London and Helsinki were the only capitals in Europe that were'nt occupied. Is that right?
Petteri Toivanen
--
KtM
<petteri....@pp1.inet.fi> wrote:
>Tell me
In addition, you can count in Moscow, and the neutral
countries(Sweden,Portugal,Switzerland and Spain)
--
nightjar
"Petteri Toivanen" <petteri....@pp1.inet.fi> wrote in message
news:d6j90q$l6s$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> Tell me
Lisbon, Madrid, Valletta, and Bern also come to mind. Probably Andorra la
Vella too. Geographically, Reykjavik is also in Europe.
Colin Bignell
--
Mike_Oborski
were not occupied then you would have to include Moscow as the proper
geographical definition of Europe includes European Russia which runs
as far east as the Ural Mountains.
For a map of geographic Europe see
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/europe/printpage/europe.htm
where Europe is the area coloured in very very light blue.
--
Rhino
"Petteri Toivanen" <petteri....@pp1.inet.fi> wrote in message
news:d6j90q$l6s$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> Tell me
>
Also, Moscow was not occupied by German troops. (Assuming you view Moscow as
a European capital; certainly Moscow is in the European portion of the
Soviet Union/Russia.)
Rhino
--
R Leonard
> Tell me
Dublin, Lisbon, Madrid, & Moscow I think would also fall into that
category
--
Eystein Roll Aarseth
> Tell me
You are forgetting the capitals of neutral countries:
Stockholm, Dublin, Bern, Madrid, Lisbon and Istanbul.
If you *only* want to list the capitals of the belligerents, the only
one you missed is Moscow, I think. (Though the Germans *did* get
awfully close, and AFAIK the place where they stopped is considered to
be inside Moscow *now*. I'm open for corrections on that one, though.)
EAa
--
If you don't understand weapons, you don't understand fighting. If you don't
understand fighting, you don't understand war. If you don't understand war,
you don't understand history. And if you don't understand history, you might
as well live with your head in a sack. (Jeff Cooper's Commentaries, Vol7, #5)
--
Erik G
Bern City (Switzerland)
Stockholm (Sweden)
Madrid (Spain)
Lisbon (Portugal)
"Petteri Toivanen" <petteri....@pp1.inet.fi> wrote in message
news:d6j90q$l6s$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> Tell me
> --
>
--
Rhino
"Petteri Toivanen" <petteri....@pp1.inet.fi> wrote in message
news:d6j90q$l6s$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> Tell me
> --
>
That can't be correct. Surely Bern, Switzerland was not occupied. There may
have been other capitals that were not occupied but others would know for
certain.
Rhino
--
Stewart McI
> Tell me
Back to the books... Lisbon, Stockholm, Dublin, etc., etc.
--
wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
>... that were'nt occupied. Isn't that right?
no. Moscow is another...
--
/"\ ASCII... ._. || ...unn wenn da ebb's naedd bassd,
\ / on Usenet /v\ || no ka'sch's halde wi sella uff'em Dach!
X ANYTHING ELSE /( )\ || nice photos --> www.romanticgermany.com
/ \ IS BLOAT !! ^^ ^^ ||--> EscapeCellHell.org (Consumers Union) <--
--
Brad Meyer
<petteri....@pp1.inet.fi> wrote:
>Tell me
No. Stockholm, Madrid, and whatever the capital of Switzerland is
would also make the list. So would Moscow if counted as European.
--
narrl...@hotmail.com
belligerents" and
that Russia is in Europe, you leave out Moscow.
Narr
--
Keith B. Rosenberg
--
jc
> Tell me
> --
Stockholm
Dublin
Lisbon
Madrid
--
regards
jc
LEGAL - I don't believe what I wrote and neither should you. Sobriety and/or
sanity of the author is not guaranteed
EMAIL - jc...@pacific.net and ne...@perentie.net are not valid email
addresses. news2x at perentie is valid for a while.
--
Mike
news:d6j90q$l6s$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> Tell me
> --
>
Berne, Madrid, Lisbon, Stockholm, Edinburgh, Dublin, Belfast, Cardiff.
--
Thomas W Ping
> Tell me
I'm guessing, but what the heck: how about Madrid, Lisbon and Bern?
--
Thomas Winston Ping
--
Michael Emrys
petteri....@pp1.inet.fi wrote on 5/19/05 4:55 PM:
> Tell me
Well, since you insist... :-D
There were Bern, Stockholm, Madrid, and Lisbon for starters. Give me a day
or two and I might think of a couple more.
Michael
--
Steve Sundberg
<petteri....@pp1.inet.fi> wrote:
>Tell me
Stockholm (Sweden), Geneva (Switzerland), Madrid (Spain), Lisbon
(Portugal), Dublin (Ireland) ...
--
Andrew J Farrow
"Petteri Toivanen" <petteri....@pp1.inet.fi> wrote in message
news:d6j90q$l6s$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> Tell me
> --
>
also :
stockholm
lisbon
madrid
zurich
dublin
rekeyavik <SP> you could arguee that the americans " occupied " it but as
there was an autonomous civil government the same logic would dictate that
US forces " occupied " london
YRS - AJ
--
John Lansford
>Tell me
How about Switzerland, Spain and Portugal?
John Lansford
--
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/
--
Cub Driver
Zurich.
Stockholm.
Dublin.
Moscow.
Lisbon.
Madrid.
-- all the best, Dan Ford
email war...@mailblocks.com (put Cubdriver in subject line)
Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com
--
Janne Suorsa
"Petteri Toivanen" <petteri....@pp1.inet.fi> wrote in message
news:d6j90q$l6s$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> Tell me
> --
>
- Bern (Neutral)
- Stockholm (Neutral)
- Dublin
- Lissabon
- Madrid
BR,
Janne
--
Don Phillipson
May 19:
> Tell me
You could start by enumerating European countries
that remained neutral, viz. Spain, Portugal, Sweden,
Switzerland.
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
--
Martin Rapier
news:d6j90q$l6s$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> Tell me
Ankara. Turkey wasn't in WW2 for very long though.
Obviously there were numerous European states not at war whose capitals
weren't occupied e.g Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Switzerland, Sweden etc.
Martin
--
Hans Christian Hoff
> Tell me
Of course that is wrong.
Stockholm, Madrid, Bern and Lisbon were never occupied.
Regards
Hans
--
Marvin
> Tell me
The capitols of countries that neither the Axis nor the Allies invaded: Spain, Sweden,
Finland, Switzerland, Portugal. Probably others that don't come to mind just now.
--
Louis Capdeboscq
> Tell me
Stockholm, Madrid, Lisbon, Zurich, Dublin ?
For capitals of belligerents, I would add Moscow.
LC
--
Remove "e" from address to reply
--
Hans Christian Hoff
> "Petteri Toivanen" <petteri....@pp1.inet.fi> wrote in message
> news:d6j90q$l6s$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>
>>Tell me
>
>
> Vella too. Geographically, Reykjavik is also in Europe.
>
> Colin Bignell
>
Yes, but Iceland was occupied; as Iceland had no military forces, this
meant de facto that also Reykjavik was in the control of the occupants,
even if they were not billetting troups there.
Regards
Hans
--
Michael Emrys
m.ra...@sheffield.ac.uk wrote on 5/20/05 1:39 PM:
> Ankara.
Moot point. One can argue I suppose that Turkey is a European country on the
basis that the part that lies west and north of the Bosporus is in Europe.
But Ankara itself, like the bulk of the country, lies in Asia.
My earlier list omitted Moscow and Dublin. I am shamed.
Michael
--
nightjar
"Hans Christian Hoff" <hch...@broadpark.no> wrote in message
news:d6m2hd$o1j$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
....
> Yes, but Iceland was occupied; as Iceland had no military forces, this
> meant de facto that also Reykjavik was in the control of the occupants,
> even if they were not billetting troups there.
I was under the impression that the troops were there by invitation.
Colin Bignell
--
Bob Martin
>Zurich.
>
>Stockholm.
>
>Dublin.
>
>Moscow.
>
>Lisbon.
>
>Madrid.
Why do so many people on this board not know the capital of Switzerland.
There seem to be as many people saying Zurich as saying Bern !
--
Cub Driver
<hch...@broadpark.no> wrote:
>Yes, but Iceland was occupied; as Iceland had no military forces, this
>meant de facto that also Reykjavik was in the control of the occupants,
>even if they were not billetting troups there.
Both Britain and the U.S. had ground troops in Iceland (I believe that
the Americans eventually relieved the Brit ground troops, but the RAF
stayed throughout the way). Though this was done with the nominal
permission of the Danish government in exile, it certainly looks like
a military occupation to me.
Cub Driver
<thedevil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Berne, Madrid, Lisbon, Stockholm, Edinburgh, Dublin, Belfast, Cardiff.
If Edinburgh, Belfast, and Cardiff were capitals, then they were
occupied by the British (and to a lesser extent by the Americans).
T. Fink
> "Petteri Toivanen" <petteri....@pp1.inet.fi> wrote in message
> news:d6j90q$l6s$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>
>>Tell me
>
>
> Lisbon, Madrid, Valletta, and Bern also come to mind. Probably Andorra la
> Vella too. Geographically, Reykjavik is also in Europe.
Well, Valletta and Reykjavik weren't really capitals then because Malta
and Iceland weren't independent during WW2.
Cheers
Torsten
--
Kill Holzmichl!
--
Lasse
guestion needs some explaining. He has probably heard this
claim in Finland and the original claim must have been "L and H
were the only _western_ capitals...". The logic behind this is
that Russia is seen as eastern power. The claim also considers
only the nations participating in war.
A one variation of this claim includes all nations participating
in the war and defines US as a not-western because of the aid to
the Soviets.
This variation is probably the most common one: "Helsinki, London
and Moscow were the only capitals of warring European countries
that were not occupied by the enemy."
Lasse Ukkonen
--
Hal Hanig
> quoting "Petteri Toivanen" <petteri....@pp1.inet.fi>
>> ... that were'nt occupied. Isn't that right?
>
> no. Moscow is another...
I believe that Bern, Stockholm, Madrid and Lisbon were also considered to be
unoccupied European capitals in those days.
--
sig...@binet.is
>
> Yes, but Iceland was occupied; as Iceland had no military forces,
this
> meant de facto that also Reykjavik was in the control of the
occupants,
> even if they were not billetting troups there.
>
There were thousands of occupying troops in Reykjavík from 10th may
1940 until the end of the war.
--
Bill Shatzer
-snip-
> Both Britain and the U.S. had ground troops in Iceland (I believe that
> the Americans eventually relieved the Brit ground troops, but the RAF
> stayed throughout the way). Though this was done with the nominal
> permission of the Danish government in exile, it certainly looks like
> a military occupation to me.
So far as I know, there was never a Danish 'government in exile'. The
Danish king, government, and military remained in place throughout
the German occupation although increasingly under German control.
Cheers and all,
--
"Cave ab homine unius libri"
--
nightjar
"Cub Driver" <war...@mailblocks.com> wrote in message
news:d6p0q6$s9i$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
....
> Both Britain and the U.S. had ground troops in Iceland (I believe that
> the Americans eventually relieved the Brit ground troops, but the RAF
> stayed throughout the way). Though this was done with the nominal
> permission of the Danish government in exile, it certainly looks like
> a military occupation to me.
The USA was a neutral country when its troops arrived in 1941.
Colin Bignell
--
sig...@binet.is
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 01:22:53 +0000 (UTC), Hans Christian Hoff
> <hch...@broadpark.no> wrote:
>
> >Yes, but Iceland was occupied; as Iceland had no military forces,
this
> >meant de facto that also Reykjavik was in the control of the
occupants,
> >even if they were not billetting troups there.
>
> Both Britain and the U.S. had ground troops in Iceland (I believe
that
> the Americans eventually relieved the Brit ground troops, but the RAF
> stayed throughout the way). Though this was done with the nominal
> permission of the Danish government in exile, it certainly looks like
> a military occupation to me.
No, it was not done with the permission of the Danish government,
Iceland became independent in 1918 so the Danish government was not
consulted.
BTW, the Danish government stayed in Denmark.
--
Cub Driver
<nigh...@bignell.uk.com> wrote:
>> Yes, but Iceland was occupied; as Iceland had no military forces, this
>> meant de facto that also Reykjavik was in the control of the occupants,
>> even if they were not billetting troups there.
>
>I was under the impression that the troops were there by invitation.
It was a situation analagous to the Japanese occupation of the French
colonies in Indochina. Who, after all, represented the Danish
government? The prewar minister Hendrik Kauffman was in the U.S., and
in April 1941 signed an agreement with Cordell Hull giving the
Americans a 99-year lease on any bases they needed in Greenland. I
don't know what the legal document was that brought American troops
into Iceland, but presumably it was signed by the Danes on the ground
in Reykjavik, which had a more functional government. (The British
were there before the Americans came in, mid-1941.) But presumably
there was also a Danish government in Copenhagen that would, under
German pressure, have disputed these agreements.
Denmark's role in the war, with respect to these islands, was somewhat
conflicted. The U.S. confiscated 40 Danish ships that were in American
ports (it also confiscated ships of neutral registry). The Americans
employed Danish civilians as scouts along the uninhabited east coast
of Greenland, and some of the armed clashes there were with other
Danes and the occasional Norwegian employed in like work by the
Germans, who tried to maintain weather stations there.
Mike
> On Fri, 20 May 2005 20:38:02 +0000 (UTC), "Mike"
> <thedevil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Berne, Madrid, Lisbon, Stockholm, Edinburgh, Dublin, Belfast, Cardiff.
>
> If Edinburgh, Belfast, and Cardiff were capitals, then they were
> occupied by the British (and to a lesser extent by the Americans).
That's like saying that Washington DC was occupied by the Americans :-)
--
sig...@binet.is
Well, Iceland became independant in 1918, that is before WW2.
--
wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
>> no. Moscow is another...
> I believe that Bern, Stockholm, Madrid and Lisbon were also
> considered to be unoccupied European capitals in those days.
there is/was no doubt in my mind that the question was asking
only about nations at war...
--
/"\ ASCII... ._. || ...unn wenn da ebb's naedd bassd,
\ / on Usenet /v\ || no ka'sch's halde wi sella uff'em Dach!
X ANYTHING ELSE /( )\ || nice photos --> www.romanticgermany.com
/ \ IS BLOAT !! ^^ ^^ ||--> EscapeCellHell.org (Consumers Union) <--
--
sig...@binet.is
You got the wrong impression then, the British forces that occupied
Iceland on 10 May 1940 were not invited.
--
Georg Schwarz
> You are forgetting the capitals of neutral countries:
> Stockholm, Dublin, Bern, Madrid, Lisbon and Istanbul.
The capital of Turkey is (and was at that time) Ankara, not Istambul.
--
Georg Schwarz http://home.pages.de/~schwarz/
georg....@freenet.de +49 178 8545053
--
downwiththatsortofthing
Bit of a bad questions because the vast majority of European capitals were
not occupied.
T. Fink
> Well, Iceland became independant in 1918, that is before WW2.
>
Then how was it a Danish possession in 1940? Was it a kind of dominion
of Denmark?
