Canada is a constitutional monarchy, the Queen is head of state and all members of the armed forces and Parliament take an oath to protect and obey her. As I said bailing out and not protecting her (or he if it is a king) would be in violation of this constitution act of 1867 which is still used to this day when swearing in new members of parliament and armed forces as per Canadian Military Queens Regulations and Orders. So once again, the only way Canada could get out of helping Britain would be If Parliament violated their oaths which I'm sure they like most politicians have at one time or another. http://www.parl.gc.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch04&Seq=9&Language=E
No. They pledge their allegiance which is slightly different. As I've mentioned on another post the statute of Westminster puts Canadian foreign policy within the jurisdiction of the Canadian parliament. Also the Canadian forces don't have a say on whether they go to war only the parliament does and their oath is different from that taken by forces members. Also the British North America act is only applicable within the Dominion of Canada. I've already said the statute of Westminster puts foreign policy firmly within Canadian jurisdiction.
And it has yet to be tested against the oath as the members swear their allegiance to the queen when taking office and then conduct voting, in the case of 1939 they satisfied their oath and, have yet to break it. Sure they can say it was for this or that but if they broke their oath they would no longer be viable as an MP so, strange they voted to aid a nation thousands of miles away that just happened to be ruled over by the same monarch that heads Canada. One could say they were bound to do it or be expelled as an 'honorable member' which would then begin a new swearing in with the same oath which would Ensure the voting went one way or they too would be expelled for not being an 'honorable member' n'est pas?
So? It doesn't mean that MP's serve under the orders of the crown. It just means that they have a duty to the crown which in this case is to simply vote on issues within the parliament. And the term "allegiance" can mean any form of contribution to the crown. Even Gandhi contributed without firing a single shot. Considering the generality of the oath it's a bit of a stretch to break it. Well they were still British in terms of culture and even in the 20's and 30's Brits were still migrating to Canada. Even the ANZAC's at Gallipoli were mostly first generation migrants. As I said before the crown doesn't have complete authority over it's land and subjects and I also mentioned that this division was most notably seen in the English civil war. Not really. As I said they were allowed to vote on whatever they wished both on internal and external issues because of the aforementioned statute of Westminster. In fact two notable MP's voted against Canadian participation in WWII those being Liguori Lacombe and Edouard Lacroix. And in fact some 20% of Canadian MP's voted nay.
the usa was in the minority on d day so your heavy lifting claim is dubious....without the russians diverting millions of german troops there would've been no d-day, without the russians bearing the brunt of nazi aggression the war would've been lost...all the allies can stake a claim to have assisted in the effort but credit the russians for saving europe, and credit britain for hanging in inspite of horrible punishment, without britain there is no launch point for bombing missions or invasion, without britain germany could've focused its entire might against the russians...
The Americans were roughly half of the troops landing on D Day. The Commonwealth could not have done as well as they did without American supplies.
Allegiance means loyalty. Canada was and still is headed by the monarch of Britain. To not be loyal to that monarch makes one a traitor. To not come to that monarch's defense in time of war makes one a traitor or, the entire Parliament a traitor and subsequently a rebel caucus unless as I said a constitutional reform is made which would take years. He did? From what I understand he was thrown in jail for the duration of the war as his condition for India's aid was to make them their own nation until his crappy health set him free in '44. Allegiance means loyalty and in any loose definition watching the person whom you are sworn to be loyal to get captured, killed or otherwise placed in mortal danger is not very loyal is it. Seems they had the same loyalty clause in their oaths as well. Wiki; "Though it has been argued that the term head of state is a republican one inapplicable in a constitutional monarchy such as Canada, where the monarch is the embodiment of the state and thus cannot be head of it,[91] the sovereign is regarded by official government sources,[17][103][104][105] judges,[106] constitutional scholars,[87][107] and pollsters as the head of state,[108] while the governor general and lieutenant governors are all only representatives of, and thus equally subordinate to, that figure." As long as their vote is one in which loyalty to the crown is of prime consideration. To leave that crown floundering and getting shot at when they could help is not loyal at all and in fact is treason. Separatists from Quebec who held no loyalty to Britain and, not surprisingly since Quebec got screwed by Canada in WWI as they held no interest in Britain being saved or served was loyal to his constituents. Nevertheless he was disloyal to Britain and the Monarchy and was subsequently reprimanded for this although I would have turfed him breaking his oath. In any case, you can read about Oaths of Allegiance and the Canadian House of Commons here. " I, A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Note. The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with Proper Terms of Reference thereto. As can be seen, the oath is one of allegiance to the monarch, not to Canada or the Canadian Constitution. Breach of an Oath of Allegiance Failure to take the oath of allegiance is one matter. Breaking an oath is another. According to an early edition of Beauchesne: Should a member violate his oath he would be amenable to the penalty of not being allowed to sit in the House of Commons. He may be suspended from taking part in the sittings while still remaining a member of Parliament, or, in a case of extreme gravity, a Bill might be passed to annul his election. It may happen, when a state of war exists, that a member of Parliament makes, either outside or on the floor of the House, statements detrimental to Canada and favourable to the enemy. This would be in violation of this oath because allegiance to the King means allegiance to the Country, and the offence would be liable to punishment by the house. The power of dealing with treason is inherent in the Parliament of every country." As we saw with our friends Lacombe and Lacroix they were set out to pasture for awhile because of this.
