Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UK never abandons Japan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pruitt
    replied
    The US also cut off scrap metal sales and froze Japanese financial assets in the US.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • hairog
    replied
    Oil ... America had oil and the British and Japan needed it to become or stay a modern industrial society. When we cut off Japan from it's supply they reacted quite violently.

    Leave a comment:


  • Metryll
    replied
    Originally posted by Charger View Post
    After WWI, the UK had a choice to continue its alliance with Japan or ditch Japan and attempt to court America. In reality, the UK ditched Japan and Japan eventually paired with Germany. The UK ended up losing basically its entire empire in WWII.

    Let's say the UK continues its alliance with Japan. How do the 1920s-40s play out?
    I may be wrong but I'd rather say that Japan moved away from UK than the reverse sometimes in the 30's as result of domestic change with the rise of military in Japan politcial landscape.

    Leave a comment:


  • BF69
    replied
    Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
    I don't disagree. Certainly the relationship within the Empire de jure was clearly understood. But externally ?

    A small but significant indication ,perhaps, was the Australian cabinet position of "Minister of External Affairs" did not become the "Minister of Foreign Affairs" until 1970 which perhaps shows the de facto position.
    I think the issue here is that whatever Japan might have thought about the relationship between Australia & Britain, there was no way in hell we would accept any significant number of non-white immigrants just because the UK wanted us to.

    You are correct that we didn't manage our own foreign policy until WW2, though I think we did have independent contact with some nations outside that system on occasions. From what I can work out John Curtin more or less killed off our dependence on the UK to manage foreign affairs during the war, and it was well & truly dead by 1950/51, when we went to Korea without consulting the UK & signed the ANZUS treaty.

    Leave a comment:


  • BELGRAVE
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
    I agree with Mark on this one, at least so far as Canada goes, and I expect it was the same for other Dominions. Section 91(25) of the 1867 British North America Act (BNA Act) specifically gave the Federal Government power over Naturalization and Aliens. Canada also had imposed a head tax on Chinese immigration. Immigration would effect internal conditions way too much to be controlled just by the Imperial British Government. Mind you immigration between the white dominions and Britain could not be restricted until the Westminster Act.
    I don't disagree. Certainly the relationship within the Empire de jure was clearly understood. But externally ?

    A small but significant indication ,perhaps, was the Australian cabinet position of "Minister of External Affairs" did not become the "Minister of Foreign Affairs" until 1970 which perhaps shows the de facto position.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparlingo
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post

    The Dominions very clearly had home rule and that included immigration law. The "White Australia" policy was enshrined in Australian legislation in which Britain played no part. The degree of independence was very clearly displayed in WW1 when Australia twice decided not to introduce conscription.
    I agree with Mark on this one, at least so far as Canada goes, and I expect it was the same for other Dominions. Section 91(25) of the 1867 British North America Act (BNA Act) specifically gave the Federal Government power over Naturalization and Aliens. Canada also had imposed a head tax on Chinese immigration. Immigration would effect internal conditions way too much to be controlled just by the Imperial British Government. Mind you immigration between the white dominions and Britain could not be restricted until the Westminster Act.

    Leave a comment:


  • BELGRAVE
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post
    The British prime minister had in that case declared war using the Royal prerogative and therefore included in his declaration all the King's realms. This caused quite some reactions (especially in Canada) as the dominions considered that they should have been consulted and given their consent. However it was about the only instance where the British prime minister could unilaterally commit the dominions and even then its legality was seriously called into question.

    The Dominions very clearly had home rule and that included immigration law. The "White Australia" policy was enshrined in Australian legislation in which Britain played no part. The degree of independence was very clearly displayed in WW1 when Australia twice decided not to introduce conscription.
    Therefore, the policy enacted within Australia should have had no bearing on the Anglo-Japanese Alliance . No dispute there. But we're addressing external affairs, which,as I tried to indicate, were clarified by the Statute of Westminster which was enacted after the conclusion of the Alliance. If the relationship between Britain and the Dominions was obvious to all why bother with the Statute ?

    Further,perceptions are everything and the Japanese may well have viewed the British Empire as a single power block and be unaware of the niceties of the situation: especially as the British supported the heinous "White Australia" policy.vide the proposed "Racial Equality Clause " of 1919.
    Last edited by BELGRAVE; 30 Aug 16, 06:14.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
    All of what you say is true (yes, strangely enough I was aware of it), nevertheless, it was not until the passing of the Statute of Westminster, that complete autonomy was assured and not entirely even then.

