Tojo's Alaskan Alternative

Longer than OTL Borneo?
How big is Alaskan garrison?
Woud Canada be involved if Japan do not declare war to the UK?

Yes they would, in concert with the Americans, after the statute of Westminster, the Dominion had complete control of its foreign affairs. The declaration of war on Germany was delayed by a week to underline just that fact. Canada would in consultation with the US declare war on Japan.

One of the primary reasons for giving up the Anglo-Japanese agreement by the UK. Was opposition from Ottawa and Aust/N.Z. because of the increasing concerns in Washington regarding the Japanese. Australia and NZ would no doubt also make that same declaration.
 
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").

With all due respect, but did you even bother reading the wikipedia pages in question or did you just skim over them? Cook has already explained that, while the GG does have all those powers, they can only be used under very exceptional circumstances.

Shouldn't that mean that he was able to control also foreign policy in the '40?

What part of 'The GG has NO say in foreign affairs' do you not understand?
 

maverick

Banned
Just to summarize, Operation Alaska is the military move that makes Sealion look like a sound plan.
 

Cook

Banned
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?

The Governor General’s reserve powers are vast and sweeping as written in the Constitution. In reality they are none. He or she is a powerless figurehead.

The Governor General is not allowed to comment on anything political. This is not in the written constitution it is just accepted fact. We had some trouble with a G-G a few years ago and he was required to retire early; he hadn’t said anything political, he’d just said something staggeringly stupid.

Regarding the Dismissal of the Whitlam Government in ’75, the Governor General did not take a proactive stance, he responded to a deadlock engineered by the political party holding the balance of power in the Australian Senate. All he did was appoint a caretaker Prime Minister (Malcolm Fraser) who administrated the executive until an election could be held at the earliest oportunity. The Government went immediately into caretaker mode so no new legislation could be tabled.

The important thing to remember is that the Governments of Australia, New Zealand (and probably Canada) do not operate as per the written Constitution.

Our written Constitution does not even mention the position of Prime Minister.

Foreign Policy in the 1940s (and in fact from the moment of federation in 1901 for Australia) is squarely the domain of the Cabinet, with the Prime Minister as first among equals, answerable to Parliament.
 

Cook

Banned
For those complaining about Mailinutile2’s questions please be aware that a lot of our practices are hard for an outsider to understand, and procedures can be misunderstood when they are based on our cultures instead of what is written down.

It doesn’t hurt to give a quick explanation.
:)
 
Cook: all us Commonwealthers have explained it as politely as possible and yes, we get exasperated after explaining these things in the simplest possible terms 10 or more times. Either there's a very strong language barrier or he doesn't understand that de facto always prevails over de jure. Example: "primus inter pares" is a bad joke.
 

Cook

Banned
I’m a little bit more patient these days Beaver because my wife’s Filipino so I have a large family of In-Laws that I regularly have to explain various strange Australian political practices to.

It gets worse, try explaining the rules of Cricket, and then Test Cricket sometime.;)

And then there is Aussie Rules Football!
:D
 

maverick

Banned
Now there's a thread about Japan getting an A-bomb in the 1940s.

So what's next?

Japan invading Panama in 1941 or landing at the moon in 1939?
 

Cook

Banned
She didn’t understand why I got pissed off at her when she didn’t want to attend last years’ Anzac Day ceremony where I was in the cenotaph party because it meant getting up early. She’d been here ten years and never attended!

Having seen the size of the crowds she’s now got an idea of the importance.
 
Top