Declan Murphy wrote:

> Canada (like Australia circa 1939) was part of the imperial
> defence arrangements.

That's right. Britain did not merely declare *itself* to be at war. It
declared the *British Empire* to be at war.

> Had Britain informed Canada & Australia that it was re-opening
> hostilities against the whirling dervishes or some pygmies somewhere,
> then both nations would probably have sent troops (& ships)　in support.

Actually, Canada had already signalled its unwillingness to follow the Brits
willy-nilly into every conflict, having refused, in 1922, to support British
intervention in Turkey following the Chanak Affair. It thereby created a
precedent for occupying the curious position of being a part of the Empire
but not necessarily always submitting to the imperial will. I guess (without
knowing very much about it) it probably suited Britain better to keep them
on even on such shaky terms than to force the issue to a point where Canada
seceded altogether from the Commonwealth.

> And in Australia's case, whether they were requested to or otherwise.

Well, I think there's a bit more truth in that. Australia at that time still
numbered less than half a million people, and - as far as I can make out -
saw itself as being only marginally less British than the Isle of Wight,
just a lot bigger and further away (...and full of kangaroos, koala bears,
people with boomerangs, massive spiders, billabongs....SLAP! Sorry, I got
carried away there. Won't happen again).

> Both nations entered the war within hours of notification
> of Britain's declaration.

Not so. Britain, Australia, New Zealand and India declared war on Germany on
September 3rd. South Africa followed suit three days later, on September
6th, and Canada did not declare war until September 10th, a week later.

> In Australia the Prime Minister of the day got a cable from
> London, and went straight to the radio to broadcast "It is
> my melancholy duty to inform you officially that in consequence
> of a persistence by Germany and her invasion of Poland, Great
> Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia
> is also at war..."

 The key words here are "as a result". Technically, Australia was
automatically at war as a result of Britain's declaration of war. The nature
of its involvement in the war was a matter for the Australian government to
decide, but the fact of it being at war was not. Not, at least, unless it
was going to decide there and then to renegotiate its position as a member
nation within the Commonwealth.

> "...No harder task can fall to the lot of a democratic leader than
> to make such an announcement..." Interestingly enough, and
> despite the last sentence, he didn't even bother consulting
> (or informing) parliament or from what I gather, talking to his
> full cabinet.

Basically, there was nothing to discuss. All Menzies had to do, at that
stage, was inform the Australian public of what was already a fait accompli.

> it wasn't a case of feeling threatened, it was just
> the done thing.

Well, not exactly. At that time Australia's status within the British Empire
was that of a "dominion". One basic principle underlying the concept of a
dominion within the British Empire was that the dominions were domestically
self-governed, but still subject to Britain at the level of international
affairs. As such, the dominions were, technically speaking, automatically at
war as soon as the UK declared war. The issue, as I understand it, was
whether they would stand up and publicly avow their intention to fulfil a
commitment that, at a constitutional level, had already been made.

In reality, although they *did* make such an avowal, it was not to be taken
wholly for granted that they would, nor was it achieved without some bitter
struggles. Notably, the Indian Congress, which formed the government of
India at the time, walked out in protest at India's involvement in the war,
and South Africa only entered the war (on September 6th) after a
constitutional upheaval which resulted in the country's prime minister being
replaced.

Canada, too, was a dominion - indeed it was officially known for many years
as "the Dominion of Canada" - but, as I pointed out above, it had
already demonstrated that it would not necessarily follow Britain into each
and every conflict. On this occasion, Canada did not see itself as bound to
support Britain, and waited until the deaths of two Canadian citizens (on a
boat sunk by the Germans) swung the balance before declaring war. It was (as
the Canadian Prime Minister McKenzie King put it in his statement declaring
war) "a free member of the British Commonwealth...bringing its cooperation
voluntarily."

> That Nazi Germany would prove to be a little more difficult to
> deal with than the whirling dervishes was not a consideration
> at the time.

I think it was. The Indian government knew the stakes all too well, hence
its resignation en masse, South Africa (with widespread pro-German sentiment
among the Afrikaaners) showed a pretty clear awareness and did not join in
without a major internal power struggle, and Canada hesitated, knowing what
a bombshell this was. And while Menzies' declaration of war shows that there
was never any question of Australia doing any other than live up to the
letter of its contractual obligations as a dominion, it also betrays heavy
foreboding.

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com