WI - Canada refused to fight in the First World War?

Yes, I know this is kind of ASB, but I was still curious; what if Canada refused to fight in World War One? Obviously there will not be many combat differences, American soldiers fill in the gaps and the Allies still win.

What I'm curious about are the politics. How does the United Kingdom react and deal with this? How do other British areas such as India, Australia and Newfoundland react?

[Again, yes this would never happen, but let's just question what if it did]
 
It depends what you mean by 'refused to fight' legally speaking Canada was at war as soon as Britain declared war. If the government tried to violate that then it is the responsibility of the Governor General to keep the government from violating the constitution.

If the Canadian government was disinclined to send ground troops overseas it could do that, although it certainly could not stop the large numbers of volunteers who would be assembled as in the South African War.
 
It depends what you mean by 'refused to fight' legally speaking Canada was at war as soon as Britain declared war. If the government tried to violate that then it is the responsibility of the Governor General to keep the government from violating the constitution.

If the Canadian government was disinclined to send ground troops overseas it could do that, although it certainly could not stop the large numbers of volunteers who would be assembled as in the South African War.

Okay, so they're allowed to refuse to send troops, but let's explore further. What if the Prime Minister did decide to violate this?
 
Although you recognize it's totally implausible, maybe if we take this in small slices we can get a better sense of things.

For instance, I don't think it's impossible in the same way -- though it is unlikely -- that in 1914, instead of declaring itself automatically at war alongside Britain, Canada insisted upon drafting its own articles of war. This would have been equally "rebellious" for monarchists who insist that when Britain was at war we were at war, but it would have been a procedural step that I think the British would have somewhat grumpily accepted. After all, with the lights going out in Europe, this was hardly the time to busy themselves with some irritating paperwork. I don't think the Conservatives would have done this, but maybe the Liberals would have depending on how the politics play out in an altered timeline. Think of it as an extension of Laurier's naval policy.

I also think it's not impossible, but again extremely unlikely, that Canada would be nominally at war but simply not do anything to fight, as in Threadnecromancer's scenario. This would probably be done to appeal to the same nationalist base in Quebec as my first option and again would stop short of open defiance.

The reality is that British-style constitutions are notoriously fuzzy and I'm a little bit uncertain either that the Crown would order the Governor General to fire the prime minister for not joining the war, or that the Governor General would agree to follow this order rather than resign. Indeed, if the monarchist crowd is correct, then technically the prime minister could be fired for either of the above two scenarios too, if the Crown wishes.

But the overarching reason why Canada joined unhesitatingly in 1914 was because the government needed the votes of British-Canadians and British-Canadian voters would not have tolerated anything else. Because of this, as you correctly point out, it really is a bit of an ASB scenario.
 
The reality is that British-style constitutions are notoriously fuzzy and I'm a little bit uncertain either that the Crown would order the Governor General to fire the prime minister for not joining the war, or that the Governor General would agree to follow this order rather than resign. Indeed, if the monarchist crowd is correct, then technically the prime minister could be fired for either of the above two scenarios too, if the Crown wishes.

Wait, the Prime Minster Could be fired? Don't his people vote for him? What's to stop them from refusing to acknowledge this?
 
Wait, the Prime Minster Could be fired? Don't his people vote for him? What's to stop them from refusing to acknowledge this?
The Crown (specifically the Governor General) appoints the Prime Minister.

The 'people' don't vote for a PM, they vote for a member of parliament. The prime minister is supposed to be whomever the governor general believes to have the confidence of the most members of parliament (and does not have to be a member of parliament).
 
The Crown (specifically the Governor General) appoints the Prime Minister.

The 'people' don't vote for a PM, they vote for a member of parliament. The prime minister is supposed to be whomever the governor general believes to have the confidence of the most members of parliament (and does not have to be a member of parliament).

SO basically all that would happen is the PM would be fired and Canada would be forced to do it anyways?
 
For perspective.

Canada deployed both regular force and volunteer units in the boer war by the way

620.000 Canadians enlisted and 440,000 served overseas

A full army was maintained from 1917 on and was one of the primary assault formations of the last year. Approximately 2/3 of the men who survived vimy ridge in April 1917 became casualties

Brigade and division formations before that served under British command. Only two men apparently survived of the princess Patricia's regiment raised in 1914 without injury

So the discussion becomes if the us commits forces when and the casualty rates of those forces would be significantly higher. I'd think we're getting into severe ASB material to have the us in the early years alone let alone to the levels involved. By 1917 the situation has changed a lot
 
Okay, so they're allowed to refuse to send troops, but let's explore further. What if the Prime Minister did decide to violate this?

Let's go back to first principles here.

