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.
ooowl that's not going to be very popular with the Aussies :P, they like to believe NZ is somehow more British, not sure how myself, but its not really a insult so meh!
Actually the people in colonial Australia regarded themselves not as British Subjects but rather as Victorians, South Australians etc but the people in Whitehall didn't. What actually mattered was what happened on the ground in these colonies (pre Independence in 1901). This was common in many colonies, and was true of Pre AWOI America. If you were to ask a person in Virginia in 1750, they would regard themselves as Virginian. The British lost a war with their colonies across the Atlantic against a bunch of farmers and townsfolk, and realized in the early 18th Century they would not have a chance were they to do the same on the other side of the world, so the Australians benefited from de facto independence very early in their history. They received "responsible government" almost immediately, having their own legislatures in their pre - Independence states long before they federated, and their Governors were very independent from Whitehall as it would take 3 - 6 months for any "orders" to reach Australia from Whitehall. In 1901, when Australia became Independent, there is no greater indication that they could do what they like than the fact that, in the Boer War, England sought the new nation's assistance, and paid handsomely for each soldier that Australia contributed to that campaign on a per diem basis. In WWI and WWII, unlike in England, when Australia decided to contribute to England's Civil Wars in Europe, there was no conscription, and Australia decided to help voluntarily, although had something like a defense treaty with England, which at the time it probably benefited from, although in fact, it was obvious by the early 1940s that when England decided to side with Stalin, who had murdered 30 million of his own people against Hitler, who wanted to protect his country from Communism, and gave the Polish Nationalist Generals a blank check against Hitler, promising to protect Poland instead of allowing Hitler a "Danzig Corridor" of rail and road access to Danzig, traditionally a "German city", Australia's view changed when it faced it's own local conflict with the IJA/IJN, and it told Churchill that it would no longer contribute to the European Civil War there to the same extent, in respect of which in fact England could not protect Poland as it had promised, a country that was to suffer defeat and the iron boot of a dictatorship for a subsequent 45 + years. However, it still contributed efforts to helping England all throughout the war, but was by no means obliged to except morally. Without Australia's help, or that of Canada, NZ or America, England would have starved and / or been defeated - within the space of a few months. It had sufficient food and materials for approximately 1-3 months without these nations' assistance, and remains in the economically dire situation it was in then even today, (and actually was in during WWI also - a century of penury evident in the "slums of London" even today). This was the wakeup call to England, which had in many respects hoped that the Australians would continue to help, that the Australians were not interested in helping England fight its European Civil Wars, The Australians have had an independent nation since 1901, and their foreign policy shows this, as does their culture. However, in England, there is a phenomenon of regarding the Australians and Canadians and even the US as their "product", even after independence, (also evident here with the opinions of some British people) to slake the public's appetite for pride and good feelings, but the de facto reality is that Australians and NZers were not British subjects after 1901 / Independence, and the average Victorian, New South Wales-person or South Australian in the year 1850 regarded themselves as a person of these places, and not a subject of anyone. They had their own parliaments and local executive branches of government and actually Independence would have come sooner had they all come to agreement sooner about the Federal compact, or constitution, but they had debates and actually even had founding fathers much like the US did. It is fascinating to see British people here posting these subjects, as it shows a sense of pride in what these people did in these places, but if you had asked a British immigrant to say Victoria, Australia in the 1850s who he was, he would reply "I am a Victorian", and would not regard himself as British at all. That would also be because many immigrants came from the US, Canada, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and many countries in Continental Europe including Russia, France, Prussia, Austro-Hungary, Holland and other nations - also Asian countries. It was a settler nation, like the New Zealanders had. The trend evident here in WWII continued in 1956 when the Australians, like the US, told Britain to take a hike when it wanted to invade Egypt and do exactly what the Soviets were doing in Hungary at the time, at which Australia's diplomatic efforts were being effected to aid the Hungarians. This video shows what happened in the 1940s, and if you go back 30 years before this, many Australians in WWI questioned the idea of fighting England's Civil War with its German cousins, and like the US participants, thought it to be a rather stupid war, which it was given that it could not be resolved diplomatically when the kings of these countries were in fact cousins.
Webster Tarpley: Britain's Silent War against the US in the Asia-Pacific. - YouTube
It is fascinating to have British people posting here apparently with some great pride, as it shows that English people need to rely on the success of others to make themselves feel better, when in fact the latter would see little or no connection at all between their success and something that happened 100 or 200 years ago. In fact, the British coming to the US often do the same, and feel that the US came from them entire, when in fact, like the Australians and the NZers, that was the case only 200 years ago, and not at all the case today.