T. Fink
No, it's rather like saying that Richmond was accupied by US forces ;)
Andrew J Farrow
"downwiththatsortofthing" <webm...@irish-grinds.com> wrote in message
news:d6rcb1$o4b$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
ok , of the top of my head
occupied
paris
brussels
oslo
amsterdam
copenhagen
berlin
athens
rome
warsaw
prague
belgrade
vienna
tirana [ albania ]
talin [ estonia]
kaunas [ lithuania ]
riga [ latvia ]
sofia [ bulgaria ]
bucharest [ roumania ]
budapest [ hungary ]
unoccupied
london
dublin
stockholm
helsinki
ankara
berne
rekyeavik
moscow
lisbon
madrid
thats ten unoccupied and 19 occupied [ max ] you may not accept all my
cretira for " occupied " but i have included 2 borderlines in the "
unoccupied " and even giving you every lee way NOTHING you can do will get
the score down below a draw
hardly a " overwhelmong magority "
and my full list of occupieds ALL were listed as soverign nations with
capital city in a 1930s gazeteer [ the same list does not afford status of "
capital " to kiev or cardiff ]
YRS - AJ
--
Andrew Clark
<sig...@binet.is> wrote
> You got the wrong impression then, the British
> forces that occupied Iceland on 10 May 1940
> were not invited.
That's quite true, although the occupation of Iceland by
British troops and later by the US Army was entirely
peaceful.
However, it's wrong to characterise the British occupation
as an invasion of a neutral. In 1918, Iceland demanded a
degree of autonomy from its colonial master, and obtained it
in a form which could be passed off to the Icelanders as
virtual independence and to the Danish as mere home rule.
What was the 'true position'?. I follow the foreign
departments of the world at the time who unanimously took
the view that Iceland had domestic home rule but for the
purposes of foreign policy (other than, perhaps, local
fishing rights) was effectively a Danish possession.
As Denmark was occupied by the Germans, the British were
entitled at international law to occupy Iceland as it was
for foreign relations purposes legally and potentially,
although not actually, under German control. (Please read
all the words in that sentence as they all have weight).
--
Michele Armellini
messaggio news:d6rcb1$o4b$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> Dublin etc etc...
>
> Bit of a bad questions because the vast majority of European capitals were
> not occupied.
>
The vast majority?
Paris, Bruxelles, Amsterdam, Luxembourg, Berlin, Copenhagen, Oslo, Rome,
Belgrade, Budapest, Athens, Warsaw were occupied. That's 12.
London, Helsinki and Moscow, among the combatants, were not. 3.
Then there are the neutrals: Lisbon, Madrid, Bern, Dublin, Stockholm. 5.
Total certainly not occupied is: 3+5 = 8.
Then there are the ambiguous cases. Sofia and Bucharest were capitals, and
weren't formally occupied - though it's difficult to count the Soviet troops
there as invited guests, in all fairness.
Reykjavik is ambiguous. It has been claimed as being a capital. If it was,
it was occupied. In truth, however, the 1918 agreement was fuzzy enough to
let the locals consider themselves as independent, while everyone else knew
they were some sort of Danish dominion.
Prague and Tirana I count as occupied; the occupants didn't enter them
during WWII, but were already there.
Finally you have the puppet states, Slovakia and Croatia. Assuming they
really had capitals, do you count them as not occupied by the Germans? Fine,
but then they got occupied by the Allies.
As to the micro-states, Andorra and the Vatican weren't occupied, but S.
Marino was. I don't know the status of Vaduz at the time.
--
Petteri Toivanen
information about combatant capitals. Any way I am not sure can we talk
about any neutral countries in that time in Europe, i think that for example
sweden were making lots of co-operation with germany selling iron and
allowing transportation of troops in to the north-east front.
Thank you about these several good answers
--
Cub Driver
>The USA was a neutral country when its troops arrived in 1941.
One doesn't need to be a belligerant in order to carry out a military
occupation!
It is of course an interesting point whether Reykjavik was a capital,
in that it was a Danish colony. I disputed whether Belfast, Cardiff,
and Edinburgh could be considered capitals; perhaps the same is true
of Reyjkavik (not to mention Godhab, as Nuuk was then called).
Speaking of Greenland/Iceland, I am as always interested in
corresponding with anyone who passed through Bluie West One
(present-day Narsarsuaq) during the 1940s or 1950s. See
www.warbirdforum.com/bluie.htm
Tristan Miller
In article <d6j90q$l6s$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu>, Petteri Toivanen wrote:
> Tell me
You've got a lot of fine answers from others in this thread, but no one has
yet mentioned Vaduz. Not like there's anything worth occupying there,
though...
Regards,
Tristan
--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you
--
sig...@binet.is
>
> It was a situation analagous to the Japanese occupation of the French
> colonies in Indochina. Who, after all, represented the Danish
> government? The prewar minister Hendrik Kauffman was in the U.S., and
> in April 1941 signed an agreement with Cordell Hull giving the
> Americans a 99-year lease on any bases they needed in Greenland. I
> don't know what the legal document was that brought American troops
> into Iceland, but presumably it was signed by the Danes on the ground
> in Reykjavik, which had a more functional government. (The British
> were there before the Americans came in, mid-1941.) But presumably
> there was also a Danish government in Copenhagen that would, under
> German pressure, have disputed these agreements.
Iceland became independent in 1918, so the Danish government had no say
in the affairs of Iceland. It was the Danish ambassador to the US that
negotiated the treaty that allowed USA to occupy Greenland but it was
an agreemnet between the governments of Iceland and the USA that
allowed US troops to take over the occupation of Iceland from the
British that had invaded Iceland on 10th May 1940.
--
Mike
news:d6t0o3$u29$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
Given the Stuart takeover of the English throne, I'd prefer to say that
London had been occupied by the Scots.
--
sig...@binet.is
Cub Driver wrote:
> Speaking of Greenland and I think Iceland:
>
> >The USA was a neutral country when its troops arrived in 1941.
>
> One doesn't need to be a belligerant in order to carry out a military
> occupation!
>
> It is of course an interesting point whether Reykjavik was a capital,
> in that it was a Danish colony. I disputed whether Belfast, Cardiff,
> and Edinburgh could be considered capitals; perhaps the same is true
> of Reyjkavik (not to mention Godhab, as Nuuk was then called).
Iceland became independant in 1918 so Reykjavík was a capital of an
independant country when WW2 started.
--
sig...@binet.is
> <sig...@binet.is> wrote
>
> > You got the wrong impression then, the British
> > forces that occupied Iceland on 10 May 1940
> > were not invited.
>
> That's quite true, although the occupation of Iceland by
> British troops and later by the US Army was entirely
> peaceful.
>
> However, it's wrong to characterise the British occupation
> as an invasion of a neutral. In 1918, Iceland demanded a
> degree of autonomy from its colonial master, and obtained it
> in a form which could be passed off to the Icelanders as
> virtual independence and to the Danish as mere home rule.
No, the Danes regarded Iceland as independent but were handling
Iceland愀 foreign affairs on behalf of the Icelandic government.
Iceland and Denmark both declared themselves neutral after 1918 and the
Danish government did not take any responsibility for the defence of
Iceland.
> What was the 'true position'?. I follow the foreign
> departments of the world at the time who unanimously took
> the view that Iceland had domestic home rule but for the
> purposes of foreign policy (other than, perhaps, local
> fishing rights) was effectively a Danish possession.
I do not know what position the foreign powers took, but most of them
dealt with Iceland via the offices of the Danish foreign office but
Denmark never made a decision for Iceland, the Icelandic government was
always consulted.
> As Denmark was occupied by the Germans, the British were
> entitled at international law to occupy Iceland as it was
> for foreign relations purposes legally and potentially,
> although not actually, under German control. (Please read
> all the words in that sentence as they all have weight).
Well, I did and you are wrong. Iceland took over the duties of the
Danish king and transferred the foreign office to Iceland on 9th april
1940, an act that was recognized by the British, as was the declaration
of Icelandic neutrality.
The Germans had no claim to control over Iceland.
It is quite clear that the British considered themselves to be invading
a neutral, sovereign nation when they came on May 10th, 1940.
>
>
>
> --
--
Andrew Clark
"Cub Driver" <war...@mailblocks.com> wrote
> If Edinburgh, Belfast, and Cardiff were capitals...
