute junk.
This is not what they teach at RMC, and frankly, the ADF would be offended to say the least.
How can you say that they were not Empire Forces when Australia was part of the Empire and the AIF stands for Australian IMPERIAL Forces. 'Imperial' means association with an Empire. Unless Australia had their own separate Empire which the world did not hear of
they were British Empire Forces that were Australian. It is simple logic. I have provided various sources that refer to "British Empire Forces". If the AIF were not British Empire Forces, whose Empire were they a part of? Because Australia was part of the British Empire, you admitted that yourself. So they must have been fighting for some other Imperial force then and hence they were not Australian!
I think you can understand the irony.
I don't know what RMC tell you, but if you ask anybody who has basic knowledge of this subject, they will tell you that whilst ANZAC where distinct from the British themselves, they made up the British EMPIRE Forces along with other territories of the British Empire. It's just obvious Paphitis because Australia was part of the British Empire. I'm just stating something I thought was self-explanatory.
You can only attack the link because you can't disprove the argument. I couldn't give a shit whether ADF would be offended or not, facts are facts. In any event, I think the ADF would fully understand what I'm saying, it is you that has misunderstood history.
Paphitis wrote:
Quote:
They were fighting for the Commonwealth of Australia.
Simon wrote:
Quote:
I never said they didn't belong to Australia, but in World War I, as Australian Forces, they were fighting for the Empire they were a part of:
Paphitis wrote:
No they were not.
They were fought and died for The Commonwealth of Australia and no matter what, no one can take this away from them.
They fought for the Empire and Australia, which was part of the Empire. They were Imperial Forces that were recruited for the British Empire voluntarily. Your own PM said at the time they were fighting for the Empire. Are you telling me that you today are telling the Australian Prime Minister alive at the time what AIF were fighting for?
Simon wrote:
Quote:
"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".
Paphitis wrote:
Just because our Prime Minister at the time was a royalist bozo and had grand illusions and hallucinations of the mighty empire and "motherfucker" England, does not change the fact that the AIF were Australian Forces fighting a war at the command of the then Prime Minister. They were not "Empire Forces".
It is nothing to do with being a "Royalist bozo", Australia was part of the British Empire and therefore had a responsibility to support it. He doesn't mention the King. They were Empire Forces because Australia was part of the Empire! Basic logic mate! And they were under the command of the British! We have already established this. Do you want me to post the proof again? Ignoring the facts and repeating lies don't make the facts go away.
"In these the early stages of the war, there was no particular worry about home defence and
Australians believed the 2nd AIF (Australian Imperial Force) would be deployed in exactly the same manner as the 1st AIF in World War 1: that is as Great Britain saw fit."http://worldatwar.net/article/australiaswar/index.htmlSimon wrote:
Quote:
"...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...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
Paphitis wrote:
As a sovereign nation, Australia decided and agreed to declare war on Germany and send troops to the other side of the world and fight. This was a sovereign decision on Australia's part, hence the Australian nation being at war for the first time and the "coming of age".
Over 60,000 AIF troops were KIA fighting for their country and not motherfucker England.
Australia was not a sovereign nation. Its Federation was under the British Crown. Britain had rights to act on behalf of Australia (and it did in the early years) and it could make laws for Australia. Australia simply followed Britain's foreign policy decisions. Further, Australia did not declare war. Britain declared war on behalf of its Empire, and Australia was automatically at war. Australia was very enthusiastic about it, hence it raised a volunteer force, the Australian IMPERIAL Force.
You put
"AGREEMENT" in large letters in your post regarding my link above, and yet it goes entirely against your argument.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN ABOUT YOU NOT PROPERLY READING, NOR FULLY UNDERSTANDING, MY LINKS. Read it again, it states that
INDEPENDENT DECISION MAKING REQUIRES AGREEMENT TO BECOME INVOLVED IN THE WAR - NONE OF WHICH APPLIED!!!!THIS SUPPORTS MY VARIOUS OTHER LINKS WHICH STATE THAT AUSTRALIA WAS AUTOMATICALLY DRAWN INTO THE WAR."In 1914, the White Dominion countries of the British Empire were officially an integral part of the 'British Nation' and such were automatically drawn into any outbreak of hostilities once the British Sovereign declared war. Therefore, in the tension charged months before the declaration of war on Germany by the British, it was quite expected that the British Government should receive firm commitments from the Dominion governments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand that they would support the Home Country in the event of war with Germany." http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/ ... m-gen.htmlAUTOMATICALLY DRAWN INTO THE WAR! "Following Britain's declaration of war on Germany on 4 August 1914, Australia and the other members of the British Empire
became automatically involved, with Prime Minister Joseph Cook stating on 5 August 1914 that "...when the Empire is at war, so also is Australia.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_h ... orld_War_IBECAME AUTOMATICALLY INVOLVED!AND YOU WANT TO TELL ME THIS WAS INDEPENDENCE AND THAT THEY WEREN'T FIGHTING FOR THE EMPIRE??? "Why was Australia involved in world war I?...Although the Australian Government had achieved federation in 1901 over what the constitution called ‘external affairs’, this had been taken to mean only relationships between Australia and Britain.
