the 'brittish' forces (a WW1,2 thread)

why are the allied countries in the commonwealth refered to as "Brittish" then they werent?

the only real reason the countries joined the first and second world wars and the korean war was becasue they felt it was just to (leaving aside the alliance with american for the korean war)
not because england sed tally ho old chums come on over to our private war jolly good show old boy.

and i am pretty sure the "commonwealth" forces won heaps of victories in WW2 and were essential during WW1 and in both cases if they werent there the poms (a name i object to) would have gone ass over tits before the cowboys ever got down of the fence, stopped suppling the enemy and joined in. they deserved to be recognised

also there were 3 countries who were instrumental in holding back the western front and even pushing it back further (with token aid from america) into germany to win the war

and lawrence of arabia never cleared out jewresalem (sp?) and it definatly wasnt the english who did it

(some guy told me to post that from irc)

[Nondescript Human]

Well they were part of the British empire.

(Edit: some were then, such as our possessions in eastern Africa and the Indian subcontinent).

NO they werent

that ended a long time ago buddy

they were allied in the commonwealth nothing more

and they had more deaths per person involved
and they had more soldiers per person back home
AND they were all volenteers

actually i wonder if wars could operate these days if all armies had to be volenteers

wat normal chick/guy would volenteer to go kill someone unless it was in defence of own country

[Bloomers III]

actually during WW1 most of these countries were still part of the British Empire and could be referred to as British forces because they were controlled by Britain.

Not so sure about WW2, maybe it makes it easier than naming all those african countries nobody knows the names of, and that big island down south where people talk funny and have barbeques, nto sure what that's called either. full of convicts last time i heard.

well i know of a few countries that werent part of empire and had right to choose

they entered cause they wanted to defend england

not that they get recognition

[W]

Originally posted by Dark_Crystal
NO they werent

that ended a long time ago buddy

they were allied in the commonwealth nothing more

and they had more deaths per person involved
and they had more soldiers per person back home
AND they were all volenteers

actually i wonder if wars could operate these days if all armies had to be volenteers

wat normal chick/guy would volenteer to go kill someone unless it was in defence of own country

In all wars, all sides warring fight the war out of self defence.

[Bloomers III]

Originally posted by Dark_Crystal
not that they get recognition

That's life babes. Even though we were taught about commonwealth countries involvement and how important it was. so i don't know what you're basing your argument on.

Originally posted by Bloomers III


That's life babes. Even though we were taught about commonwealth countries involvement and how important it was. so i don't know what you're basing your argument on.

nevertheless this thread was intended to be one about a hypothetical Question

1. how would the UK have gone without assistance from commonwealth countries
2. what were the main powers along the western front and what would have happened to eng/frn if they werent in the war

[Bloomers III]

the tank won world war 1. the russian winter won world war 2.

I'm sure commonwealth involvement was vital, but I think the Allied forces would ahve won if they were not involved, just not as easily.

[Nondescript Human]

Originally posted by Bloomers III
the tank won world war 1. the russian winter won world war 2.

Good joke.
Nice to see how informed the general public are on such matters these days.

Originally posted by Bloomers III
I'm sure commonwealth involvement was vital, but I think the Allied forces would ahve won if they were not involved, just not as easily.

correct me if i am wrong which being GD iw ill probably be corrected if i am right and evenhave my spelling corrected, but
doesnt Vital mean needed else would have died?

and not to put to fine a point on it if you could have won the war without them would they not merely be considered helpful?

america was helpfull too. and calling any other country anything else other then fence sitters and vital forces (considering they declared war on Germany even faster than france did) would be calling them americans. it is a dreadful insult

Originally posted by Dark_Crystal
actually i wonder if wars could operate these days if all armies had to be volenteers

I suspect with careful propaganda certain countries could easily amass an army by making it a 'religious' war. And look at the current system in the UK. It is recruitment only, yet we easily have a decent sized standing army, alot of which sit at home and play with the missle controls via remote :p

The days of needing conscription cos u need troops to die in a bunker ended when the first guided missile came along. You dont even need pilots these days...

You dont need a large army of people willing to die for you to have a war. You need a large number of technicians and alot of resources.

then why do so many countries employ ground troops

Originally posted by Dark_Crystal
then why do so many countries employ ground troops

Probably cos u cant just flatten an entire country with missiles. Lo Afganistahn(sp?)

afghanistan & its (sp?) not (sp)

and i pray for the day when Vermillion enters in here to correct all you fools, in the mean time:

lawrence of arabia was a sham he claimed to have taken Jewresalem (sp?)
when in fact it was the australian light horse who did it

as far as this webby has told me they were responcible for the destrustion of the beersheeba line and rommel

The empire was still very much alive during the firsy world war. The wars were largely part of the break up of the empire.

i know of 3 commonwealth countries who had federation by then

and were not bound by anyone to join any war empire or no
aus
nz
can

and yet they fought

so whats ur point about the empire again?

Originally posted by Dark_Crystal
i know of 3 commonwealth countries who had federation by then

and were not bound by anyone to join any war empire or no
aus
nz
can

and yet they fought

so whats ur point about the empire again?

that a good chunk of the non-western planet was a part of it ?

Originally posted by Dark_Crystal
afghanistan & its (sp?) not (sp)

and i pray for the day when Vermillion enters in here to correct all you fools, in the mean time:

lawrence of arabia was a sham he claimed to have taken Jewresalem (sp?)
when in fact it was the australian light horse who did it

as far as this webby has told me they were responcible for the destrustion of the beersheeba line and rommel

so your history was learned from films ?

have you read the thread?