Technically the prime minister serves at the pleasure of the governor general and the governor general is appointed by the king/queen, so again, technically, in your scenario the king and the governor general could decide that Canada was violating its constitutional relationship to Britain when it refused to join the war and therefore fire the prime minister.

However, they would then be required to either appoint a new prime minister they believed had the support of Parliament, or call an election. If the next prime minister similarly refused orders, we'd be back where we started.

I suppose that the alternative would be to refer the matter to court. In that event, I really have no idea how the courts would rule. At least according to the political process, Canada did not have independence over its foreign policy until 1931, but the constitution is vague enough that the court system might not agree with that.

The reality is that whether the British preferred to address this via the courts or via the governor general, the last thing they would want to do in the middle of Europe falling apart was devote precious Cabinet time to considering a wayward colony. I think they would have had little choice but to accept that Canada would not be part of the war effort.

Again, though, especially outside of Quebec public opinion was clearly in favour of joining the war in 1914, so there really would have been no political incentive for the government to take this step even if they wanted to, which so far as I know, they didn't.

The situation was somewhat different in 1939 because in 1931 Britain agreed that the dominions could have independent foreign policies. In 1939, Mackenzie King still would have been well within his prerogative as the prime minister to declare that because Britain was at war, Canada was at war.

Edit: I should also mention that if the problem is simply a prime minister who "goes rogue" by refusing to join the war, on his own and without his party backing him, they can simply remove him from power and choose a successor to become prime minister. Ironically, Canada doesn't hold its presidents in anything like the awe that Americans seem to their presidents. Ours are eminently more disposable, and a prime minister who announced in 1914 that Canada was severing its ties to the British Empire probably would not last out the week.
 
Last edited:
Let's go back to first principles here.

Technically the prime minister serves at the pleasure of the governor general and the governor general is appointed by the king/queen, so again, technically, in your scenario the king and the governor general could decide that Canada was violating its constitutional relationship to Britain when it refused to join the war and therefore fire the prime minister.

However, they would then be required to either appoint a new prime minister they believed had the support of Parliament, or call an election. If the next prime minister similarly refused orders, we'd be back where we started.

I suppose that the alternative would be to refer the matter to court. In that event, I really have no idea how the courts would rule. At least according to the political process, Canada did not have independence over its foreign policy until 1931, but the constitution is vague enough that the court system might not agree with that.

The reality is that whether the British preferred to address this via the courts or via the governor general, the last thing they would want to do in the middle of Europe falling apart was devote precious Cabinet time to considering a wayward colony. I think they would have had little choice but to accept that Canada would not be part of the war effort.

Again, though, especially outside of Quebec public opinion was clearly in favour of joining the war in 1914, so there really would have been no political incentive for the government to take this step even if they wanted to, which so far as I know, they didn't.

The situation was somewhat different in 1939 because in 1931 Britain agreed that the dominions could have independent foreign policies. In 1939, Mackenzie King still would have been well within his prerogative as the prime minister to declare that because Britain was at war, Canada was at war.

Edit: I should also mention that if the problem is simply a prime minister who "goes rogue" by refusing to join the war, on his own and without his party backing him, they can simply remove him from power and choose a successor to become prime minister. Ironically, Canada doesn't hold its presidents in anything like the awe that Americans seem to their presidents. Ours are eminently more disposable, and a prime minister who announced in 1914 that Canada was severing its ties to the British Empire probably would not last out the week.


It should be kept in mind that the court which would be deciding these matters was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (in England). I can't see them ruling against Britain in this moment of crisis. Also I think given London's many concerns at the time I can't see the largest dominion declaring neutrality being deemed remotely acceptable. This has far too obvious risks in other areas (South Africa, Ireland) to be allowed to occur. It would throw London in a panic.
 
It should be kept in mind that the court which would be deciding these matters was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (in England). I can't see them ruling against Britain in this moment of crisis. Also I think given London's many concerns at the time I can't see the largest dominion declaring neutrality being deemed remotely acceptable. This has far too obvious risks in other areas (South Africa, Ireland) to be allowed to occur. It would throw London in a panic.
I really can't imagine what would happen in this scenario. You're right that it would create a horrendous situation for the Colonial Office, but that's precisely why I have to think London as much as Ottawa would want to try to find some way to paper over this without having to first wait for the matter to wend its way to a judicial ruling, and then, if necessary, go through the painful humiliation of having to actually request a court order against one's own colony.

This is why I took pains to point out that I really can't see it going that route. Ultimately a Canadian government -- especially a Conservative one -- that announced that it was abandoning the empire in its hour of need would have far more urgent and important problems on their hands than how a court might rule down the road. To wit, Borden probably would have been lynched!

