Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Battleneter is right in the sense that WW1 and WW2 were not a civil war in the sense that the English Civil War and the American Civil War were civil wars.
However, BigRooter is also correct because increasingly if you read enough books on history and foreign policy, you will see that some people regard the World Wars as European Civil Wars.
When a country sends significant forces over a internationally recognised boarder into another country it is not a civil war, those people are flat out wrong, its not worth discussing. When its multiple countries the concept becomes even more ludicrous in reference to specifically WW2 for simplicity.
You could suggest pre US involvement in WW2 was a "Regional conflict" but you would need to suggest Canada/Australia/NZ were not real countries in 1939 and it was simply Britain recalling her troops from a outpost. Personally I am not going to go there!
However, BigRooter is also correct because increasingly if you read enough books on history and foreign policy, you will see that some people regard the World Wars as European Civil Wars.
To me that seems like looking back at the Europe of 1939-45 and 1914-18 through the lens of Europe 2013. Today there is the Euro, the European Central Bank, European Parliament, and of course the EU and NATO. So in a lot of ways, the borders between the Netherlands and France, for example, are not too dissimilar to the borders between NSW and Qld, Ontario and Quebec, or NH and VT.
But none of those pan European institutions existed at the time of either world war. Europe was a very different place then.
To me that seems like looking back at the Europe of 1939-45 and 1914-18 through the lens of Europe 2013. Today there is the Euro, the European Central Bank, European Parliament, and of course the EU and NATO. So in a lot of ways, the borders between the Netherlands and France, for example, are not too dissimilar to the borders between NSW and Qld, Ontario and Quebec, or NH and VT.
But none of those pan European institutions existed at the time of either world war. Europe was a very different place then.
Which reminds me of the the classic Yes Minister.
Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely? Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We 'had' to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times. Hacker: But surely we're all committed to the European ideal? Sir Humphrey: [chuckles] Really, Minister. Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?
Sir Humphrey: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact; the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes.
Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
Sir Humphrey: Yes... We call it diplomacy, Minister.
Hacker: Europe is a community of nations, dedicated towards one goal. Sir Humphrey: Oh, ha ha ha.
Hacker: May we share the joke, Humphrey?
Sir Humphrey: Oh Minister, let's look at this objectively. It is a game played for national interests, and always was. Why do you suppose we went into it?
Hacker: To strengthen the brotherhood of free Western nations. Sir Humphrey: Oh really. We went in to screw the French by splitting them off from the Germans. Hacker: So why did the French go into it, then?
Sir Humphrey: Well, to protect their inefficient farmers from commercial competition. Hacker: That certainly doesn't apply to the Germans.
Sir Humphrey: No, no. They went in to cleanse themselves of genocide and apply for readmission to the human race.
Hacker: I never heard such appalling cynicism! At least the small nations didn't go into it for selfish reasons.
Sir Humphrey: Oh really? Luxembourg is in it for the perks; the capital of the EEC, all that foreign money pouring in. Hacker: Very sensible central location. Sir Humphrey: With the administration in Brussels and the Parliament in Strasbourg? Minister, it's like having the House of Commons in Swindon and the Civil Service in Kettering!
You could suggest pre US involvement in WW2 was a "Regional conflict" but you would need to suggest Canada/Australia/NZ were not real countries in 1939 and it was simply Britain recalling her troops from a outpost. Personally I am not going to go there!
I don't know about NZ or Canada but Australia's declaration of war sounded remarkably like that...
Quote:
Fellow Australians, It is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war.
I don't know about NZ or Canada but Australia's declaration of war sounded remarkably like that...
Looking back Bob Menzies looked a little like a transplant... I suppose being born before Australia even came into existence coloured his views, or at least his ways of expressing them.
I wonder whether he looked at Australia's Vietnam involvement any differently?
Looking back Bob Menzies looked a little like a transplant... I suppose being born before Australia even came into existence coloured his views, or at least his ways of expressing them.
Wasn't there some talk in Britain at the start of the war, mainly from opponents of Churchill, of installing Menzies as PM of Britain?
So who believes the yanks would have jumped into WW2 if they had not been attacked ? My cynical view is that all those German-Americans who were against the yanks getting involved when Britain was fighting for it's life would have sat on their hands if Australia was invaded by Japan.
I don't know about NZ or Canada but Australia's declaration of war sounded remarkably like that...
"Fellow Australians, It is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war"
For sure, but its venturing into the mainstream US view on WW2 vs the rest of the world. Australia was self governed in 1939 and I am certain would have found a way to not enter the war it it wanted to, but the overwhelming view was to support Britain, NZ is was no different all applies.
There is one "Truly" defining moment in Australian History where it really moved away from Britain and it hasn't even been raised in this thread yet, its economic reason and it occurred in 1973 with effect being felt up to 5 years prior, there was a degree of economic panic. Australia adjusted to this change fairly quickly but any reliance on Britain pretty much ended over night.
A further hint, NZ shares the same defining moment however took significantly longer to adjust.
For sure, but its venturing into the mainstream US view on WW2 vs the rest of the world. Australia was self governed in 1939 and I am certain would have found a way to not enter the war it it wanted to, but the overwhelming view was to support Britain, NZ is was no different all applies.
There is one "Truly" defining moment in Australian History where it really moved away from Britain and it hasn't even been raised in this thread yet, its economic reason and it occurred in 1973 with effect being felt up to 5 years prior, there was a degree of economic panic. Australia adjusted to this change fairly quickly but any reliance on Britain pretty much ended over night.
A further hint, NZ shares the same defining moment however took significantly longer to adjust.
A very Kiwi perspective. Perhaps too Kiwi?
I would argue it was well before 1973 - it was John Curtain's "we turn to America" speech in 1941, as it clearly signalled that Australia no longer saw Britain as a power relevant to its security, or the prime player in its economic future. Sure, commercial ties with the UK continued after that, but by the time the UK joined the European Common Market, Australia's trade had already swung to the Asia Pacific - Japan and the US in particular. By 1973 the Vietnam war was already winding down for Australia after close to 10 years - that conflict was about Australia as an Asia Pacific nation, with no relevance or connection to ties with the UK. Before 1973, defence and security facilities like Pine Gap, North West Cape and Narrungar already linked Aus to the US militarily. By 1973 the Australian car manufacturing industry, for example, was already US and Japanese.
For NZ, being far more heavily dependent on agricultural exports, 1973 probably did mark a change, but Australia's economic and security circumstances were far different.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