Success has a thousand fathers, as they say, and if you are a modern country like Britain with real social problems such as austerity and poverty that it is suffering (and has suffered for over 100 years, largely because of its failings in diplomacy with Germany and consequent wars), then you will look to these old historical facts in a different light, so have some sympathy for their views that somehow these people were "subjects" when in fact they were independent "citizens". People are also colored by their own circumstances, and in modern Britain today people regard themselves as subjects, not citizens, and so probably regard everyone else as suffering the same plight when in fact, they do not. This video shows the British "diplomacy" of the 20th Century, and shows another reason why the Australians had their own foreign policy from 1901, to get away from the Euro-centric view that Britain had and which never had any relevance in their colonies or after Independence. Pat Buchanan On Antiwar Radio Part 1 of 5 - YouTube
I think there is a different way to look at the question.
As pointed out in a linked Wikipedia entry, the concept of what it meant to be a "British subject" changed a lot over time. Even Indian citizens after it became a republic, were considered "British subjects" under Aus citizenship laws post 1947. So the concept seems to have become a rather quaint legal artefact long before is was finally erased from the last pieces of dated legislation.
So, perhaps a more debatable question might be: when did Australians really become Australian?
Actually the people in colonial Australia regarded themselves not as British Subjects but rather as Victorians, South Australians etc but the people in Whitehall didn't. What actually mattered was what happened on the ground in these colonies (pre Independence in 1901). This was common in many colonies, and was true of Pre AWOI America. If you were to ask a person in Virginia in 1750, they would regard themselves as Virginian. The British lost a war with their colonies across the Atlantic against a bunch of farmers and townsfolk, and realized in the early 18th Century they would not have a chance were they to do the same on the other side of the world, so the Australians benefited from de facto independence very early in their history. They received "responsible government" almost immediately, having their own legislatures in their pre - Independence states long before they federated, and their Governors were very independent from Whitehall as it would take 3 - 6 months for any "orders" to reach Australia from Whitehall. In 1901, when Australia became Independent, there is no greater indication that they could do what they like than the fact that, in the Boer War, England sought the new nation's assistance, and paid handsomely for each soldier that Australia contributed to that campaign on a per diem basis. In WWI and WWII, unlike in England, when Australia decided to contribute to England's Civil Wars in Europe, there was no conscription, and Australia decided to help voluntarily, although had something like a defense treaty with England, which at the time it probably benefited from, although in fact, it was obvious by the early 1940s that when England decided to side with Stalin, who had murdered 30 million of his own people against Hitler, who wanted to protect his country from Communism, and gave the Polish Nationalist Generals a blank check against Hitler, promising to protect Poland instead of allowing Hitler a "Danzig Corridor" of rail and road access to Danzig, traditionally a "German city", Australia's view changed when it faced it's own local conflict with the IJA/IJN, and it told Churchill that it would no longer contribute to the European Civil War there to the same extent, in respect of which in fact England could not protect Poland as it had promised, a country that was to suffer defeat and the iron boot of a dictatorship for a subsequent 45 + years. However, it still contributed efforts to helping England all throughout the war, but was by no means obliged to except morally. Without Australia's help, or that of Canada, NZ or America, England would have starved and / or been defeated - within the space of a few months. It had sufficient food and materials for approximately 1-3 months without these nations' assistance, and remains in the economically dire situation it was in then even today, (and actually was in during WWI also - a century of penury evident in the "slums of London" even today). This was the wakeup call to England, which had in many respects hoped that the Australians would continue to help, that the Australians were not interested in helping England fight its European Civil Wars, The Australians have had an independent nation since 1901, and their foreign policy shows this, as does their culture. However, in England, there is a phenomenon of regarding the Australians and Canadians and even the US as their "product", even after independence, (also evident here with the opinions of some British people) to slake the public's appetite for pride and good feelings, but the de facto reality is that Australians and NZers were not British subjects after 1901 / Independence, and the average Victorian, New South Wales-person or South Australian in the year 1850 regarded themselves as a person of these places, and not a subject of anyone. They had their own parliaments and local executive branches of government and actually Independence would have come sooner had they all come to agreement sooner about the Federal compact, or constitution, but they had debates and actually even had founding fathers much like the US did. It is fascinating to see British people here posting these subjects, as it shows a sense of pride in what these people did in these places, but if you had asked a British immigrant to say Victoria, Australia in the 1850s who he was, he would reply "I am a Victorian", and would not regard himself as British at all. That would also be because many immigrants came from the US, Canada, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and many countries in Continental Europe including Russia, France, Prussia, Austro-Hungary, Holland and other nations - also Asian countries. It was a settler nation, like the New Zealanders had. The trend evident here in WWII continued in 1956 when the Australians, like the US, told Britain to take a hike when it wanted to invade Egypt and do exactly what the Soviets were doing in Hungary at the time, at which Australia's diplomatic efforts were being effected to aid the Hungarians. This video shows what happened in the 1940s, and if you go back 30 years before this, many Australians in WWI questioned the idea of fighting England's Civil War with its German cousins, and like the US participants, thought it to be a rather stupid war, which it was given that it could not be resolved diplomatically when the kings of these countries were in fact cousins.