In 1914 when Britain declared war, it did so on behalf of the whole empire."http://www.parle.co.uk/genealogy/australia-ww1.htm"Britain's fears of war with Germany were realised in 1914 with the outbreak of the First World War.
The British declaration of war on Germany and its allies also committed the colonies and Dominions, which provided invaluable military, financial and material support. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Em ... .931945.29"
As Australia is still part of the British Empire, our loyalty was pressured into joining the war and fighting for what they most respected at the time. Even though WW1 began after federation, Australia still showed immense loyalty to Britain and
some still considered Britain as their home. When
Britain declared war in ‘1914' it declared war on behalf of the entire British Empire, and that included Australia."
http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Why-Did- ... Ww1/112530AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE FORCES OF AUSTRALIA WOULD HAVE HELPED MADE UP THE BRITISH EMPIRE FORCES. Paphitis wrote:
Quote:
I never denied that the Commonwealth of Australia was a dominion of the Empire. But it was sovereign and with its own Crown.
Simon wrote:
Quote:
You originally denied that Australia was part of the Empire. More than once. I've already provided proof. I can post it again if you like, here it is:
Paphitis wrote:
No I haven't.
Australia was part of the Empire as a Dominion, but was not subordinate to Britain. The Australian Government decided on its own accord to declare war on Germany and send troops to Europe and your links confirm this.
No you haven't? I've just provided your own quotes which do specifically deny Australia was part of the Empire in 1901. This kind of stupid denial in the face of a clear fact has typified your "arguments" throughout this entire debate. Here it is again:
Paphitis wrote:
Quote:
Australia achieved Federation in 1901.
And the Commonwealth has as much relevance as the EU. Cyprus is not part of the Empire since 1960, and Australia since 1901.
Here again:
Paphitis wrote:
Quote:
No, Australia was not part of the British Empire.
Federation occurred in 1901
Australia was under the British Crown. War was declared by Britain on behalf of its Empire which included Australia. This is what my links confirm to anyone who can read.
Simon wrote:
Quote:
You also later said Australia were only part of the Empire ceremonially, i.e. not really. Yet, it can be clearly seen from the events of WWI amongst other things, that there was nothing ceremonial about Australian's involvement in the Empire.
Paphitis wrote:
Australia was a Dominion, and as such was only expected to enter the war. It was not obliged to do so. The AIF was never part of the Empire Forces and should never be categorised as such, and you have not provided any link that that suggest that the AIF were not independent of the Empire.
The AIF were not forces of the Empire. It was the Commonwealth's Military Force, just like the ADF are today. The Commonwealth was a Dominion, with its own Prime Minister.
Australia was at war as soon as the Empire was. My several links prove this, and your own Prime Minister said it! What Australia was
expected to do was offer troops. Which it did. It is practically impossible to force anybody to fight, unless you threaten them with violence, which Britain was obviously not going to do. It didn't need to, Australia was only too happy to fulfil its role. Australia was automatically at war as a part of the Empire.
The AIF were
IMPERIAL Forces and hence were part of the
IMPERIAL FORCES you dumb ass!
Paphitis wrote:
Quote:
The British War Cabinet had no such authority.
The Australian Prime Minister was always the supreme authority over the AIF, not Britain.
Simon wrote:
Quote:
Yes they did!
"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
Paphitis wrote:
The AIF was only under operational control of the British War Cabinet at Galipoli.
The AIF were at the disposal of the British War Cabinet and later the Imperial War Cabinet the whole war. My link above confirms this. (It also refers to 'British Empire Forces'
) Provide a link stating otherwise! You're just making this up as you go along.
