Re: Most peaceful European city?


Soren Larsen wrote:
sigvald@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Soren Larsen wrote:
sigvald@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Soren Larsen wrote:
sigvald@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Soren Larsen wrote:

And the Sonderbund war, 1847.

That was a while ago...

Ponte Delgado; provincial capital of the Azores since
shortly after the settlement could be a contender.

FOught with Portugal and the allies in WW1, and was an important
hideout for allied ships in the U-boat war.


It would depend on wether there was actual fighting in Ponte
Delgado.

I cant find anything suggesting that.

That the Azores was in a state of war because of the relation to
Portugal really doesn't do the trick.

If that was the case, then Iceland and its cities also followed
Denmark into WWII until they declared full independence.

Iceland became fully independant in 1918, it declared a republic
in 1944.

Independant except for minor details like defence and the conduct
of Icelandic foreign policy.

Both Iceland and Denmark declared neutrality after WW2,



I suspect you mean WWI..

Yes, I did, it was a typo.

But declaring neutrality is no guarantee of getting it respected.

No, Denmark had no guarentee for her neutrality, Iceland depended on
Britain as Britain had always made sure (notably during the Napoleonic
wars and the WW1) that no other power did gain control over Iceland.

I think you will find that Britain cared nada wether Iceland went to
Sweden or Denmark after the Napoleonic war, as long as it didn't
end up within the sphere of another great naval power.

Exactly the same kind of "guarantee" that Denmark had.



Denmark did
not take any responsibility for the defence of Iceland

According to the 1918 treaty Denmark had to guard the Icelandic
coast.

No, Denmark was to provide fisheries patrol for a few years, but it
did not provide any defence.

And the patrols were carried out by the danish navy which
meant that an attack on Iceland likely would trigger an attack on danish
forces

Islandske Falk:
http://www.navalhistory.dk/Danish/Skibene/IJ/IslandsFalk_inspektionsskib(1907).htm#Top

Hvidbjørnen:
http://www.navalhistory.dk/Danish/Skibene/H/Hvidbjoernen_inspektionsskib(1929-1943).htm

Were the kind of ships used, ie ships designed for both inspection and
to establish sovereignty.

Not your ordinary coastguard cutters.

Inspektionskibe = coast guard cutters, not warships.
And they were in Icelandic waters only for a few summers in the early
1920´s for fisheries patrols, they were not intended for defence
purposes.

In case of Iceland 1918, that was the same as taking responcibility
for Icelands territorial integrity.

No, it was only a shore patrol during the summertime.

_All_ routine patrolling in the north atlantic wether the purpose is
inspection
or to maintain soveregnty is carried out during the summer.

No, the Danish navy carries out patrols all year round in Greenland and
Faroese waters and the Icelandic coast guard is on duty all year round.


and the foreign
policy of Iceland was conducted by the Icelandic government, but
carried out by the Danish foreign service on behalf of the
Icelanders (except for the numerous cases where foreign
representatives dealt directly with Iceland without going through
Danish channels)

Dont you think it takes a rather bizarre definition of 'full
independence' to have your foreign policy handled by another nation?

Iceland´s foreign policy was not handled by Denmark, Danish officials
carried out the wishes of the Icelandic government.


And if the Iceland government had decided to exercise their full
independence
and had instructed Copenhagen to declare war on someone without further
consultation,
my guess is that you could have heard the hysterical laugthter from
Copenhagen in
Reykjavik.

Then Copenhagen would have denied the request
and instructed Iceland to wait until the union could be fully abandoned.

Iceland dealt directly with many countries without going through the
Danish diplomatic channels, if Iceland had thought she had the means to
wage war on another country, it could easily be done without Danmark
being instructed to do so.



What happened in 1918 was that Iceland was recognised as a seperate
nation with the right to self determination.

Iceland was declared a fully sovereign nation, section 1 of the
treaty.


And the following clauses outlined the de facto limitations regarding
foreign policy
etc.

Yes, foreign policy to be decided by the Icelandic government but
carried out by Danish officials.

BTW The Danish high court continued to function as Icelandic high
court for a short period after the 1918 treaty.

Yes, the treaty was intended to allow Iceland to equip itself with the
apparatus of state gradually, note that the when the Danish high court
was ruling in Icelandic cases it was crewed, at lest partly, by
Icelandic judges.

The treaty also established the procedure to follow for Iceland to gain full
independence in every respect.

Yes, it is probably not quite correct to say that Iceland was fully
independent in 1918 but full independence in every matter other that
the matter of head of state was gained in the following decade.


Much like the status Greenland has today. This however is a long
way from 'full independence' even though that is the most likely
long term result.

No, Greenland has now a home rule, much like Iceland did between 1904
and 1918.


It was in fact the inability of Copenhagen to take proper care of
these details
during the German occupation that triggered the declaration of full
independence.

No, the treaty of 1918 was valid for 25 years and expired 1st dec.
1943 and Iceland became a republic on 17th june 1944.

Not really

Yes, really..

The treaty called for consultation with the danish government..

Yes, but even if the Danish government had been consulted the end
result would have been the same.

Indeed.

But fully independent countries are by definition not obligated to consult
foreign powers about internal affairs like eg head of state.

So you do not consider Canada, Australia and New Zealand fully
independant?


That was impossible due to the german occupation. So Iceland
proceeded to full independence at that point.

Iceland became a republic instead of being a kingdom.


And the process of full independence that started in 1918
was completed.

The process that started in 1874 ended in 1918, all that remained was
to change the head of state.



This was of course recognised by Denmark after the war without
much fuzz.

Yes and Denmark and Iceland gave each other´s citizens the same rights
that they had enjoyed during the treaty years (rights to live, work
and trade) and these rights were later extended to the other Nordic
countries under the Nordic union.


Cheers
Soren Larsen

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Most peaceful European city?
    ... Denmark into WWII until they declared full independence. ... Iceland became fully independant in 1918, ... meant that an attack on Iceland likely would trigger an attack on danish ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Most peaceful European city?
    ... then Iceland and its cities also followed ... Denmark into WWII until they declared full independence. ... Icelandic foreign policy. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Most peaceful European city?
    ... No, Denmark had no guarentee for her neutrality, Iceland depended on ... the Danish navy carries out patrols all year round in Greenland ... gain full independence in every respect. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Most peaceful European city?
    ... then Iceland and its cities also followed ... Denmark into WWII until they declared full independence. ... Icelandic foreign policy. ... But declaring neutrality is no guarantee of getting it respected. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Most peaceful European city?
    ... No, Denmark had no guarentee for her neutrality, Iceland depended ... Napoleonic wars and the WW1) that no other power did gain control ... If you are having foreign warships patrolling your waters with the ...
    (soc.history.ancient)