Webster Tarpley: Britain's Silent War against the US in the Asia-Pacific. - YouTube
It is fascinating to have British people posting here apparently with some great pride, as it shows that English people need to rely on the success of others to make themselves feel better, when in fact the latter would see little or no connection at all between their success and something that happened 100 or 200 years ago. In fact, the British coming to the US often do the same, and feel that the US came from them entire, when in fact, like the Australians and the NZers, that was the case only 200 years ago, and not at all the case today.
Success has a thousand fathers, as they say, and if you are a modern country like Britain with real social problems such as austerity and poverty that it is suffering (and has suffered for over 100 years, largely because of its failings in diplomacy with Germany and consequent wars), then you will look to these old historical facts in a different light, so have some sympathy for their views that somehow these people were "subjects" when in fact they were independent "citizens". People are also colored by their own circumstances, and in modern Britain today people regard themselves as subjects, not citizens, and so probably regard everyone else as suffering the same plight when in fact, they do not. This video shows the British "diplomacy" of the 20th Century, and shows another reason why the Australians had their own foreign policy from 1901, to get away from the Euro-centric view that Britain had and which never had any relevance in their colonies or after Independence. Pat Buchanan On Antiwar Radio Part 1 of 5 - YouTube
Another pointless rant at the pom's....this is how i see it Aussie's like to claim the POM'S think themselves special...the realitiy is it is the aussie's how really think they are the special one's at least when they were winning at sport ,those days are gone,and your [australia's] attitude has become at best embarrassing at worst down right pretencious........To continualy bring up the wars like you were the only ones affected is stupidity......We won wars without you before and after, your contibution was infantry soldiers you were an infantry army...........tell me what was the industrial contribution of Australia in eithier ww war do you really believe your "historians"when they tell you that the [170.000 ] "aussie won ww1"dispite the 1.5 million British 2.0 million French or 1.8 million Americans ,your country has an issue with myth try reading craig stocking.Take a look where ever your army's went they turned up in their proverbial socks and pants [ie no aircraft,tanks,artillery,logitics ect] and as for claiming other peoples credit it is you who's tendancy is to think WHAT IS YOURS IS YOURS AND WHAT IS OURS IS ALSO YOURS,...like it or not the pom's built your country from top to bottom and by the way is it yours or is it Aboriginal land?....and do you really think we would care less if you became a republic?
Actually the people in colonial Australia regarded themselves not as British Subjects but rather as Victorians, South Australians etc but the people in Whitehall didn't. What actually mattered was what happened on the ground in these colonies (pre Independence in 1901). This was common in many colonies, and was true of Pre AWOI America. If you were to ask a person in Virginia in 1750, they would regard themselves as Virginian. The British lost a war with their colonies across the Atlantic against a bunch of farmers and townsfolk, and realized in the early 18th Century they would not have a chance were they to do the same on the other side of the world, so the Australians benefited from de facto independence very early in their history. They received "responsible government" almost immediately, having their own legislatures in their pre - Independence states long before they federated, and their Governors were very independent from Whitehall as it would take 3 - 6 months for any "orders" to reach Australia from Whitehall. In 1901, when Australia became Independent, there is no greater indication that they could do what they like than the fact that, in the Boer War, England sought the new nation's assistance, and paid handsomely for each soldier that Australia contributed to that campaign on a per diem basis. In WWI and WWII, unlike in England, when Australia decided to contribute to England's Civil Wars in Europe, there was no conscription, and Australia decided to help voluntarily, although had something like a defense treaty with England, which at the time it probably benefited from, although in fact, it was obvious by the early 1940s that when England decided to side with Stalin, who had murdered 30 million of his own people against Hitler, who wanted to protect his country from Communism, and gave the Polish Nationalist Generals a blank check against Hitler, promising to protect Poland instead of allowing Hitler a "Danzig Corridor" of rail and road access to Danzig, traditionally a "German city", Australia's view changed when it faced it's own local conflict with the IJA/IJN, and it told Churchill that it would no longer contribute to the European Civil War there to the same extent, in respect of which in fact England could not protect Poland as it had promised, a country that was to suffer defeat and the iron boot of a dictatorship for a subsequent 45 + years. However, it still contributed efforts to helping England all throughout the war, but was by no means obliged to except morally. Without Australia's help, or that of Canada, NZ or America, England would have starved and / or been defeated - within the space of a few months. It had sufficient food and materials for approximately 1-3 months without these nations' assistance, and remains in the economically dire situation it was in then even today, (and actually was in during WWI also - a century of penury evident in the "slums of London" even today). This was the wakeup call to England, which had in many respects hoped that the Australians would continue to help, that the Australians were not interested in helping England fight its European Civil Wars, The Australians have had an independent nation since 1901, and their foreign policy shows this, as does their culture. However, in England, there is a phenomenon of regarding the Australians and Canadians and even the US as their "product", even after independence, (also evident here with the opinions of some British people) to slake the public's appetite for pride and good feelings, but the de facto reality is that Australians and NZers were not British subjects after 1901 / Independence, and the average Victorian, New South Wales-person or South Australian in the year 1850 regarded themselves as a person of these places, and not a subject of anyone. They had their own parliaments and local executive branches of government and actually Independence would have come sooner had they all come to agreement sooner about the Federal compact, or constitution, but they had debates and actually even had founding fathers much like the US did. It is fascinating to see British people here posting these subjects, as it shows a sense of pride in what these people did in these places, but if you had asked a British immigrant to say Victoria, Australia in the 1850s who he was, he would reply "I am a Victorian", and would not regard himself as British at all. That would also be because many immigrants came from the US, Canada, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and many countries in Continental Europe including Russia, France, Prussia, Austro-Hungary, Holland and other nations - also Asian countries. It was a settler nation, like the New Zealanders had. The trend evident here in WWII continued in 1956 when the Australians, like the US, told Britain to take a hike when it wanted to invade Egypt and do exactly what the Soviets were doing in Hungary at the time, at which Australia's diplomatic efforts were being effected to aid the Hungarians. This video shows what happened in the 1940s, and if you go back 30 years before this, many Australians in WWI questioned the idea of fighting England's Civil War with its German cousins, and like the US participants, thought it to be a rather stupid war, which it was given that it could not be resolved diplomatically when the kings of these countries were in fact cousins.
Webster Tarpley: Britain's Silent War against the US in the Asia-Pacific. - YouTube
It is fascinating to have British people posting here apparently with some great pride, as it shows that English people need to rely on the success of others to make themselves feel better, when in fact the latter would see little or no connection at all between their success and something that happened 100 or 200 years ago. In fact, the British coming to the US often do the same, and feel that the US came from them entire, when in fact, like the Australians and the NZers, that was the case only 200 years ago, and not at all the case today.
Success has a thousand fathers, as they say, and if you are a modern country like Britain with real social problems such as austerity and poverty that it is suffering (and has suffered for over 100 years, largely because of its failings in diplomacy with Germany and consequent wars), then you will look to these old historical facts in a different light, so have some sympathy for their views that somehow these people were "subjects" when in fact they were independent "citizens". People are also colored by their own circumstances, and in modern Britain today people regard themselves as subjects, not citizens, and so probably regard everyone else as suffering the same plight when in fact, they do not. This video shows the British "diplomacy" of the 20th Century, and shows another reason why the Australians had their own foreign policy from 1901, to get away from the Euro-centric view that Britain had and which never had any relevance in their colonies or after Independence. Pat Buchanan On Antiwar Radio Part 1 of 5 - YouTube
you also say Australia told Britain to" take a hike"reguarding the suez crisis tell me do you for a second believe we paid any attention to you ....the tale is once again wagging the dog...and they way the WARS are being manipulated by the repuplican movement is akin to brain washing i'am talking about how the orrible poms pushed you into the wars and seemingly deserted you.....and it is modern Australia who has decided the nationality of Australians up to the 1960's because wheather you accept it or not Australians before then considered themselves as British subjects[with the obvious exeption of irish nationalist's]..and it has become a convienient way to divide and rule [in other words it's us[aussies] against the nasty pom's.].......... and on the subject of problems in Britain i read aussie papers every day and your issues are pretty much the same so don't pretend Australia is a kind of utopia.......do us [the poms] a favour get a knew flag and vote out YOUR majesty
Last edited by spider32; 08-07-2013 at 09:43 AM..
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.