They were.
In WW2, as now, Scotland & Wales were nations with their own
capital cities. The nation of Wales was brought into full
union with England by the Acts of Union 1536-1548. The
nation of Scotland was brought into full union with England
by the Act of Union 1707. After 1707, the United Kingdom of
Great Britain was the official name of the British state.
In 1800, Ireland had been brought into full union with the
UK by another Act of Union, creating the United Kingdom of
Britain & Ireland. In WW2, however (and indeed until 1998),
Belfast was the capital (seat of government) city of the
state of Northern Ireland brought into existence by the
Government of Ireland Act 1920.
> then they were occupied by the British...
The people of England, Scotland & Wales are collectively
'British', simultaneously with being English, Welsh or
Scottish. Just as one can be both Texan and American. Do the
Americans "occupy" Houston?
--
Michele Armellini
news:d6t0tk$u5d$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>
> Iceland became independent in 1918, so the Danish government had no say
> in the affairs of Iceland.
Save in fields like foreign relations, foreign trade, and military defense.
The coast guard was a Danish affair. The Icelanders did not have embassies
and ambassadors - save for an embassy in Copenhagen, where foreign envoys
would seldom appear, save, of course, for representatives of the Danish
government.
In practice, the things that make an entity a sovereign state were delegated
to the Danes by the Icelanders. It was part of the 1918 deal.
but it was
> an agreemnet between the governments of Iceland and the USA that
> allowed US troops to take over the occupation of Iceland
Of course; that's because the Danish government would have found it
difficult to work with the USA from German-occupied Denmark! And because the
USA wanted local popular support, not so much for practical purposes, but
for PR purposes.
--
sig...@binet.is
Michele Armellini wrote:
> Reykjavik is ambiguous. It has been claimed as being a capital. If it
was,
> it was occupied. In truth, however, the 1918 agreement was fuzzy
enough to
> let the locals consider themselves as independent, while everyone
else knew
> they were some sort of Danish dominion.
No, Iceland was fully independent from 1918 but shared a king with
Denmark.
If that is ambigous then the independence of Canada and Australia could
be called into doubt as well.
Iceland was not considered a Danish dominion and when Denmark was
occupied by the Germans in 9th april 1940 the Icelandic government
assumed the powers of the king.
--
sig...@binet.is
> sig...@binet.is wrote:
>
> > Well, Iceland became independant in 1918, that is before WW2.
> >
>
> Then how was it a Danish possession in 1940? Was it a kind of
dominion
> of Denmark?
No, it was not a Danish posession, it was a fully independant country
but shared a king with Iceland.
Which explain why your current queen, Margarethe, has an Icelandic name
too (Þórhildur) she was a princess of Iceland when she was born.
The period 1918 to 1943 was intendend to be a transition period, with
the Danish foreign office handling Iceland´s foreign affairs on behalf
of the Icelandic government.
Danes and Icelanders also had the same rights to work and travel within
both countries, something that was later copied in the Nordic union and
today in the EU.
--
Erik G
news:d6tqpq$kso$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>
> Given the Stuart takeover of the English throne, I'd prefer to say that
> London had been occupied by the Scots.
The House of Hanover provided English Kings after the Stuart dynasty. Then
came the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha with the marriage of Queen Victoria to
Prince Albert, son of Ernst, Duke of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha. Since a German
name was bad PR during WWI they changed their name to Windsor. The British
monarch during WWII had German roots!
--
David Thornley
Petteri Toivanen <petteri....@pp1.inet.fi> wrote:
>Sorry about my question was little a bit confusing. I was looking for the
>information about combatant capitals.
In which case we're talking about Moscow, London, and Helsinki as the
combatant European national capitals that were never occupied.
Any way I am not sure can we talk
>about any neutral countries in that time in Europe, i think that for example
>sweden were making lots of co-operation with germany selling iron and
>allowing transportation of troops in to the north-east front.
>
We need to remember that most European countries were trying to do
the best to survive the war, which was best done by not getting into
one. When Germany was threatening most of Europe, several neutrals
were trying to make themselves useful in the hope of not being attacked
(or, in the case of the Soviet Union, trying to make themselves
useful to delay the attack as long as possible).
The rights and duties of neutrals were defined in the appropriate
Hague conventions (one for land warfare and one for sea warfare).
It was one of the rights of neutrals to trade with belligerents,
but a neutral is bound not to allow belligerent troops through its
national territory. The Allies had a perfect right to consider
Sweden as an Axis nation based on that, had anybody wanted to do
such a thing.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
--
T. Fink
>
> Given the Stuart takeover of the English throne, I'd prefer to say that
> London had been occupied by the Scots.
But they have been thrown out by a Dutch king who was succeeded by a
long line of German kings and Queens, so London maybe is still occupied
by us Germans ;)
sig...@binet.is
Michele Armellini wrote:
> "sigv...@simnet.is" <sig...@binet.is> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:d6t0tk$u5d$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>
> >
> > Iceland became independent in 1918, so the Danish government had no
say
> > in the affairs of Iceland.
>
> Save in fields like foreign relations, foreign trade, and military
defense.
No, the Danish did not participate in the military defense and foreign
trade and foreign relations were carried out by the Danish foreign
service on behalf of the Icelandic government subject to approval by
the Icelandic government. Iceland was not a member of the League of
nations and at the same time as Denmark signed treaties forbidding
trade with Italy following the Abyssinian war, Iceland signed lucrative
trading deals with Italy that they could not have done if Denmark had
controlled foreign trade.
> The coast guard was a Danish affair.
Only for the first couple of years, the High court and the coast guard
were provided by Denmark until such time as Iceland gould take over the
offices themselves, Iceland had taken both over by 1925.
> In practice, the things that make an entity a sovereign state were
delegated
> to the Danes by the Icelanders. It was part of the 1918 deal.
>
> but it was
> > an agreemnet between the governments of Iceland and the USA that
> > allowed US troops to take over the occupation of Iceland
>
> Of course; that's because the Danish government would have found it
> difficult to work with the USA from German-occupied Denmark! And
because the
> USA wanted local popular support, not so much for practical purposes,
but
> for PR purposes.
No, when Denmark was run over in 1940 the Icelanders took over the
duties of the King and brought their foreign service home.
--
Michele Armellini
"sigv...@simnet.is" <sig...@binet.is> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:d6tqpi$ks2$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>
> Michele Armellini wrote:
>
>
> > Reykjavik is ambiguous. It has been claimed as being a capital. If it
> was,
> > it was occupied. In truth, however, the 1918 agreement was fuzzy
> enough to
> > let the locals consider themselves as independent, while everyone
> else knew
> > they were some sort of Danish dominion.
>
> No, Iceland was fully independent from 1918 but shared a king with
> Denmark.
> If that is ambigous then the independence of Canada and Australia could
> be called into doubt as well.
The difference being substantial rather than on paper. Canada and Australia
had armed forces of their own, a foreign policy and foreign trade of their
own. Iceland didn't.
> Iceland was not considered a Danish dominion and when Denmark was
> occupied by the Germans in 9th april 1940 the Icelandic government
> assumed the powers of the king.
> --
Definitely. For that matter, Pavelic also assumed ruling powers in Croatia,
and Karadzic in the Serbian Republic of B&H - it remains to be seen which
countries acknowledged them.
--
Louis Capdeboscq
>
> Why do so many people on this board not know the capital of Switzerland.
Because when we can't use history to embarrass ourselves we have to rely
on geography !
> There seem to be as many people saying Zurich as saying Bern !
Well, we remember it's not Geneva and what other city are the Swiss
famour for ? :-)
Personally, 99% of my trips to Switzerland were to Geneva and Zurich,
so... :-)
LC
--
Remove "e" from address to reply
--
Andrew Clark
> No, the Danes regarded Iceland as independent
> but were handling Iceland愀 foreign affairs on
> behalf of the Icelandic government.
