2007-01-19 12:04:16 · 9 answers · asked by Jona 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
They were part of the British Commonwealth, Britain was in the war so they had to be.
2007-01-19 12:08:42 · answer #1 · answered by October 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I don't disagree with any of the other answerer's but would just like to add Australia gained the German Colony of New Guinea out of the First World War so I guess that was the pay off for sending an entire generation of men to be slaughtered.
2007-01-19 16:10:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Korean conflict became a protection stress conflict between the Republic of Korea, supported via the United international locations, and the Democratic human beings's Republic of Korea. The United international locations desperate to deliver a stress to shelter South Korea, composed of contingents from 15 international locations which incorporate Australia, Britain, u . s . a ., Canada, Turkey, Greece, Colombia, New Zealand, The Philippines, France, The Netherlands, South Africa and Luxembourg, and scientific contraptions from Denmark, India, Italy, Norway and Sweden.
2016-12-14 06:32:56 · answer #3 · answered by lonsdale 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whilst many Australian born "colonials" tended to republicanism by then, the dominant culture still saw Oz as a colonial entity within the British Empire, potentially under the protection of Great Britain in issues of trade and defence. Most children's books were published in England, projecting an Anglo world view with snow at Xmas etc - so we lived upside down in the Antipodes, bodies in Oz, minds in the Northern Hemisphere (so what has changed?). People who hadn't visited Britain in two or three generations still spoke of "the old country", and of England as "home". We had even sent troops comparatively recently to fight the Boers in South Africa. So Oz went to war on Britain's call, out of loyalty as much as ideas of fighting for liberty etc and similar propaganda. For many however the WW1 experience shook the slavish adherence to Britain somewhat, and WW11 experience, especially Singapore, combined with the subsequent economic and power decline of Britain thereafter, shook the ties even more deeply though still not entirely. So Oz shifted (along with Britain but more so) to the USA apron strings, with the results you doubtless know such as Vietnam and Iraq. Some of us never learn, or learn only at great cost, it seems. It's difficult for Australians, and their politicians, to think for themselves, with their heads in their own land and its region. That's now compounded by 25pc of us being born overseas, and "multiculturism" with a whole new stew of homesicknesses and religious and ethnic affiliations. Poor fellow my country!
2007-01-19 12:30:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because they were part of the British Empire. The moment England went to war, so did they. The same was true of Canada, South Africa and India.
2007-01-19 12:35:48 · answer #5 · answered by balderarrow 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In solidarity, because they belonged to the "British Commonwealth of Nations".
The same happened in II World War.
2007-01-19 14:10:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sensitive issue for Aussies. Winston churchil abandoned them in Greek Dardenelles. ( 17,000) soldiers slaughtered while Winston managed to keep his reputation clean. Typicial.
2007-01-19 13:43:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In1939 our Prime Minister said "Britain is at war therefore we are at war". It was the vibe in 1939, and it was the vibe in 1914.
2007-01-19 12:40:23 · answer #8 · answered by iansand 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Cos if we had waited for the Americans to come and help we'd all be goose stepping by now.
2007-01-19 12:23:53 · answer #9 · answered by Lilliana 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