And has him the autority to conduct foreign -militar- politics without the King's approval?
Tojo's Alaskan Alternative
- Thread starter mailinutile2
- Start date
I think there is a language barrier here. Mackenzie King is the Prime Minister, who is answerable to no higher authority on foreign affairs. Tweedsmuir is a figurehead who rubber-stamps whatever the Prime Minister asks. Period.
I thought that, as a Dominion, the government was ultimately answerable to the Crown
The Sandman
Banned
Thought for a geologic POD that could make oil in the Eastern Siberia-Sakhalin-Alaskan region more easily exploitable without completely derailing pre-1900 history: a major earthquake in just the right spot.
If the problem is that the oil in those areas is too deep to be exploited (or in most cases even found) with early 20th century technology, then why not posit an earthquake that cracks open a channel between the oil strata and the surface? I mean, the area is very tectonically active, so it's not like you're asking for a quake where no fault lines exist.
If the problem is that the oil in those areas is too deep to be exploited (or in most cases even found) with early 20th century technology, then why not posit an earthquake that cracks open a channel between the oil strata and the surface? I mean, the area is very tectonically active, so it's not like you're asking for a quake where no fault lines exist.
Thus, what are his limits of action?
Could, e.g., a Canadian PM declare a war without the Crown approval?
And: what levers the Crown has on the Canadian PM?
Can, e.g. the King throw him out of his office?
Could, e.g., a Canadian PM declare a war without the Crown approval?
And: what levers the Crown has on the Canadian PM?
Can, e.g. the King throw him out of his office?
The PM can do whatever he wants as long as it is not contrary to Canadian law. The Crown has no leverage on a Canadian PM, or even much on a British PM for that matter. Canada in 1940 was a fully independent country, the Crown is a formality. That is my final word on this subject.
The Government is answerable.
The general answer is : Leave us alone you shmuck. We'll let you know when we have an Olympics or World Cup you need to open.
Not that I understood much.
Are you saying that the de-facto practice is different from the actual legislation?
Caspian
Banned
He's saying that the Canadian Prime Minister and government has the authority to conduct foreign affairs and declare war on its own, without regard to the King or the British government. Totally independent.
Also, wasn't the basic idea of "Europe first" already decided before the US even entered the war? It was formalized afterwards, of course, but the US and UK had already pretty much decided that Germany was the far bigger threat and had to be dealt with first, if my memory is correct.
Also, wasn't the basic idea of "Europe first" already decided before the US even entered the war? It was formalized afterwards, of course, but the US and UK had already pretty much decided that Germany was the far bigger threat and had to be dealt with first, if my memory is correct.
I agree with caspian: King delayed the war declaration for a week for political reasons, to make that political point exactly, asserting Canadian independence of Britain.
Blair152
Banned
Tojo's Alaskan Adventure
Tojo wanted to secure Japan's northern flank. This reminds me of a post I had on here four years ago called The Aleutians War. In which I postulated a
Soviet invasion of Alaska. Attu had a large Japanese garrison on it and was
wiped out in May 1943 in a suicidal banzai charge. Kiska, the other island in
the Aleutians, was lightly defended. The garrison there was evacuated under
cover of fog OTL. Now what if the Japanese on Attu were able to drive the
ill-prepared U.S. Army troops, (who BTW, were trained for desert warfare),
back into the North Pacific?
Tojo wanted to secure Japan's northern flank. This reminds me of a post I had on here four years ago called The Aleutians War. In which I postulated a
Soviet invasion of Alaska. Attu had a large Japanese garrison on it and was
wiped out in May 1943 in a suicidal banzai charge. Kiska, the other island in
the Aleutians, was lightly defended. The garrison there was evacuated under
cover of fog OTL. Now what if the Japanese on Attu were able to drive the
ill-prepared U.S. Army troops, (who BTW, were trained for desert warfare),
back into the North Pacific?
The Vulture
Banned
This would be an enormous drain on the Japanese. They have very very little to gain and just about everything to lose by getting into a war with Canada and the US (and possibly the Soviet Union).
It's a creative idea, yeah, but a non-starter.
It's a creative idea, yeah, but a non-starter.
Bard32 has returned?
Cook
Banned
No Mailinutile, the Governor General in all of the Dominions was a figurehead with Zero power, England did not have a say in their government or foreign policy.
To give you an example of how this ran, Ireland was a Dominion during World War Two, remained neutral and had an ambassador in Berlin accredited by the King (George VI).
Now this isn’t a big secret, a quick search on the net will find you this information, try steering away from Wikipedia though.
No Mailinutile, the Governor General in all of the Dominions was a figurehead with Zero power, England did not have a say in their government or foreign policy.
To give you an example of how this ran, Ireland was a Dominion during World War Two, remained neutral and had an ambassador in Berlin accredited by the King (George VI).
Now this isn’t a big secret, a quick search on the net will find you this information, try steering away from Wikipedia though.
In most parliamentary states the PM is answerable to an higher authority who does not usually interfere with the ordinary administration, but has a sort of "veto" option on important matters (such as war).
Sometimes it is called King, sometimes it is called President of the Republic, sometimes it is called Supreme Ayatollah
.Thus I thought that there was one in Canada, too (well, not really in Canada, since I thought it to be in Britain for Canada).
On the other hand, if the underlying fact at the time was "we want to demonstrate that We are in Charge Here", I think I understand the situation
Cook
Banned
Not in the Westminster system as applied in Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. There the Prime Minister is the head of the Executive, he is answerable to the Cabinet and then to Parliament.
The Governor General has no say in policy, foreign or domestic.
The Governor General in Australia, and I think same for NZ and Canada although that may have changed, can dismiss the PM and install a caretaker Prime Minister but only under special circumstances and then only to call an immediate election, for example, the Dismissal of the Whitlam Government in 1975.
http://whitlamdismissal.com/
http://www.naa.gov.au/whats-on/online/feature-exhibits/dismissal/index.aspx
Hope this helps.
I know wikipedia is not a reliable source, but from what's written there, it seems that his constitutional powers include the possibility of dissolving parliament, vetoing bills (or also: "allowing the sovereign to personally grant or withhold assent") and "draw from the Privy Council an individual to act as Prime Minister" (which I think it means "design a PM").
There are reports of him (or one of his appointed provincial viceroys) doing so (vetoing bills) until 1961, and the Australian crisys you're pointing at seems to be in the 1975.
Shouldn't that mean that he was able to control also foreign policy in the '40?
There are reports of him (or one of his appointed provincial viceroys) doing so (vetoing bills) until 1961, and the Australian crisys you're pointing at seems to be in the 1975.
Shouldn't that mean that he was able to control also foreign policy in the '40?