After the fall of Denmark the British and later the Americans occupied Iceland. Was this an evil act? And more then that was it necessary and justified?
Was the Invasion of Iceland an evil act?
- Thread starter Father Maryland
- Start date
The invasion didn't cause any deaths, didn't overthrow the democratic elected government and led to an economic boost in Iceland. Moreover it helped to defeat Nazi Germany and therefore end the Holocaust. So, what would you say?
What? Invasion and occupation era was pretty bloodless, Iceland had still its own legistature and was allowed keep its own laws and Icelanders lived their own life like they had lived centuries. They barely noticed anything.
Probably it was ratherly good thing that it was Brits and Americans not Germans. Germans hardly would had any respect towards Icelandic lifestyle and Iceland would had been great naval base for German Atlantic submarine warfare. And this too probably helped Iceland become independent nation.
Devvy
Donor
This!
Just to nit pick; Iceland was already a sovereign nation prior to WW2, since the Danish-Icelandic Act of Union, which made Iceland sovereign and in personal union with Denmark.
After WW2 they "merely" dropped the personal union & King, and became a republic.
yourworstnightmare
Banned
Invasions are invasions, and Iceland was certainly against being invaded. Was it evil though? No, it can be neither good nor bad, and this one was certainly not good, but I wouldn't say it was bad either. Britain was nervous about a German landing on Iceland (probably too nervous, I don't think Gemrany at the time was either capable and is debatable whether they were interested in seizing the island).
The only legitimate discussion of the invasion of Iceland or any other historical decision in this forum is
(1) What were the alternatives?
(2) Is it plausible that they might have been adopted? If not, what POD might make them plausible?
(3) What would have been the consequences of adopting them?
If you simply want to discuss the ethics of a particular historical decision as an abstract matter, this is not the place for it, because it is not alternative history.
You'd literally have to create an Icelandic Navy from scratch first, and I doubt they'd have operational capabilities while there still was a U-boat threat.
They had a plan to invade, but it appears to have been contingent on a successful Sea Lion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ikarus
yourworstnightmare
Banned
Yeah, the biggest obstacle in the way of invading Iceland was the British navy.
I doubt there were enough Icelanders to do this effectively. Iceland's population in 1940 was about 120,000; if it mobilized at a similar rate to the UK, that would give about 8,000 men under arms (compare 3 million out of 46 million for Britain, which is about 6.5% of the population). Typical destroyers at the time had 200-400 crew, but you always need folks at home - navies usually have pretty "bad" tooth-tail ratios, so we're looking at maybe a quarter or so on boats (which is a lot). So...5-10 destroyers. And frankly, that's being generous. And how many are at sea at any time? There's no way that Iceland can support a navy large enough to defend its own waters.
Khanzeer
Banned
What do you guys think of Clancy invasion of iceland in " red storm rising " ?
Plausibility check