It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If Britain Is Involved In A Major Conflict Do We Still Have Full Support of The Commonweath?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Major conflict like China, say Britain was at war with China would the rest of the Commonwealth country's stand by our side?

reason why i ask is because i know commonwealth nations are no longer part of the British Empire but our Queen is still their Queen too:-

(example) en.wikipedia.org...

am i right in saying Australia’s first military objective is to protect the queen too, afterall their all ships are called HMS and ‘Royal' Navy/Airforce etc.

so if Britain was in a major conflict, am I right in saying the Queens existence would also be under threat in that case are we guaranteed support of Commonwealth nations?



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Not sure about all the commonwealth, I am an American living in New Zealand, and from my 3 years here, I can tell you, Kiwis in general are still pretty upset about the whole Galipolli thing.

I think they feel like they were sacrificed ,and history tells us for the most part they were, while British troops were held in reserve.

I tend to think they would defend the crown, but under their terms and leadership.

Also, and I know it will rile some, but as an American , I can tell you without hesitation, the United States would come to your aid, loaded for bear!!!



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Do you know that more then twice as many British died there then did ANZACs?

appx 10,000 dead ANZAC vs about 27,000 dead British. Granted given the overall population of Australia and NZ in 1915 it was a very high percentage of the overall military and population but people tend to forget that the ANZACs were only a very small part of the force that was sent to Gallipoli. The French, British and the rest of the British Empire sent more men and lost more men then the ANZACs.



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   
No I did not know that, and thanks!

Like I said as an American living in NZ I hear what the New Zealanders have to say on the matter...so I only get one frame of reference.

In the U.S. we ARE taught about Gallipoli and the Dardanelles campaign (surprise, surprise)...but obviously becuase of our lessened involvement in WW1...we are only taught the highlights...

here in NZ, it is spoken of in the hushed and reverant tones used for religion and funerals...still a very sore point for one of the dominions.



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I don't think there are many significant military powers left in the British Commonwealth. Australia is one, Canada is a marginal one. I have no doubt Australia would come to your aid, but I'm not sure about Canada or the others.

The United States, not a member of the commonwealth but still a former British colony, would almost certainly come to your aid and likely be your strongest ally.



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   
The resentment doesn't end with Gallipoli. In Australia remember how many diggers became POWs after Singapore fell. I would say that if Britain was under direct attack commonwealth countries would come to her aid. But other wise due to the political shift caused by the US coming to the aid of Aust and NZ it is more likely that Aust and NZ would join larger coalition efforts lead by the US.




top topics
 
0

log in

join