"There were 156,115 allied troops who took part in the invasion - 61,715 were British, 73,000 were American and 21,400 were Canadian." They had no choice, they were defending themselves against their former ally unlike the US who didn't have to be there in the first place to save Europe and Russia. So, what exactly was Russia's participation against their former ally on the beaches of Normandy anyhow as from what I understand they were still in Russia fighting to push the Germans out of the homeland using evil American supplied Equipment? Yes I credit them for defending themselves against being part of Nazi Germany but also credit the US for the heavy lifting they did to save the asses of people who now pretend they didn't do a damm thing. Seems the Holocaust is not the only thing that is being denied as of late.
Which can take many forms Titular and has no real meaning. No it doesn't otherwise everyone within the UK would have taken an oath. No because if you took the time to actually read up on the statute of Westminster you'd know that a declaration of war lies in the hands of the legislature of Canada which is subsequently ratified by a signature of the monarch. But can still declare war on it's own as was the case with Imperial Japan. Army medical corps during the Boer war. Also the underlined section doesn't make sense That's still drifting from the meaning and if that really is the case then every MP or civil servant of Canada is a traitor for not arming themselves and contributing to Britain's war effort. Well if you join the army then you have to take an oath. But it's not the responsibility of soldiers to determine who they fight. This has no relation to my statement which if you recall So if the Crown had control over the UK then there would be no need for a parliament or a court of law both of which are independent. Doesn't make sense They were still part of the realm It's not disloyalty to vote no on going to war. In fact it's the duty of the MP to represent his constituents. And the 20% of MP's that voted no? Well I won't stop you. Which I had The language does not specify that a crown subject shall take up arms or of anything similar. You could do as little as pay VAT on a toaster and you'd still be loyal. Lacroix was re-elected in 1940. In fact it was only in '44 that he actually resigned from parliament. Look I'm not sure what you're point is here but the fact of the matter is that post 1931 Canada was in effect it's own nation and had full control over it's foreign policy. And as such Canada willingly went to war with Nazi Germany on the side of the UK which is something a great many of us actually appreciate and we still appreciate the relationship the UK has with it's former colonies and dominions.
Allowing the monarch to die, be captured or lose their nation is not loyalty no matter how you spin your losing contention. Tell that to the House Of Commons, tell the Prime Minister of Canada his position has no meaning, the Governor General too same for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They all have no meaning sa they serve under the head of state which is the Queen of England. They don't have to as they are already under the Monarchy of Britain. Good golly I never contended otherwise but merely stated that if they did vote to not be loyal to the King they would be breaking their oath of allegiance which left them bound to vote to come to Britain's aid or be breaking their oath. Didn't know you expanded this to all other wars and areas of Gandhi's life. Sorry, but as the underlined portion states during WWII he spent it picking up soap for the most part, not aiding Britain as he was in jail for undermining them. Well it is loyalty and, to do nothing to aid the monarchy during time of war is to be a disloyal and, breaks one's oath if they took it. Well if you join the army then you have to take an oath. But it's not the responsibility of soldiers to determine who they fight. It has direct relation to the Monarchy being head of Canada and, allows Parliament to serve them. No matter how you spin it the Queen is the head of state in Canada and so, to be disloyal to her or, the King at the time is to be disloyal to Canada so, Parliament had little choice but to back Britain up and join her. Sorry you seem lost, Constitution Monarchy is the word of the day. Familiarize yourself if you persist please. Supporting your head of state and dong what you can to keep them from danger is unfamiliar to you? And nearly revolted in WWI because of British support, nobody wanted a repeat and, somebody had to represent one third of Canada like it or not. Not when the Monarch is going to be attacked. Names SVP and we shall investigate together. He's long dead. Strange, you seem unfamiliar with even it's rudimentary definition which means loyalty and support. It specifies that one must have 'true allegiance' to the monarchy. Allowing that Monarchy to be in danger due to non support is disloyal. Uh huh. As I said "our friends Lacombe and Lacroix they were set out to pasture for awhile because of this. " Point is they were bound to do it no matter what as to refuse would have required the entire revamping of their constitution as at the time, same as now they are a Constitutional Monarchy and as such owe their allegiance to the Monarchy hence, their first loyalty is to that Monarch, not their constituents but the Monarchy. I know you don't understand and, I don't think it's right or fair but this is what was handed down and is the way the Canadian Government was and still is - subservient to the Monarchy of Britain who, allows Canadians to pass their own laws via Parliament under the supervision of her Governor General.