Originally posted by Bloomers III
the tank won world war 1. the russian winter won world war 2.

tanks? in world war 1? you must be kidding.
they were near-useless.
machine guns and mustard gas, man.

Originally posted by Dark_Crystal
i know of 3 commonwealth countries who had federation by then

and were not bound by anyone to join any war empire or no
aus
nz
can

and yet they fought

look at a map. aus and nz happened to be fairly threatened by another little island empire - Japan.
they had reason to join the fight.

this is the way war was declared in WW2
Germany on poland
England on Germany
Australia on germany
NZ on Germany
France on Germany

and at that time there was no reason to join the war, the japanese werent attacking australian areas

[kyrealean]

World War 2 may have officially started when Germany invaded Poland but it had been building up for a long time before that, when Germany defied the WW I treaty and began to rearm and rebuild her military, sending troops and material to the Rhineland ( a direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles) then taking over Austria/Hungary/the Czechs/Romania/Bulgaria and other nations, while Britain and France stood by and watched..... not wanting to really do anything as neither were ready for another war, so they bid their time while Hitler continued to annex nation after nation.

When they saw that Hitler had no intentions of stopping, they hastily began mobilizing and drew the line at Poland. If she was invaded they would declare war and do whatever it took to defeat Germany. In the meantime Germany solidified her position by allying herself with Italy and Japan, while negotiating a non-agression pact with Russia, effectively bringing safety to 3 sides and allowing Germany to bring her full military might onto her western borders.

When war broke out, Britain called on all of her territories and former holdings to support the Allies in the war effort, hence the reason Australia, NZ, Canada and other countries were involved.

Australia was never called upon
nor was NZ

as soon as they heard about it over bbc the PM at the time in both countries made the declaration of war

[Apothos]

Who is that takes the 'credit' for the Gulf War? The US.
Why? 'Cos they were incharge, so to speak.

The British were giving out orders to other Commonwealth countries, so they 'got the credit' for the victories.

WW1 - The British Empire and Dominions Declared war on Germany - hence England, Scotland,Wales and Ireland (all of it) were at war, as the Empire declared war, India, Canada,Australia, New Zealand,South Africa, lots of other african countries, most of the West Indies etc etc were also automatcally at war - In the terminology of the time troops were either refered to as "British" (meaning any of the home nations) "English" / "Scottish"/ "Indian" etc (meaning specifically those nations) or "Imperial Troops" where there was a mixture

WW2 - Great Britain declared war on Germany - that meant England, Scotland,Wales, Northern Ireland and (I think) India + smaller Emperial nations were at war.

Australia Cananda and New Zealand being Dominions declared war almost immediately from then on
troops were either called "allied" (covers any non axis troops),
vert rarley "Imperial" (covering any troops from the British Sphere of influence but usually including Indian troops)

Frequently "Commonwealth" (meaning home nations and/or Anzacs/Canuks/South African)

Korean war was not an Imperial War - it was a UN / US sponsored war and troops were either "British" / "Commonwealth" or "United Nations" troops

Originally posted by Hardrada
WW1 - The British Empire and Dominions Declared war on Germany - hence England, Scotland,Wales and Ireland (all of it) were at war, as the Empire declared war, India, Canada,Australia, New Zealand,South Africa, lots of other african countries, most of the West Indies etc etc were also automatcally at war - In the terminology of the time troops were either refered to as "British" (meaning any of the home nations) "English" / "Scottish"/ "Indian" etc (meaning specifically those nations) or "Imperial Troops" where there was a mixture

WW2 - Great Britain declared war on Germany - that meant England, Scotland,Wales, Northern Ireland and (I think) India + smaller Emperial nations were at war.

Australia Cananda and New Zealand being Dominions declared war almost immediately from then on
troops were either called "allied" (covers any non axis troops),
vert rarley "Imperial" (covering any troops from the British Sphere of influence but usually including Indian troops)

Frequently "Commonwealth" (meaning home nations and/or Anzacs/Canuks/South African)

Korean war was not an Imperial War - it was a UN / US sponsored war and troops were either "British" / "Commonwealth" or "United Nations" troops

i was having fun with that :P meanie

anyway. thanx for pointing that out nevertheless by that stage a few of the little countries were nations in their own right
australia and new zealand sent in "AUS. IMP Forces & NZ. IMP Forces" respectively

it was 4 weeks into the war that they became ANZACs and no longer a part of the british army although they were commanded by english troops in much the same way US troops were in the very begining.

my point though is i m wondering how the eng/frnc forces would have held out without Can and ANZAC troops
i doubt they could have done much without them

esp as the eng tommy was under paid and under moraled

[Bloomers III]

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
Good joke.
Nice to see how informed the general public are on such matters these days.

it was a 'generalisation' to show that how other factors led to success. I'm far cleverer than the general public

[Nondescript Human]

Originally posted by nothingman
mustard gas, man.

No no.

And his question was not why they fought but why they were referred to as 'British', which it has now been established that they were most often not.

[inf]

I have often seen British and Commonwealth troops refered to seperately, what is the problem?

I want Vermillion.

[Tzencath]

IN the world wars, the empire still existed, so they had to go fight

british forces are those from the isles, commonwealth are those from the rest of the flippin world.

i say we re-establish the empire, nuke the french, and rule the world (again)

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Dark_Crystal
well i know of a few countries that werent part of empire and had right to choose

they entered cause they wanted to defend england

not that they get recognition

Didn't you answer your own thread at this point?