A Blunted Sickle - Thread II

My mums cousin was part of the early Garrison

The unit he was with suffered a couple of deaths when someone came in from a patrol and lent a loaded BREN gun against the wall and it fell over

He later moved to the 8th Durham Light Infantry in 151 Brigade
 
Surely it's a given that a garrison of troops, foreign or otherwise, are going to piss off local men when it comes to women.

Quite so. But there is a spectrum in these things. Worst case you get the Goumiers in Italy or the Soviets in defeated Germany, a nightmare of mass rape and murders. Or you get American troops in France after the liberation, not within orders of magnitude as bad but not a record to be particularly proud of either. Iceland was very nearly the best case.

The Icelanders were unlucky in having occupiers who looked and smelled eligible to the local girls - which wouldn't have been the case so much if the Brits had brought in (say) Gurkhas. And the effect is certainly worse if the local population is small and inbred, you're going to get some serious exogamic drive kick in as the girls' genes tell them to capture some genetic diversity for their offspring.

On the other hand, in this case both groups had relatively high average IQ and low time preference and cultures that valued self-control. And the Icelanders were seen as neutrals or allies rather than a defeated enemy. And both sides had leadership that genuinely punished wrongdoing. So everybody behaved in a relatively civilized way as these things go; it could have gone far, far worse.
 
Quite so. But there is a spectrum in these things. Worst case you get the Goumiers in Italy or the Soviets in defeated Germany, a nightmare of mass rape and murders. Or you get American troops in France after the liberation, not within orders of magnitude as bad but not a record to be particularly proud of either. Iceland was very nearly the best case.

The Icelanders were unlucky in having occupiers who looked and smelled eligible to the local girls - which wouldn't have been the case so much if the Brits had brought in (say) Gurkhas. And the effect is certainly worse if the local population is small and inbred, you're going to get some serious exogamic drive kick in as the girls' genes tell them to capture some genetic diversity for their offspring.

On the other hand, in this case both groups had relatively high average IQ and low time preference and cultures that valued self-control. And the Icelanders were seen as neutrals or allies rather than a defeated enemy. And both sides had leadership that genuinely punished wrongdoing. So everybody behaved in a relatively civilized way as these things go; it could have gone far, far worse.
This feels weird, creepy and unrelated to the thread. Can we not talk about exogamic drive here please?
 
Wasn't Iceland due to make a major renegociation with Danemark in 1944 regarding it's association with the Danish crown ? OTL, Danemark was still occupied by Nazi Germany, but here, they are free to do so. You might still get some sort of agreement and not total independance.
iOTL The actual May 1944 vote was at North Korean levels of both turnout (98.4% turnout with 100% turnout in two consituencies) *and* vote (in favor of the abolition of Union and for the new constitution were 99.5% in favor and 98.5% in favor respectively).

I'm not particularly sure that either the US or UK governments *wanted* such overwhelming votes in favor, while independence *may* have made some things with Iceland easier, I'm not sure of that *or* that a 99% vote was better than an 80% vote (for example).

The agreement governing the situation is the Danish Icelandic act signed in 1918. https://inlofna.org/heritage/#danish-icelandic-act . Essentially as of the end of 1940, either national parliment could call for renegotiation and if no new agreement is made in 3 years, then either nation could have their parliament vote to void it, with a 3/4 turnout and 3/4 vote needed to void the agreement. The act was actually passed because Denmark and Iceland had been cut off from each other by the combattants in WWI, so the situation in WWII was somewhat similiar.

The funny thing is that iTTL, the Swedish/Finnish Union is somewhat close to what the Danes had with the Icelanders, but *somewhat* more even.

Some of this may depend on what Henrik Kauffmann (Danish ambassador to the US) does in terms of Greenland, my *guess* is that with the much lower German threat, he doesn't do anything with Greenland to annoy the Germans, so he might be able to be a conduit for negotiations.

But what it boils down to is I don't think there isn't anything in the TL which would makes a different result than independence in 1944 more likely and even the same *day* is reasonable, OTOH, if the independence day of another nation starting with I is still the same date in 1948 as OTL, I will be very surprised.
 