Allegiance: An allegiance is a duty of fidelity said to be owed by a subject or a citizen to his/her state or sovereign. There's nothing in the definition to support your claim nor is it in any oath that MP's take. Ergo it can take multiple forms. When exactly did our sovereign give an order to the PM or the RCMP? It doesn't work like that and I actually live in the Britain. Which I've just dis-proven My point was that irrespective of the status of the person or their beliefs they could serve in whichever way they saw fit to whatever effect. So the advocated prerequisites of picking up a gun or voting yes in parliament to engage ones loyalty to crown and country in the not applicable to all. All right where were the Canadians in Malaya, Kenya, Cyprus, Borneo, Aden, Falklands and Iraq? because with your logic they clearly had to be there in order to be loyal. I live in one but they aren't all the same. And as I said if control over lands and subjects was absolute then there would be no need for an independent judiciary and a parliament. In fact it would just be like a dark age kingdom or a Raja of India if it were so. It is very familiar to me. But the responsibilities between individuals are different. Really where does it say that you can only vote one way on war? In fact with your logic it would seem that anyone who voted no in Britain is clearly guilty of disloyalty. You seriously want me to sit here and list every single MP that voted no? You can investigate on your own. Hey you wanted to beat up a corpse and I'm in no position to stop you I've already given you the definition. You're the one that seems torn between the legal and cultural definition of loyalty. Really so the powers that be took 5 years just to make a couple of minor politicians resign. And you haven't stated how they went to "pasture" Like I said if Canada really is subservient to Britain then where were you? And having hear from others who share your position all I can say is that I've heard it all before and quite frankly it's an idiotic argument and if this is really the most important thing in Canada then it's quite clear that nothing actually happens there.
Pro-Consul is right.. Canada, Australia, New Zealand had no obligation to intervene in the war (nor in 1939 nor in 1914), they fought in solidarity with the roots-country, in fact, in 1914, some germans thought Australia would be neutral in the war.
Thank you Martin76, much appreciated. The following isn't directed towards you just to be clear. There is a reason why so many people are actually aware of such a trivial and simple well known fact; it's because it's actually true. I mean what's next; shall we say that the laws of gravity aren't subject to the autonomy of the individual nation and therefore not morally valid? Or maybe the sky doesn't exist? Please somebody move this thread back to D-Day.
You do understand that a Constitutional Monarchy means that the Monarch is permitted to remain in situ by Parliament-the representatives of the British people? They 'rule' by consent, but in effect have no statutory powers whatsoever other than the purely ceremonial. This swearing-in business is by tradition and a courtesy. Nothing more,
Of course America had to be in Europe; there was no option as Roosevelt recognised that US security was threatened. War was near-simultaneously declared against America by Japan and Germany, so what should America have done; allow Germany to continue to sink US shipping, bombard coastal cities with impunity, threaten invasion? America joined in WW2 out of self-interest, self-preservation and there was no altruism involved whatsoever. This 'ass-saving' nonsense really has to stop. http://www.history.co.uk/study-topics/history-of-ww2/us-entry-and-alliance
The British Commonwealth nations were not ordered by the British to fight. They volunteered. The commonwealth nations did not draft their soldiers. They volunteered en masse. My father signed up in the air force at 16. He and many others lied to get in. They stood by the British not because they were puppets. They felt a strong loyalty and that loyalty remains to day. You can not break it. That link between Canada, Australia and New Zealand with the United Kingdom won't change. Its a genuine loyalty. We chose to fight side by side the British. Our uniforms were the same except for the shoulder tag of our armed forces. We were one armed force. The Americans were distinct as an armed force, so were the Chinese or Russians but not commonwealth armed forces. We chose to be one team. Now all that said D Day was about the British, US, Canada and a smaller Polish French units, etc., working together. I wonder as some posters do, in this day and age can the next generations understand the deaths, the sheer horror and insanity and why men and women sacrificed under unbelievable conditions. I wonder if they can understand the freedom they assume as a given and that they are entitled to came at a price. Sometimes I tease Americans about their chauvinism and sometimes over-focus on their own role in WW2 to the point they forgot they