In the meantime there are the other scenarios I pointed out. I suppose I should have added a third, except it's not so much a scenario as real life: Canada joins the war effort but insists on training and fielding its own army, half-baked, ill-equipped, and poorly led as such a force may have been. Fortunately the British insisted that we shape up.
 
I myself can't see the Canadian government refusing a request from Queen Victoria's grandson to go to war. It was said that Vimy Ridge was the point at which Canada became a REAL country.( I heard it on a documentary.) Shock troops, they said. It wasn't until WWII and Dieppe, and to a lesser extent Churchill's underbelly, that Canadians became zombies and refused to go.
 
Let's go back to first principles here.

Technically the prime minister serves at the pleasure of the governor general and the governor general is appointed by the king/queen, so again, technically, in your scenario the king and the governor general could decide that Canada was violating its constitutional relationship to Britain when it refused to join the war and therefore fire the prime minister.

However, they would then be required to either appoint a new prime minister they believed had the support of Parliament, or call an election. If the next prime minister similarly refused orders, we'd be back where we started.

I suppose that the alternative would be to refer the matter to court. In that event, I really have no idea how the courts would rule. At least according to the political process, Canada did not have independence over its foreign policy until 1931, but the constitution is vague enough that the court system might not agree with that.

The reality is that whether the British preferred to address this via the courts or via the governor general, the last thing they would want to do in the middle of Europe falling apart was devote precious Cabinet time to considering a wayward colony. I think they would have had little choice but to accept that Canada would not be part of the war effort.

Again, though, especially outside of Quebec public opinion was clearly in favour of joining the war in 1914, so there really would have been no political incentive for the government to take this step even if they wanted to, which so far as I know, they didn't.

The situation was somewhat different in 1939 because in 1931 Britain agreed that the dominions could have independent foreign policies. In 1939, Mackenzie King still would have been well within his prerogative as the prime minister to declare that because Britain was at war, Canada was at war.

Edit: I should also mention that if the problem is simply a prime minister who "goes rogue" by refusing to join the war, on his own and without his party backing him, they can simply remove him from power and choose a successor to become prime minister. Ironically, Canada doesn't hold its presidents in anything like the awe that Americans seem to their presidents. Ours are eminently more disposable, and a prime minister who announced in 1914 that Canada was severing its ties to the British Empire probably would not last out the week.

Thanks, In the timeline, the past events affect Canadian culture, but I didn't want to bog up the question with backstory. This is what I needed to know.
 
Not, quite, despite being Canadian, I know very little about our politics.
Focusing only on the PM for the moment: Everything is run by the monarch, at the highest, most fuzzy, most legally fictitious, and most theoretical perspective. The monarch gets to appoint the PM (the Minister in Prime Minister means 'servant'). Since the monarch doesn't live in Canada, the governor general does so. Fictitiously.

Closer to reality, yes, the PM is never elected but the person that occupies the position is elected, but only by his/her constituents (~100k people), as an MP. Parties aren't official, but still run a lot of things, including selecting the person (through internal party elections) who CAN become PM once they're elected to Parliament. The party CAN also fire the PM if they do stupid stuff (Australia is infamous for this, Canada less so), or lose popularity, or whatever. Fictitiously, the GG/monarch is the one that fires the PM.

Now: The GG/monarch CAN actually fire the PM without consent and for the stupidest reasons or no reason at all. This never happens because the shitstorm that would ensue would either be underwhelmingly boring or overwhelmingly intense. Boring, because Parliament can just say "fuck off," and continue to do things normally. The troops, while theoretically under the command of the GG/monarch, would probably not do a single thing other than continue on as if nothing happened. Intense, because (in this case) Canada would just become a republic or appoint its own monarch or something, or, I don't know, the troops might decide to enforce the monarchy (highly unlikely, but you never know).
 
Focusing only on the PM for the moment: Everything is run by the monarch, at the highest, most fuzzy, most legally fictitious, and most theoretical perspective. The monarch gets to appoint the PM (the Minister in Prime Minister means 'servant'). Since the monarch doesn't live in Canada, the governor general does so. Fictitiously.

Closer to reality, yes, the PM is never elected but the person that occupies the position is elected, but only by his/her constituents (~100k people), as an MP. Parties aren't official, but still run a lot of things, including selecting the person (through internal party elections) who CAN become PM once they're elected to Parliament. The party CAN also fire the PM if they do stupid stuff (Australia is infamous for this, Canada less so), or lose popularity, or whatever. Fictitiously, the GG/monarch is the one that fires the PM.