Paphitis wrote:
However, as your wikipedia link indicates, the Australian and Canadian Governments exercised their control over their respective military by removing personell as they saw fit. In fact, both Australia and Canada could have told the "Empire" to get fucked and not enter the war and there is nothing Britain could do about that.
They were in charge of lesser admin duties, i.e. recruiting. Big deal. What do you expect? The British weren't going to do Australia's recruiting.
It had enough to do. All the major operational and strategic decisions were taken by the British. Canada and Australia automatically entered the war when Britain did. I have provided several links supporting this. If Australia would have told Britain to "fuck off" then this would probably have led to a severing of ties with the Empire and then Australia would have been fully independent (unless Britain decided to re-occupy Australia for strategic reasons). But this did not happen. Enough of your wishful thinking.
Paphitis wrote:
From 1917, all Australian and Canadian Forces were under their own command.
Yes, for the first time. The war had been going on 3 years by then. This is when the Dominions finally got some representation on the War Cabinet. They still had to report to
British Generals, I noticed you left that part out.
I also noticed that with several of my links, you picked out the bits that you like, and ignore the rest. You can't rely on the link where you think it supports you, and disregard the rest.
You really have been poor in this debate Paphitis. What about the rest which states that Australia had no independent foreign policy?
Simon wrote:
If the British War Cabinet did not have the authority, why was it superceded by the Imperial War Cabinet which gave the Dominions representation. It wouldn't have needed to if what you're claiming is true. The Imperial War Cabinet (formerly the British War Cabinet) was clearly in charge of Imperial Forces! I.E. AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCES!
Paphitis wrote:
The British War Cabinet was allowed to have this authority by the Australian Prime Minister. Australia and Canada were not obliged to enter the war to begin with.
The Imperial War Cabinet never had any supreme authority over Australian Forces. The authority was granted, and the Imperial War Cabinet had Australian and Canadian representation supporting this notion that Britain, Australia and Canada were militarily coequal.
The Australians swore allegiance to the British Sovereign, which is effectively the British Government. Yes, Australia's Prime Minister agreed to the sending of troops, but Australia was part of the Empire, unless he was going to renounce the Empire, he didn't have much of a choice. And he wasn't going to do that for two reasons, 1) At that time, the Australians were fiercely patriotic towards Britain and wanted to defend her, (indeed, many still regarded themselves as 'British' and Britain as the 'motherland') and 2) Australia was fearful of no longer being under the protection of the British Empire, which was then a world superpower.
The Imperial War Cabinet only had Dominion representation in 1917, well after Gallipoli. Australia was clearly subordinate, because how can it have no say over what happens to its own troops until this far into the war! Various other proofs that I have posted, including Balfour amongst others things, also indicate prior Australian subservience to Britain.
Simon wrote:
Quote:
HERE IS MORE IRREFUTABLE POST THAT SILLY ONE LINE DENIALS CAN'T TOUCH!
"In 1914, the White Dominion countries of the British Empire were officially an integral part of the 'British Nation' and such were automatically drawn into any outbreak of hostilities once the British Sovereign declared war. Therefore, in the tension charged months before the declaration of war on Germany by the British, it was quite expected that the British Government should receive firm commitments from the Dominion governments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand that they would support the Home Country in the event of war with Germany."
Paphitis wrote:
It was only expected that Britain would receive firm commitments. It was never obligatory as all 3 nations were independent.
The key word above is EXPECTED!
It was expected because Australia was part of the Empire and not independent, therefore, it was at war itself. If Australia refused to send troops, it would have created problems as I stated above. However, it fulfilled all expectations, followed Britain's lead throughout, and was not independent.
Simon wrote:
Quote:
PRECISELY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. IT WAS EXPECTED THAT THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT WOULD RECEIVE FIRM COMMITMENTS FROM ITS DOMINIONS. OFFICIALLY AN INTEGRAL PART OF 'BRITISH NATION' IT STATES ABOVE, THAT EVEN SURPRISED ME!
Paphitis wrote:
It was EXPECTED but not obligatory.
This support everything I have been saying - that Australia, Canada and NZ were independent with their own sovereign military. All 3 nations went to war because they wanted to, and not because of the Empire or Britain.