As I said, there are a range of views about the exact status
of Iceland in WW2. The Permanent Court of International
Justice in 1931 thought that Iceland was not independent
from Denmark, an opinion shared by all the nations of the
world. You are free to disagree but I am more inclined to
follow the contemporary consensus.
> Iceland and Denmark both declared
> themselves neutral after 1918 and the
> Danish government did not take any
> responsibility for the defence of
> Iceland.
That isn't accurate. The Danish Navy provided the coastguard
service in Iceland.
> I do not know what position the foreign powers took,
> but most of them dealt with Iceland via the offices
> of the Danish foreign office...
Indicating that Iceland was not de jure independent...
> but Denmark never made a decision for Iceland,
> the Icelandic government was
> always consulted.
Consultation does not amount to de jure independence. In
fact, the mere fact of consultation establishes de jure
dependency.
> Well, I did and you are wrong. Iceland took over
> the duties of the Danish king and transferred
> the foreign office to Iceland on 9th april
> 1940,
The Icelandic assembly made a unilateral declaration,
certainly, but that does not of itself establish de jure
independence.
> an act that was recognized by the
> British, as was the declaration
> of Icelandic neutrality.
No. The British specifically did not recognise the act of
the Icelandic assembly as amounting to the establishment of
an independent Icelandic state. Even if they had,
recognition by a single government does not provide
international legitimacy.
As I said, whether it offends your sense of national pride
or not, in the opinion of the jurists of the time, based on
the findings of the Permanent Court of International Justice
in 1931, the Danish Crown remained responsible for the
foreign relations of Iceland in 1940, and that meant that
Iceland in 1940 was for foreign relations purposes legally
and potentially, although not actually, under German control
after the German invasion of Denmark.
> The Germans had no claim to control
> over Iceland.
No. But the Danish Crown did, and the Danish Crown was under
German duress. Therefore, the foreign relations of Iceland,
through the Danish Crown, were legally and potentially,
although not actually, under German control after the German
invasion of Denmark. For example, the Danish Crown would be
legally entitled to announce that Iceland was now at war
with Britain and her allies and to sign a treaty giving the
Germans basing rights in Iceland. So the British were
entitled at law to occupy Iceland.
> It is quite clear that the British considered
> themselves to be invading a neutral,
> sovereign nation when they came on
> May 10th, 1940.
The British were certainly, and rightly, apologetic about
the necessity to occupy Iceland. But the Foreign Office made
the legal position abundantly clear at the time - and at no
time in 1940 was Iceland ever accepted by the British as a
"neutral, sovereign nation".
--
Andrew Clark
"Erik G" <nor...@online.no> wrote
> The British monarch during WWII
> had German roots!
In the first place, *all* the European monarchs were in WW2
and are now are related to one another in some way. That
reflects the historic nature of monarchy which predates the
nation-state. In particular, the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty
was not German as such, but European, extending into
Belgium, Spain, Portugal and other nations.
Secondly, how many Americans in WW2 had "German roots"?
Eisenhower for one, and Einstein for another.
--
Hans Christian Hoff
descendancy from Kings and Queens of England who were in turn afik
descendants from Danish conquerors. England is may be still occupied by
the Danes .
;-)
Hans
--
Dave Smith
> The House of Hanover provided English Kings after the Stuart dynasty. Then
> came the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha with the marriage of Queen Victoria to
> Prince Albert, son of Ernst, Duke of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha. Since a German
> name was bad PR during WWI they changed their name to Windsor. The British
> monarch during WWII had German roots!
And the von Battenburgs changed their name to Mountbatten.
--
Cub Driver
<don'tspam....@tin.it> wrote:
>Reykjavik is ambiguous. It has been claimed as being a capital. If it was,
>it was occupied. In truth, however, the 1918 agreement was fuzzy enough to
>let the locals consider themselves as independent, while everyone else knew
>they were some sort of Danish dominion.
As the various Icelanders and Danes have described this situation, it
strikes me as remarkably similar to the Irish Free State granted in
1923 to the 26 southern and western counties of Ireland. With the
difference that the Irish were able to finesse their nominal
independence into the real thing by the time WWII came along. (To be
sure, there was an element of the Swiss-German relationship in there
as well.)
Cub Driver
>No, Iceland was fully independent from 1918 but shared a king with
>Denmark.
>If that is ambigous then the independence of Canada and Australia could
>be called into doubt as well.
An interesting argument!
What about South Africa? I assume not, given that ZA did not have a
"Royal" Air Force but ostentatiously the SAAF.
Roman Werpachowski
>
> "Erik G" <nor...@online.no> wrote
>
>> The British monarch during WWII
>> had German roots!
>
> In the first place, *all* the European monarchs were in WW2
> and are now are related to one another in some way. That
Like, many of monarchs in Europe have Jagiellonian blood in them.
> reflects the historic nature of monarchy which predates the
> nation-state. In particular, the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty
> was not German as such, but European, extending into
> Belgium, Spain, Portugal and other nations.
>
> Secondly, how many Americans in WW2 had "German roots"?
> Eisenhower for one, and Einstein for another.
>
Einstein was Jewish, not German. He had cultural and political roots in
Germany, but not ethnic.
--
Roman Werpachowski
/--------==============--------\
| http://www.cft.edu.pl/~roman |
\--------==============--------/
--
sig...@binet.is
Michele Armellini wrote:
> "sigv...@simnet.is" <sig...@binet.is> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:d6tqpi$ks2$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> >
> > Michele Armellini wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Reykjavik is ambiguous. It has been claimed as being a capital. If it
> > was,
> > > it was occupied. In truth, however, the 1918 agreement was fuzzy
> > enough to
> > > let the locals consider themselves as independent, while everyone
> > else knew
> > > they were some sort of Danish dominion.
> >
> > No, Iceland was fully independent from 1918 but shared a king with
> > Denmark.
> > If that is ambigous then the independence of Canada and Australia could
> > be called into doubt as well.
>
> The difference being substantial rather than on paper. Canada and Australia
> had armed forces of their own, a foreign policy and foreign trade of their
> own. Iceland didn't.
Iceland had both foreign trade and a foreign policy of their own
(Denmark was a League of nations member and in 1935 they participated
in the trade embargo on Italy following the Abbysinian war, Iceland was
not a member and signed lucrative trade deals with Italy after the
embargo came into force)
Iceland declared itself neutral in 1918 and Denmark did not take any
responsibility for the defence of Iceland but they conducted fisheries
patrols for few years.
--
sig...@binet.is
> "sigv...@simnet.is" <sig...@binet.is> wrote
>
> > No, the Danes regarded Iceland as independent
> > but were handling Iceland愀 foreign affairs on
> > behalf of the Icelandic government.
>
> As I said, there are a range of views about the exact status
> of Iceland in WW2. The Permanent Court of International
> Justice in 1931 thought that Iceland was not independent
> from Denmark, an opinion shared by all the nations of the
> world. You are free to disagree but I am more inclined to
> follow the contemporary consensus.
>
> > Iceland and Denmark both declared
> > themselves neutral after 1918 and the
> > Danish government did not take any
> > responsibility for the defence of
> > Iceland.
>
> That isn't accurate. The Danish Navy provided the coastguard
> service in Iceland.
Until 1925, IIRC.
> > I do not know what position the foreign powers took,
> > but most of them dealt with Iceland via the offices
> > of the Danish foreign office...
>
> Indicating that Iceland was not de jure independent...
>
> > but Denmark never made a decision for Iceland,
> > the Icelandic government was
> > always consulted.
>
> Consultation does not amount to de jure independence. In
> fact, the mere fact of consultation establishes de jure
> dependency.
Well, it was probably a bad choice of words on my part, what I meant to
say was that the foreign policy of Iceland was carried out by the
Danish foreign service (but the decisions were made by the Icelandic
government) because the Danish foreign service was teaching future
Icelandic diplomats their trade.
