Re: Most peaceful European city?

sigvald@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Soren Larsen wrote:

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.

Except that in 1940 when neutrality was no longer a defence the
British did not occupy Denmark.

Neutrality was never a defence and Britain was already at war with
the power that violated danish neutrality.

Are you suggesting a second declaration of war?

Anyway did the allies try to intervent in Scandinavia. without luck.



snippage

Nope

'Inspektionsskib' is best translated into (light) patrol frigate.

This is the class today (note that there is another Hvidbjørnen
there)

http://forsvaret.dk/FRK/Om+FRK/Ressourcer/Inspektionsskib/

I can assure you that the depth charges are not for inspecting
fishingboats. The class is also capable of carrying surface
to air and surface to surface missiles.

The Islands Falk of the 1920´s did not carry depth charges.


I only brought in the modern types to clearly show you that your translation
of 'inspektionsskib' = coast guard cutter was wrong..

Islands Falk carried two 47 mm naval guns as main defence.

Not exactly a battleship but definitely not something you would
fire at an early 1900's fishingboat if you wanted the remains to be
recogniseable.

Hvidbjørnen carried two 88 mm naval guns as main guns.



'Inspektionsskibe' are warships capable of carrying out peacetime
inspection tasks..


This is the type used for inspecting fishing boats
and other civilian purposes

http://webfd.fd.dk/info/Kontrolfartoejer/Havoernen.htm



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.

If you are having foreign warships patrolling your waters with the
task of inspecting and controlling traffic, you are blessed (or
cursed) with a de facto guarantee.

True, but the Danish vessels were doing nothing of that sort.

Having danish naval vessels coming around at unpredictable intervals
in the summertime only ,would also be rather insufficient for rescue
purposes and reliable year round fisheries control.

But then my claim still is that the main reason they
stopped by in Iceland was to show the flag and act as guarantee
of Icelands terrirorial integrety until Iceland made its own arrangements.


According to the local fishermen most of their time was spent in
harbour, entertaining guests.



This is what naval vessels do a lot when things go well, and
they are temporarily stationed in a foreign harbour.

The fishermen would of couse have no clue about the time spend at sea
patrolling before and after visiting the Vestmanna islands.



Otherwise the people of the Vestman islands would not have had to buy
a ship to act as a rescue and fisheries patrol vessel, the forerunner
of the coast guard.

Just like Denmark had local rescue services seperate from navy
complementing each other.



Icelanders started their own patrolling in 1920 and the coast guard
had taken over all patrolling by 1925.


Hvidbjørnen patrolled Icelandic waters in 1932.



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


I may be wrong, but I am under the impression that these countries
could change their head of state without being obligated by any
treaties to consult
the british government,.and that this goes for all commonwealth
countries.

I think you are wrong here.

A brief search of Australia and republic suggests that the Aussies could
fire the queen with very short notice following a referendum.

But I found nothing decisive on the matter and I didn't check other
countries..

Cheers
Soren Larsen

--
History is not what it used to be.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Most peaceful European city?
    ... No, Denmark had no guarentee for her neutrality, Iceland depended on ... Were the kind of ships used, ie ships designed for both inspection ... 1920´s for fisheries patrols, they were not intended for defence ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • 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: Fw: Fw: Irish Neutrality in WW2
    ... Britain certainly attacked and occupied Iceland, ... which certainly did not happen in France or Denmark after ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • 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?
    ... No, Denmark had no guarentee for her neutrality, Iceland depended on ... Were the kind of ships used, ie ships designed for both inspection ... 1920´s for fisheries patrols, they were not intended for defence ...
    (soc.history.ancient)