Like I stated earlier, it is very difficult to force a self-governing nation to send troops. Who knows what would have happened if Australia did refuse? Perhaps Britain would have repealed the Australian Constitution Act, which only applied to Australia by paramount force at the time, as my link above stated. It was British law. Further evidence that Australia was not fully independent. Perhaps Britain would have occupied Australia for strategic reasons? Perhaps Britain would have accepted it and excluded Australia from the Empire? Australia would not have wanted to risk this as it only had a small Army. It is all academic anyway. Australia and Canada were automatically at war because they were not fully independent, and provided troops as expected because they loved being a part of Britain's Empire
.
Simon wrote:
Quote:
"Australia's Regular Army was very small, but it was backed by a militia of volunteers that totalled 45,000. There was also a universal commitment for periodic military training in a Citizen's Army. Like Canada it was decided to create an entirely separate volunteer force - The Australian Imperial Force (AIF) - for imperial service overseas."
http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/ ... m-gen.html More irrefutable proof of what I was saying. THE AIF WERE CREATED AS AN IMPERIAL FORCE OVERSEAS. AND YOU'RE SAYING THEY WEREN'T EMPIRE FORCES?!
Paphitis wrote:
The AIF was created as an Australian Imperial Force. Australia was independent with its own Imperial Crown and decided to declare war on Germany. We did not have to do this.
OK, so if they were Australian Empire Forces, and Australia itself did not have an Empire, but was a part of the British one, whose Empire did AIF belong to?
I have provided proof that actually Australia was automatically at war when the Empire was, and that it did not share the Crown in 1914. Australia was not fully independent. See my links above, together with various links from previous posts also reiterating the same point.
Paphitis wrote:
It was only a formality because of the strong links at the time with the Crown and Britain. If this was not the case, as it is not today, then Australia would not have declared War at all, and Australian troops would not have gone to Galipoli and there was nothing Britain could do about it. You need to grasp this concept.
It was a formality that Australia would send troops. If something is a formality with no independent thinking (which Australia clearly didn't have) then that is not independence. You have already admitted that Australia was legally a part of the Empire, and its actions prove that it clearly wasn't independent from it. So does all the evidence.
Paphitis:
Quote:
The AIF went to War as a sovereign nation and were under British Command within the theatre just like The British Army was under Australian Command in Timor.
Simon wrote:
Timor is a poor example. AIF were imperial forces, fighting for the Empire on behalf of Australia. Timor bears no relevance.
Paphitis wrote:
Yes it does because it is the same thing.
Australian Forces were only placed under British command at the bequest of The Australian Government.
Just like British Forces were placed under Australian Command in Timor at the bequest of the British Prime Minister.
This is completely different. British troops were in East Timor as part of a UN peacekeeping mission. They are there as UN troops. Nothing to do with Australia. Further, Britain is not under an Australian sovereign, Britain is not part of an Australian Empire, Britain was not automatically at war, Britain made its mind up independently, 20% of the British forces were not born in Australia, the British Prime Minister did not say all our resources are for the preservation of Australia, Australia does not have rights to interfere in British affairs, Britain decides what happens to its troops (Australia wasn't even represented for most of the War) etc etc. Completely different. Silly comparison.
Simon wrote:
Quote:
The thing about the 200,000 Australians in Britain, whether they are temporary or not is irrelevant, they decide to come and live in Britain. Many end up staying for a long time. Many Brits go to Australia just to travel and for the weather.
Paphitis wrote:
And how does this compare to over a million Brits coming to live in Australia?
Well considering Australia is only 21.8million and Britain is over 61million, I think it's not that disproportionate. Especially considering Australia has much better weather. Plus the British have a history of populating Australia.
Paphitis wrote:
Fact is, the 200,000 Aussies that go to Britain do so as a working holiday, but the Brits that come to Australia want permanency.
If the Australian Government decided to allow all Brits permanent residency in Australia, there would be so much chaos in London and just about everyone would be lining up outside of the Australian Consulate....
If Britain is as bad as you're making out, why come at all? There are plenty of other countries for a "working holiday". Face it, Britain is quite popular for Australians, despite the weather. Australia is very popular for Brits too. Why wouldn't it be? English speaking, shared culture and history, great weather and beaches and a good standard of living. Many Brits just go backpacking around Australia, they stay there for a few months and leave. Not all want permanency.
Paphitis wrote:
BTW, you are delusional to even suggest that England has a chance of winning back The Ashes...
I wouldn't count my chickens just yet. Freddie is back.