Denmark was a founding member of the League of Nations and was a
signatory to the trade embargo on Italy in 1935, Iceland was not a
Leauge member and signed lucrative trade deals with Italy in 1935 after
the embargo was in place.
That would indicate to me that Iceland had both a foreign policy and
foreign trade independant from Denmark.
> > The Germans had no claim to control
> > over Iceland.
>
> No. But the Danish Crown did, and the Danish Crown was under
> German duress. Therefore, the foreign relations of Iceland,
> through the Danish Crown, were legally and potentially,
> although not actually, under German control after the German
> invasion of Denmark. For example, the Danish Crown would be
> legally entitled to announce that Iceland was now at war
> with Britain and her allies and to sign a treaty giving the
> Germans basing rights in Iceland. So the British were
> entitled at law to occupy Iceland.
No, the Danish crown had no legal rights to announce that Iceland was
at war with anyone unless the Icelandic government so wished.
--
Cub Driver
<acl...@deletethisstarcott.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Just as one can be both Texan and American. Do the
>Americans "occupy" Houston?
If Houston is a national capital, then Americans occupy it. But it
isn't, nor is Belfast.
Erik G
"Andrew Clark" <acl...@deletethisstarcott.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d70err$k4u$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>
> "Erik G" <nor...@online.no> wrote
>
>> The British monarch during WWII
>> had German roots!
>
> In the first place, *all* the European monarchs were in WW2
> and are now are related to one another in some way. That
> reflects the historic nature of monarchy which predates the
> nation-state. In particular, the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty
> was not German as such, but European, extending into
> Belgium, Spain, Portugal and other nations.
Of course most of the European monarchy is related to each other and you
don't have to go back very far to draw the family lines (if you had enough
ink). Christian IX (1818-1906), King of Denmark, ties together the Danish,
Norwegian, English, Greek, Russian, German, Belgian, Romanian, Yugoslavian
and who know what other royal families. Christian IX would host big summer
events at his country estate in Denmark for the European royals, he seemed
to be either grandfather or uncle to everyone there ;-).
>
> Secondly, how many Americans in WW2 had "German roots"?
> Eisenhower for one, and Einstein for another.
>
And I'm sure most of Milwaukee had German roots. My only point was that the
Stuart dynasty had long given way by a Germanic line. Back to WWII (any war
for that matter) people are sensitive to the fact that their family name
could infer sympathies for the enemy nation. It was a good PR move to
change Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor, they were by then (1917) certainly very
English.
--
Cub Driver
>> If Edinburgh, Belfast, and Cardiff were capitals...
>
>They were.
Ah well, then the United States had 49 capitals in WWII, or arguably
51, and none of them was occupied either.
Belfast, Edinburgh, and Cardiff are and were not capitals of nations,
which is surely the question at issue. After all, Barvaria has a
capital, and so I suspect do numerous other provinces and departments
of continental Europe.
The only national capitals in the British Isles are Dublin and London.
Sheez.
Cub Driver
<sig...@binet.is> wrote:
>
>Iceland became independent in 1918, so the Danish government had no say
>negotiated the treaty that allowed USA to occupy Greenland but it was
>an agreemnet between the governments of Iceland and the USA that
>British that had invaded Iceland on 10th May 1940.
My apologies to the Icelanders! I am moving this into a new thread
because I'd like some background on both these countries.
Iceland: There seems to be some disagreement on how voluntary were
these occupations. Are you saying that the Icelanders welcomed the
Americans in order to get rid of the British, and that the British
invasion had been unwelcome? (Note that RAF personnel remained after
the ground troops left.) I understood the matter somewhat differently:
Americans went into Iceland to relieve British troops for service
elsewhere.
Greenland: the Danish minister to the U.S. signed agreements in April
1940 and again in April 1941. Are you saying that he did this with the
approval of the Danish government in Copenhagen? If so, what was the
nature of the German occupation of Denmark that would permit it such
liberty?
Thanks in advance for any further enlightenment.
Cub Driver
>Well, I did and you are wrong. Iceland took over the duties of the
>Danish king and transferred the foreign office to Iceland on 9th april
>1940, an act that was recognized by the British, as was the declaration
>of Icelandic neutrality.
I wonder if this is mere coincidence, or was this act somehow
connected with the treated signed by the Danish minister to the U.S.
on the same day with respect to American rights in Greenland?
>It is quite clear that the British considered themselves to be invading
>a neutral, sovereign nation when they came on May 10th, 1940.
I wish you well with your argument, but I suspect you will find that
the poster will merely repeat his position ad infinitum until you give
him the last word.
Michele Armellini
>
> Michele Armellini wrote:
> > "sigv...@simnet.is" <sig...@binet.is> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > news:d6t0tk$u5d$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> >
> > >
> > > Iceland became independent in 1918, so the Danish government had no
> say
> > > in the affairs of Iceland.
> >
> > Save in fields like foreign relations, foreign trade, and military
> defense.
Iceland was not a member of the League of
> nations and at the same time as Denmark signed treaties forbidding
> trade with Italy following the Abyssinian war, Iceland signed lucrative
> trading deals with Italy that they could not have done if Denmark had
> controlled foreign trade.
Sure. That was a handy backdoor deal for Denmark (or Iceland and Denmark
together if you insist).
>
> > The coast guard was a Danish affair.
>
> Only for the first couple of years, the High court and the coast guard
> were provided by Denmark until such time as Iceland gould take over the
> offices themselves, Iceland had taken both over by 1925.
That is, the money that actually went into providing the ships was Danish.
That's why it was a Danish affair. After that, I don't question that the
manning and maintenance was done by the Icelanders. I just wonder what would
have happened in case of a conflict of interests.
>
> > In practice, the things that make an entity a sovereign state were
> delegated
> > to the Danes by the Icelanders. It was part of the 1918 deal.
> >
> > but it was
> > > an agreemnet between the governments of Iceland and the USA that
> > > allowed US troops to take over the occupation of Iceland
> >
> > Of course; that's because the Danish government would have found it
> > difficult to work with the USA from German-occupied Denmark! And
> because the
> > USA wanted local popular support, not so much for practical purposes,
> but
> > for PR purposes.
>
> No, when Denmark was run over in 1940 the Icelanders took over the
> duties of the King and brought their foreign service home.
I don't question that. A unilateral decision that, legally, the Danish king
could have challenged. And the Danish king, and the government, were under
clear German influence.
Now. Do you think that if the government of Iceland had said: "no thanks, go
away" the Allied troops would have left?
Since your only answer can be "no", the core of the deal should be apparent.
--
sig...@binet.is
Cub Driver wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 00:00:08 +0000 (UTC), "sigv...@simnet.is"
> <sig...@binet.is> wrote:
>
> >Well, I did and you are wrong. Iceland took over the duties of the
> >Danish king and transferred the foreign office to Iceland on 9th april
> >1940, an act that was recognized by the British, as was the declaration
> >of Icelandic neutrality.
>
> I wonder if this is mere coincidence, or was this act somehow
> connected with the treated signed by the Danish minister to the U.S.
> on the same day with respect to American rights in Greenland?
Are you sure about the date, the Greenland agreement took place in
1941.
> >It is quite clear that the British considered themselves to be invading
> >a neutral, sovereign nation when they came on May 10th, 1940.
>
> I wish you well with your argument, but I suspect you will find that
> the poster will merely repeat his position ad infinitum until you give
> him the last word.
I guess so.
--
T. Fink
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:59:49 +0000 (UTC), "Andrew Clark"
> <acl...@deletethisstarcott.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Just as one can be both Texan and American. Do the
>>Americans "occupy" Houston?
>
>
> If Houston is a national capital, then Americans occupy it. But it
> isn't, nor is Belfast.