    "Britain has declared war upon her ,and, as a result Australia is also at war" Robert Menzies, September, 1939, announcing Australia's position following the German invasion of Poland. Some independence !

    (Yes, I know, Australia would have entered war anyway, but Menzies, at least -and he was a lawyer - knew exactly what he was saying ).

    Besides which, foreign opinions about the exact relationship between the various elements that constituted "The British Empire" were uncertain enough to muddy the waters. ( vide the "Australia Act", 1986, passed by both Parliaments, London and Canberra )
    The British prime minister had in that case declared war using the Royal prerogative and therefore included in his declaration all the King's realms. This caused quite some reactions (especially in Canada) as the dominions considered that they should have been consulted and given their consent. However it was about the only instance where the British prime minister could unilaterally commit the dominions and even then its legality was seriously called into question.

    The Dominions very clearly had home rule and that included immigration law. The "White Australia" policy was enshrined in Australian legislation in which Britain played no part. The degree of independence was very clearly displayed in WW1 when Australia twice decided not to introduce conscription.

    Leave a comment:


  • BELGRAVE
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post
    The immigration rules for Australia were passed in a number of Australian acts once a federal government was established completely independently of Britain apart from the Royal assent which was essentially a formality.

    The Commonwealth of Australia was recognised as a dominion in 1901 by royal proclamation, New Zealand followed by the same method in 1907. Surely you know your own history?
    All of what you say is true (yes, strangely enough I was aware of it), nevertheless, it was not until the passing of the Statute of Westminster, that complete autonomy was assured and not entirely even then.

    ".... Britain has declared war upon her ,and, as a result Australia is also at war" Robert Menzies, September, 1939, announcing Australia's position following the German invasion of Poland. Some independence !

    (Yes, I know, Australia would have entered war anyway, but Menzies, at least -and he was a lawyer - knew exactly what he was saying ).

    Besides which, foreign opinions about the exact relationship between the various elements that constituted "The British Empire" were uncertain enough to muddy the waters. ( vide the "Australia Act", 1986, passed by both Parliaments, London and Canberra )
    Last edited by BELGRAVE; 30 Aug 16, 05:03.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post
    The immigration rules for Australia were passed in a number of Australian acts once a federal government was established completely independently of Britain apart from the Royal assent which was essentially a formality.

    The Commonwealth of Australia was recognised as a dominion in 1901 by royal proclamation, New Zealand followed by the same method in 1907. Surely you know your own history?
    Edit The powers of the Australian government were clearly laid out in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act of 1900

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
    I'm not quite sure about that.I don't think Dominion Status was codified until the 1931 Statute of Westminster. The perception might have been that London still called the shots throughout the erstwhile Empire regardless of the legal niceties.
    The immigration rules for Australia were passed in a number of Australian acts once a federal government was established completely independently of Britain apart from the Royal assent which was essentially a formality.

    The Commonwealth of Australia was recognised as a dominion in 1901 by royal proclamation, New Zealand followed by the same method in 1907. Surely you know your own history?

    Leave a comment:


  • BELGRAVE
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post
    These were purely policies in place by Australia and New Zealand which having Dominion status had no need to refer to Britain over this - there was no blanket Imperial policy such matters being in the competency of individual dominions and therefore none to be abandoned.
    I'm not quite sure about that.I don't think Dominion Status was codified until the 1931 Statute of Westminster. The perception might have been that London still called the shots throughout the erstwhile Empire regardless of the legal niceties.
    Last edited by BELGRAVE; 29 Aug 16, 17:56.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    And to take matters further at the heart of the treaty was an agreement to mutually support each other against naval threats to their strategic interests in the Far East and the Pacific. At the time this meant threats by Russia but in 1914 was deemed to include Germany. By 1923 the only other serious naval power in the Region was the USA.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    The 1911 Naval Treaty was allowed to lapse in 1923 as a concession by Britain to the USA arising out of the Washington Naval Conference but in any case Japan was in no mood to renew it because of British and American insistence on limiting the size of her fleet. There was no actual formal alliance in place at the time other than this.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    There were British commercial links with China through Shanghai and Hong Kong. I don't see the British giving these to the Japanese. If there was one thing the British Government wanted to protect it was commercial business.

    Pruitt
    Why would continuing an alliance mean having to give Japan commercial links?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X