During WWI Australia was part of the Empire. You were a subsidiary of Britain.
We were a quasi-independent, self-governing nation under the rule of the British Monarch. You'll note we have changed very few laws since then, yet now exercise far more control over our own affairs. That's because we
chose to do so, not because we were granted the right. We began exercising control over our foreign affairs long before it became legal for us to do so.
Yes, after the Statute of Westminster things were entirely different. The Dominions became partners, rather than subsidiaries. And WWI caused a major push away from Britain in many parts of the Empire.
Your laws said that Britain handled your foreign policy, you try to deal with a major country they would laugh in your face and call up London. And if Britain wanted to they could turn you back into a colony.
We began to handle our own foreign policy before we were legally granted the right. In fact, our first embassy was in Tokyo, and Japan
did talk to us, without calling up London. We had consulates in Jakarta and Manila as well, from memory. Also Singapore and Hong Kong, but they're not particularly important, considering they were British anyway.
Britain turn us back into a colony? We already were one - still are - and do you really think Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, et al. would just stand by and allow that? You don't think it would cause outrage throughout the empire if Britain sent a military force to stop us exercising our own foreign affairs?
Things aren't as simple as you make them out to be.
Of course things aren't simple, it's a very complex situation, and I'm looking at it through hindsight. Other people did think as I do at the time, but they weren't in positions of power, and most of them were considered radicals, whackjobs, etc. But there is one simple fact: Australia could have exercised control over its own foreign affairs anytime it wanted. It did in part anyway, such as inviting the Great White Fleet to Sydney in 1904 (year right?). We chose not to. I believe that was a mistake.
I don't care about you, I recognize that some people opposed the war and, especially, serving overseas. Times were completely different though, and without being put into that situation I don't believe you can honestly say, with certainty, what you would have done.
Of course I can't say with all certainty. That's a horsecrap argument. You can't say to someone; 'if you were born a peasant women in fourteenth century France, you would act like a peasant women in fourteenth century France.' If you add the proviso; 'with at least a background generally similar to that which you have now,' which I've provided with the talk about my family, then it changes things somewhat.
My family never supported the war, so it's highly unlikely that, in the same situation, I would. Especially if my personality were similar, with Asperghers and my childhood health problems and all that. Assuming said childhood health problems didn't outright kill me, but that's unlikely. They were never major. I might be unable to father children though.
Seriously, you're comparing our brave Tommies, Poilus and Diggers to the SS? Really?
He's not. You brought up duty, both those groups felt they were doing their duty. That's the only point of confluence between them, and he and I have both said as much.
If you can't then you're either very, very naive, or yo're a "rawr, look how lefty ands angsty and cool I am, and watch me hold my comfortable white middle class liberal pseudo-socialist ideas and appear morally better than you".
You know, I know that it's not your own personal outlook, but that's absolutely hilarious coming from a guy named
nonconformist.
Oh, and by the way, yeah, there are some members of the Waffen SS who do deserve to be commemorated, again as misguided people, but as damned decnt soldiers, who gave it all for the wrong cause.
Estonians spring to mind immediately.
Its not a "guilt trip". You choose tro see it as a guilkt trip to better justify your position.
It's merely a day to remember the dead.
I'm sorry to say it, but over here it
is used as a guilt trip. How can you do that when men died for you? How can you be a pacifist if men died for you? How can you disagree with any decision, however small, if men died for you? I hear it all the time, both from the media and the general public, not to mention politicians.
I'd just like to say, that I'm pretty incandescent that two people tryigng to act all impassive and angsty and rebellious and such have managed to turn a thread about remembering those who fell in the line of action, to comparing them to the SS perpetrating the Holocaust.
For shame.
You're the only one who's done that nc, with your talk about "duty." The SS analogy, while Godwinning the thread, is an apt one when talking about "duty." They felt they were doing their "duty." It's the only point of confluence, as I said, but it still is one, and it's one you generated with your mention of "duty." I used the SS as an example to point out how stupid that "duty" argument was. Cami and I have been trying to get away from it, but you keep bringing the conversation back around to it.
I'd ask to any mod that this thread be split into two, one about people who have the decency to want to commemorate the day, and one where other can whine about exactly why the Tommies of WWI were morally worse than the SS gassing Jews at Auschwitz.
Because that's exactly what everyone is doing.
Who's creating the strawman now?