>
You want to repeat this in a pub on Falls Road, Belfast? ;)
sig...@binet.is
> "sigv...@simnet.is" <sig...@binet.is> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:d6vkgm$uq4$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> >
> > Michele Armellini wrote:
> > > "sigv...@simnet.is" <sig...@binet.is> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > > news:d6t0tk$u5d$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Iceland became independent in 1918, so the Danish government had no
> > say
> > > > in the affairs of Iceland.
> > >
> > > Save in fields like foreign relations, foreign trade, and military
> > defense.
>
> Iceland was not a member of the League of
> > nations and at the same time as Denmark signed treaties forbidding
> > trade with Italy following the Abyssinian war, Iceland signed lucrative
> > trading deals with Italy that they could not have done if Denmark had
> > controlled foreign trade.
>
> Sure. That was a handy backdoor deal for Denmark (or Iceland and Denmark
> together if you insist).
No, that was not the way it worked because Iceland was conducting their
own foreign trade and policies.
> >
> > > The coast guard was a Danish affair.
> >
> > Only for the first couple of years, the High court and the coast guard
> > were provided by Denmark until such time as Iceland gould take over the
> > offices themselves, Iceland had taken both over by 1925.
>
> That is, the money that actually went into providing the ships was Danish.
> That's why it was a Danish affair. After that, I don't question that the
> manning and maintenance was done by the Icelanders. I just wonder what would
> have happened in case of a conflict of interests.
No, the coast guard vessels were not provided by Denmark.
> >
> > > In practice, the things that make an entity a sovereign state were
> > delegated
> > > to the Danes by the Icelanders. It was part of the 1918 deal.
> > >
> > > but it was
> > > > an agreemnet between the governments of Iceland and the USA that
> > > > allowed US troops to take over the occupation of Iceland
> > >
> > > Of course; that's because the Danish government would have found it
> > > difficult to work with the USA from German-occupied Denmark! And
> > because the
> > > USA wanted local popular support, not so much for practical purposes,
> > but
> > > for PR purposes.
> >
> > No, when Denmark was run over in 1940 the Icelanders took over the
> > duties of the King and brought their foreign service home.
>
> I don't question that. A unilateral decision that, legally, the Danish king
> could have challenged.
No, Icelandic constitution ensured that if the King was unable to
fulfil his funtions the Icelandic government was free to do what they
did.
--
Mike
news:d728g5$ukf$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>>
> Einstein was Jewish, not German. He had cultural and political roots in
> Germany, but not ethnic.
Einstein was born in Ulm. Surely that makes him German?
--
Louis Capdeboscq
>
> Secondly, how many Americans in WW2 had "German roots"?
Kimmel, Bruckner, Spaatz, a handful of howling Marine generals, and the
Kaiser shipyards ?
Michele Armellini
> Michele Armellini wrote:
> >
> > Iceland was not a member of the League of
> > > nations and at the same time as Denmark signed treaties forbidding
> > > trade with Italy following the Abyssinian war, Iceland signed
lucrative
> > > trading deals with Italy that they could not have done if Denmark had
> > > controlled foreign trade.
> >
> > Sure. That was a handy backdoor deal for Denmark (or Iceland and Denmark
> > together if you insist).
>
> No, that was not the way it worked because Iceland was conducting their
> own foreign trade and policies.
Neither statement is provided with supporting evidence. Not mine, not yours.
In these cases, I tend to go with the most obvious explanation. Denmark had
to put up with the sanctions because it would have looked bad for a LoN
memebr not to, but Iceland could be a backdoor channel. It's like a company
having a subsidiary abroad, in a country were regulations are less
stringent - sometimes it's handy.
>
> > >
> > > > The coast guard was a Danish affair.
> > >
> > > Only for the first couple of years, the High court and the coast guard
> > > were provided by Denmark until such time as Iceland gould take over
the
> > > offices themselves, Iceland had taken both over by 1925.
> >
> > That is, the money that actually went into providing the ships was
Danish.
> > That's why it was a Danish affair. After that, I don't question that the
> > manning and maintenance was done by the Icelanders. I just wonder what
would
> > have happened in case of a conflict of interests.
>
> No, the coast guard vessels were not provided by Denmark.
>
I thought they were. But I'll be happy to change my mind if you support your
statement with data. Where were built the ships, when, who paid for them.
While you are at it, was the Icelandic economy self-sustaining? Weren't the
Danes, by any chance, buying fish from them at subsidizing prices?
I notice you have nothing to say about the possibility of a conflict of
interests.
> > >
> > > No, when Denmark was run over in 1940 the Icelanders took over the
> > > duties of the King and brought their foreign service home.
> >
> > I don't question that. A unilateral decision that, legally, the Danish
king
> > could have challenged.
>
> No, Icelandic constitution ensured that if the King was unable to
> fulfil his funtions the Icelandic government was free to do what they
> did.
Exactly. The King, under German duress, could have challenged the idea that
he was unable to fulfill his functions.
At that point, the Icelanders' declaration would remain a unilateral
statement by a rogue local administration, not very much unlike the birth of
Slovakia. And although the Germans would have little or no chance of
actually landing anything in Iceland, let alone occupying it, from a legal
point of view Iceland, together with Denmark, would have forfeited the
status of neutrality - with the obvious consequences.
For the rest, see Mr. Clark's well informed message on the topic. The 1918
deal was politely fuzzy, but regardless of what the Icelanders thought at
the time, the nations of the world regarded Iceland as a sort of Danish
dominion. That's not anything to be ashamed of.
--
narrl...@hotmail.com
at least some of their ancestry is German, and the same was true in
the 1940s. There were rural communities in the American midwest where
church services, both Catholic and Lutheran, were conducted in German
up through the 1950s and possibly later.
Louis lists several names, including "Bruckner." Did you mean Buckner,
as in Simon Bolivar Buckner, son of the Confederate general of the same
name? If so, that's probably a British isles name.
As mentioned, there were Eisenhower, Spaatz, and Kimmel, but also
Walter Krueger (born in Germany IIRC) and Albert Wedemeyer. Bedell
Smith was German on his mother's side (also IIRC), and there are
many others, too numerous to list.
Narr
--
narrl...@hotmail.com
Jewish and American)?
To paraphrase Isaiah Berlin: Identities are never a hundred percent,
not the interesting ones anyway.
Narr
--
sig...@binet.is
Michele Armellini wrote:
> "sigv...@simnet.is" <sig...@binet.is> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:d732m7$jph$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> > Michele Armellini wrote:
> > >
> > > Iceland was not a member of the League of
> > > > nations and at the same time as Denmark signed treaties forbidding
> > > > trade with Italy following the Abyssinian war, Iceland signed
> lucrative
> > > > trading deals with Italy that they could not have done if Denmark had
> > > > controlled foreign trade.
> > >
> > > Sure. That was a handy backdoor deal for Denmark (or Iceland and Denmark
> > > together if you insist).
> >
> > No, that was not the way it worked because Iceland was conducting their
> > own foreign trade and policies.
>
> Neither statement is provided with supporting evidence. Not mine, not yours.
I do not have any on-line sources that might help us here, I rely on
Icelandic books for my info (the Icelandic history atlas and the
Icelandic encyclopaedia)
> In these cases, I tend to go with the most obvious explanation. Denmark had
> to put up with the sanctions because it would have looked bad for a LoN
> memebr not to, but Iceland could be a backdoor channel. It's like a company
> having a subsidiary abroad, in a country were regulations are less
> stringent - sometimes it's handy.
Well, I do not know how that should have helped the Danes here, the
fish was sold by Icelandic companies to Italy and transported there by
Icelandic vessels. Danish authorities or companies did not come near
that.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > The coast guard was a Danish affair.
> > > >
> > > > Only for the first couple of years, the High court and the coast guard
> > > > were provided by Denmark until such time as Iceland gould take over
> the
> > > > offices themselves, Iceland had taken both over by 1925.
> > >
> > > That is, the money that actually went into providing the ships was
> Danish.