Now: The GG/monarch CAN actually fire the PM without consent and for the stupidest reasons or no reason at all. This never happens because the shitstorm that would ensue would either be underwhelmingly boring or overwhelmingly intense. Boring, because Parliament can just say "fuck off," and continue to do things normally. The troops, while theoretically under the command of the GG/monarch, would probably not do a single thing other than continue on as if nothing happened. Intense, because (in this case) Canada would just become a republic or appoint its own monarch or something, or, I don't know, the troops might decide to enforce the monarchy (highly unlikely, but you never know).
The only thing I would add to this is again just to underscore how pie-in-the-sky the republican scenario would be in the context of 1914. There would need to be some larger-scale breakdown in British imperial relations to bring this about, because in 1914 in our timeline, most Canadians are British and think of themselves as part of the British Empire. This isn't just an obscure piece of trivia about political process to them: in their minds, they're British subjects.

The number of situations in which the theoretical power he is talking about here was actually exercised can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. To wit, these are my points from memory:

1.) In 1896, the Conservatives tried to keep on governing the country despite losing the election and were essentially fired by the governor-general. (He refused to sign any more Cabinet orders from them, so they resigned.)

2.) In 1926, the G-G refused a request from William Lyon Mackenzie King's minority government to hold an election rather than give the minority Conservatives the chance to form a government. King resigned.

3.) In 2017, the British Columbia LG refused a request from Christie Clark to do pretty much the same as point two, a few days after her party lost its majority in that year's election. Again, the LG refused and Clark resigned.

Possibly there are others but not many.

The record therefore is basically that GGs can and have fired prime ministers, but historically this power was used very rarely and only ever in the context of some uncertainty about the results of an election, minority coalitions in Parliament, etc., not over a disagreement about government policy.

Again, my feeling is that if the prime minister was fired over an inadequate response to the war declaration, the resulting political chaos would have been far more damaging to the British cause than trying to work out some political compromise with him, which is why I took the position that the British would feel little choice but to accept it. But this part I will freely admit is speculation on my part.
 
Last edited:
The situation in 1914 would be different, I agree. Assuming that Canada wants no part in the war, republicanism is still 100% off the table, no way, no how. Telling the British to fuck off is plausible, and I imagine that Canada might still declare war and even send troops/materiel, but might also lodge a protest or something. The latter scenario is, IMO, the most plausible if Canada doesn't want to declare war.

As for firing the PM, that would be hugely implausible. How would that even be enforced, if enforcement is necessary? That's entirely a bluff on the part of the British.
 
The situation in 1914 would be different, I agree. Assuming that Canada wants no part in the war, republicanism is still 100% off the table, no way, no how. Telling the British to fuck off is plausible, and I imagine that Canada might still declare war and even send troops/materiel, but might also lodge a protest or something. The latter scenario is, IMO, the most plausible if Canada doesn't want to declare war.

As for firing the PM, that would be hugely implausible. How would that even be enforced, if enforcement is necessary? That's entirely a bluff on the part of the British.
It would be enforced by the viceroy appointing someone else to be Prime Minister. Even if circumstances had led to some weird government having power and deciding to be neutral there would obviously be a loyalist faction represented in Parliament, and others who just want to be in power and the governor general would invite them to form a government. They may avoid facing the House for awhile but hey, Joe Clark governed as if he had a majority for awhile, and in a real emergency you can do it for far longer.

There has never been a case of a governor general intervening in such a way in a dominion, but it seriously never came up (the Irish Free State could have had that issue, but they abolished the post before it could become a problem). Newfoundland was essentially taken over directly by London because they were dysfunctional.

In the case of South Africa, in 1939 the Prime Minister wanted to hold an election on whether they should join the war. I believe what occurred was that the governor general refused his request and appointed the Prime Minister's deputy to the top job.

And that was post Statute of Westminster.


Of course you could get to the question of "you and what army?" if the PM simply refuses to leave. Canada has never had that happen (it came close in the 1930s provincially but fortunately both sides backed down) but Canadians being a people of law and order, one suspects they would follow the constitution. In 1914 trying to establish a republic would literally start a civil war. And the Canadian militia, even if loyal to the PM, is weak. And the royalists had actually set up training camps in the years just prior to WWI to prepare to fight a civil war (they were training to fight said civil war in the British Isles but I can't see why they'd be less willing to do so in Canada) and then you have ultra-imperialist paramilitaries like the Legion of Frontiersmen etc.
 
And the royalists had actually set up training camps in the years just prior to WWI to prepare to fight a civil war (they were training to fight said civil war in the British Isles but I can't see why they'd be less willing to do so in Canada) and then you have ultra-imperialist paramilitaries like the Legion of Frontiersmen etc.

I would like to know more about these training camps and the Legion of Frontiersmen :)
 
Top