had allies, but that is a pride you Yanks with your swagger carry from the days of being rebellious against the Queen. When you talk to the American vets of WW2 they talk of respect for all soldiers but there is a playful tension as to whose uniforms were better or whose equipment was better. We Canadians chose the British methods. We were not forced. All that said, the vets of WW2 are now in their 90's and soon not here. My father is turning 91. They are a link to a time that I fear ends with their deaths and that should not be. If we do not learn from them we will make the same mistakes. As for wheher Europe should be loyal etc., I can only talk as a Canadian. The Dutch have never ever let us forget our role in helping liberate them. To this day they remain linked with us as close as two allies can be.Their monarchy live in Canada throughout the war. Our close alliance is because of their respect for our fighting for them. You can't have a more genuine ally than the Dutch. When I travelled to Holland as a young man with a Canadian flag they never let me forget. I believe Europeans do not take what any of the allies did for granted. I just think as the years go on, the next generations become more and more removed from what happened and so do not have that same reference. The ones who lived through it do. Sometimes I think with due respect to you Yanks, you can be a little loud and self centered and it turns people off in Europe as they are more quiet. I think you Yanks are like the Germans. You have a tendency to be loud, proud and boisterous. So that can turn people off. Its not that they are ungrateful for WW2, its the here and now behaviour. A better example are British foot-ball/soccer hooligans. Europeans hate them-doesn't mean they are ungrateful for Britain's contributions to defeating Hitler. I think Europeans are genuinely respectful of war veterans and their sacrifice. I just don't think we should confuse that with other issues. Also with the Dutch we Canadians do not expect them to like us and be so loyal. We are in a good way humbled by it. We do not expect it nomatter how much we hear it. We just thank God they could be liberated and see freedom again. I can get into a whole lot of discussions about D Day but to me my father taught me, be grateful to any soldier who sacrificed to defeat the Axis powers and pray we do not remain silent in the face of injustice and pray we find ways to use reason over ignorance to resolve conflicts. Every life sacrificed in the war against the Axis had equal value. God bless them all..
No it doesn't have to stop, because no matter the reason why the US entered WWII, they saved western Europe from both Nazi and communism horrors.
Nonsense, it was a concerted effort by all the Allied forces. Oh, and lest you forget, those "communist horrors" were largely instrumental in defeating fascism. Twenty million Russians died fighting Nazi Germany as our allies and around 93% of all German losses during the war occured on the Eastern Front. Imagine where they would be if not fighting the Russians.
Well the concerted effort before US joined in wasn't amounting to much. As for the instrumental part of the communist rapist army in defeating fascism that's undeniable, even though i'd pick fascism over communism any day, point being other western countries could've fallen under USSR "protectorate" as it happened with countries all over eastern europe and Eastern Germany, which enabled many other horrors to keep continuing even after the war was over.
You couldn't be more wrong. The ONLY reason Russia entered in the war, was because Hitler attacked Russia, even after it signed a non-aggression pact with them. Had hitler stayed attacking and bombing england, they were weeks if not days away from falling. hitler screwed himself, by fighting a 2 front war, but the russians would have not attacked hitler had he not attacked them first. SO, we had to enter the war, because we didn't actually think hitler would be dumb enough to do exactly what he did.
I am reasonably sure if Hitler had not attacked the Soviets, Stalin eventually would have taken on Germany
Close, but no cigar. America funded and armed every one of our allies and had we not entered the war, germany would have won. russia had signed a non-aggression pact with germany, only if they left them out of the war. the western front was vital to make hitler fight a 2 front war, of which he did not have the supplies to refuel or reload. The big shot across the bow, was when we dropped the atomic bomb in japan. we did that for several meaningful reasons, 1) calculated american deaths with a full land invasion (see iwo jima) japan fights to the very last soldier 2) japan would never surrender, so we had to break their will 3) we did not trust the commie bastards, as Patton said several times, (he and MacArthur didn't trust them) and dropping the bomb sent a strong message to the russians if they had any other ideas besides trying to help. they really never were our ally. they only fought because hitler invaded their country and damn near took it.