> > > That's why it was a Danish affair. After that, I don't question that the
> > > manning and maintenance was done by the Icelanders. I just wonder what
> would
> > > have happened in case of a conflict of interests.
> >
> > No, the coast guard vessels were not provided by Denmark.
> >
>
> I thought they were. But I'll be happy to change my mind if you support your
> statement with data. Where were built the ships, when, who paid for them.
The Icelandic authorites had taken over the coast guard by 1919,
according to the Icelandic encyclopaedia and the first vessel that
Icelanbought for the purpose was paid for by companies and individuals.
> While you are at it, was the Icelandic economy self-sustaining? Weren't the
> Danes, by any chance, buying fish from them at subsidizing prices?
The bulk of Iceland´s exports went to Spain and other Mediterranean
countries, only a small percentage was sold to Northern Europe, very
little fish went to Denmark.
Most of the Icelandic trade with Denmark was import and it seems that
the prices were rather on the higher side so Iceland was probably
subsidizing Denmark.
> I notice you have nothing to say about the possibility of a conflict of
> interests.
I do not know of any cause for conflict, the 1918 treaty between
Iceland and Denmark stated that both were "frjáls og fullvalda" (free
and sovereign)
> > > >
> > > > No, when Denmark was run over in 1940 the Icelanders took over the
> > > > duties of the King and brought their foreign service home.
> > >
> > > I don't question that. A unilateral decision that, legally, the Danish
> king
> > > could have challenged.
> >
> > No, Icelandic constitution ensured that if the King was unable to
> > fulfil his funtions the Icelandic government was free to do what they
> > did.
>
> Exactly. The King, under German duress, could have challenged the idea that
> he was unable to fulfill his functions.
The 1918 treaty had clauses specifically for that kind of eventuality.
> At that point, the Icelanders' declaration would remain a unilateral
> statement by a rogue local administration, not very much unlike the birth of
> Slovakia. And although the Germans would have little or no chance of
> actually landing anything in Iceland, let alone occupying it, from a legal
> point of view Iceland, together with Denmark, would have forfeited the
> status of neutrality - with the obvious consequences.
>
> For the rest, see Mr. Clark's well informed message on the topic. The 1918
> deal was politely fuzzy, but regardless of what the Icelanders thought at
> the time, the nations of the world regarded Iceland as a sort of Danish
> dominion. That's not anything to be ashamed of.
Well, here is the fun part. Most Icelanders at the time were very
anti-Danish and regarded the treaty as merely an extension of the
colonial rule.
It was not until the anti-Danish sentiments had died down (in the
1960´s or 70´s) that historians started to look more objectively at
the matter and realise how important the treaty was.
--
Louis Capdeboscq
> Louis lists several names, including "Bruckner." Did you mean Buckner,
> as in Simon Bolivar Buckner, son of the Confederate general of the same
> name? If so, that's probably a British isles name.
I meant him and the one I was thinking of was Krueger.
There were just too many foreign-born American generals for my tired
brain...
Rich Rostrom
>There were just too many foreign-born American
>generals for my tired brain...
There were many US generals of immigrant descent.
All of them, in fact, other than Indians, and there
were no Indian generals AFAIK.
There were some generals of non-Anglo descent. The
spring 1945 OB in _Crusade in Europe_ lists
Dahlquist (36th Division; Swedish)
O'Daniel (3rd Division; Irish)
Reinhart (65th Division; German)
Dager (11th Division; German)
Schmidt (76th Division; German)
Lauer (99th Division; German)
Hasbrouck (7th Armored; Dutch?)
Huebner (V Corps; German)
Reinhardt (69th Division; German)
Melosky (86th Division; Polish)
Gerow (15th Army; German)
Kramer (66th Division; German)
Stroh (106th Division; Czech)
Malony (94th Division; Irish)
Gerhardt (29th Division; German)
Baade (35th Division; German)
That's a lot of Germans.
My question is: were there any generals in US
service during WW II who were not born US
citzens?
--
| The shocking lack of a fleet of modern luxury |
| dirigibles is only one of a great many things that |
| are seriously wrong with this here world. |
| -- blogger "Coop" at Positive Ape Index |
--
Andrew Clark
> Until 1925, IIRC.
The Icelandic government acquired (from Denmark) a single
coastguard vessel in 1925, certainly. But the other 4
vessels of the Coastguard Service were Danish until 1940.
This fact is conveniently ignored by those who want to
de-emphasise Danish sovereignty over Iceland.
> Well, it was probably a bad choice of words
> on my part, what I meant to say was that the
> foreign policy of Iceland was carried out by the
> Danish foreign service (but the decisions were
> made by the Icelandic government) because the
> Danish foreign service was teaching future
> Icelandic diplomats their trade.
Icelandic diplomats must be particularly inept if they need
22 years of coaching in the trade!
And, in any case, a look at the detailed decisions of
Icelandic foreign policy in the period 1918 - 1922
demonstrates that while Iceland had a certain degree of
delegated responsibility for some areas of foreign policy
(eg fishing rights), the majority of foreign policy
decisions, and all the major ones like alignment and trade,
were made in Denmark.
> Denmark was a founding member of the League of
> Nations and was a signatory to the trade embargo
> on Italy in 1935, Iceland was not a Leauge member
> and signed lucrative trade deals with Italy in 1935 after
> the embargo was in place. That would indicate to me
> that Iceland had both a foreign policy and
> foreign trade independant from Denmark.
This is another common internet myth about establish
Icelandic independence from Denmark. It is wrong.
After the League imposed sanctions on Mussolini's Italy,
Danish exporters seized the opportunity to make huge profits
by shipping goods from Iceland, claiming that Iceland was
not subject to the League sanctions as it was not part of
Denmark. (British exporters did the same by shipping from
the Irish Free State). Denmark was criticised by the League
for this evasion of the sanctions regime, with the
conclusion of the Permanent Court of International Justice
in 1931 thought that Iceland was not independent from
Denmark being the conclusive factor. Denmark agreed to stop
the exports, but did not in fact have to do so as part of
the general collapse of collective security in the run-up to
WW2.
> No, the Danish crown had no legal rights to
> announce that Iceland was at war with anyone
> unless the Icelandic government so wished.
That isn't what the Permanent Court of International Justice
or every European constitutional law expert thought at the
time. The Danish Crown's royal prerogative right of
treaty-making and declaration of war in relation to Iceland
was held to be unaffected by the delegated self-government
deal of 1918.
--
Cub Driver
<loui...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>There were just too many foreign-born American generals for my tired
>brain...
Foreign born? While Kruger was born in West Prussia, he came to the
U.S. at the age of eight, while Buckner was born in Kentucky. While
some of the New York-centric media would regard Kentucky as alien as
Prussia, it was and is a part of the United States.
My own parents were born in Ireland, and I grew up in the 1940s in a
town full of immigrants and first-generation Americans. We made no
distinction. This is still largely true, vide Colin Powell, the
Bronx-born son of an immigrant from the Caribbean. Generally speaking,
if you get here before 12 or 15, if you are a citizen, and if you
speak without a discernible accent, then you are an American.
(Indeed, the melting pot has improved in some ways, since in the 1940s
the courtesy was extended only to those whose bloodline ran to Europe.
Mr. Powell wouldn't have made the cut in Concord MA in 1943.)
Andrew Clark
> Einstein was Jewish, not German. He had
> cultural and political roots in
> Germany, but not ethnic.
One must not fall into the Nazi way of thinking. Jewishness
is a matter of religious cultural affiliation, not
nationality.
Einstein was originally a German by nationality and culture,
and a Jew by religious cultural affiliation. He then became
an American by nationality, a American-German by culture and
a Jew by religious cultural affiliation.
--
Cub Driver
<sig...@binet.is> wrote:
What do your Icelandic references say about the British and later
American forces that came into Iceland in 1940-1941? Were these units
regarded as invaders, welcome friends, or something between?
Thanks for any light you can shine on this incident!