And the Icelanders were seen as neutrals or allies rather than a defeated enemy. And both sides had leadership that genuinely punished wrongdoing. So everybody behaved in a relatively civilized way as these things go; it could have gone far, far worse.
On the other hand, even *then* Icelandic culture was one of the most forgiving in "western culture" in terms of children born out of wedlock,

While the Gurkhas could have handled the Climate, I don't think anyone in the British Military would have viewed them as appropriate for Garrison Troops. Closest in terms of culture and weather might have been *either* Newfoundland, the Canadian Maritimes or the Hebrides.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Quite so. But there is a spectrum in these things. Worst case you get the Goumiers in Italy or the Soviets in defeated Germany, a nightmare of mass rape and murders. Or you get American troops in France after the liberation, not within orders of magnitude as bad but not a record to be particularly proud of either. Iceland was very nearly the best case.

The Icelanders were unlucky in having occupiers who looked and smelled eligible to the local girls - which wouldn't have been the case so much if the Brits had brought in (say) Gurkhas. And the effect is certainly worse if the local population is small and inbred, you're going to get some serious exogamic drive kick in as the girls' genes tell them to capture some genetic diversity for their offspring.

On the other hand, in this case both groups had relatively high average IQ and low time preference and cultures that valued self-control. And the Icelanders were seen as neutrals or allies rather than a defeated enemy. And both sides had leadership that genuinely punished wrongdoing. So everybody behaved in a relatively civilized way as these things go; it could have gone far, far worse.
High IQ?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
On the other hand, even *then* Icelandic culture was one of the most forgiving in "western culture" in terms of children born out of wedlock,

While the Gurkhas could have handled the Climate, I don't think anyone in the British Military would have viewed them as appropriate for Garrison Troops. Closest in terms of culture and weather might have been *either* Newfoundland, the Canadian Maritimes or the Hebrides.
if you have a Grizzly Bear and a Border Collie, you don't use the Grizzly to watch the meadow and the Collie in a dogfight.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Relative to the global human average, yes. But digging into that really would be going too far afield for Blunted Sickle. You can search for "IQ of nations" and find out a few things.
Without even bothering to go into the dubious usefulness of IQ testing in determining intelligence (especially when comparing populations with very high rates of literacy and formal education availability and populations with very low literacy/education availability), the three countries you mention are quite literally average.

As in the global average being 97.8, with the U.S. rolling in at 97, Iceland at 98 and UK at 99 (it is worth noting that even these figures vary slightly from site to site, bring the issue of using it as a measure even further into question).
 
As in the global average being 97.8, with the U.S. rolling in at 97, Iceland at 98 and UK at 99 (it is worth noting that even these figures vary slightly from site to site, bring the issue of using it as a measure even further into question).

To perpetuate the tangent, I was under the impression that IQ tests were normalized so the average IQ is, by definition, 100 (for the group they're normalized on). If that isn't the case even in the US, do you know what population the tests are normalized on?
 
To perpetuate the tangent, I was under the impression that IQ tests were normalized so the average IQ is, by definition, 100 (for the group they're normalized on). If that isn't the case even in the US, do you know what population the tests are normalized on?
Based on the maps I have seen, seems like Switzerland.
 
Last edited:
To take things back to the most recent updates/maps.

It feels like it will be another 3-4 days before the British reach the former Nazi Germany/Soviet Union border, and probably another week before the Britsh would be anything other than simply a tripwire.

As far as I can tell, the only city that has put up any significant resistance is Berlin itself. Everything else appears to have been functionally conquered within 48 hours of contact with Entente Forces.

Berlin doesn't just need to be taken to defeat the Nazis, it is a significant transport hub and food/fuel going to Poland in significant quantities would have to swing north through Stettin or south through Dresden.

The weather in Eastern Europe is about to get *much* colder, and I believe that the Baltic is going to be as icebound in the next 2 months as just about any other time in the 20th century.

In short the Entente is about to have a human disaster in Poland on their hands within the next two months. Not sure that this is something that Stalin can take advantage of though.
 
In short the Entente is about to have a human disaster in Poland on their hands within the next two months. Not sure that this is something that Stalin can take advantage of though.

In this TL, Stalin is very cautious (as I think he was internationally IOTL). He has just seen the Anglo-French alliance utterly defeat Germany in less time than it took the Great War, without American involvement or an eastern front for Germany for any part of it. Not only that, but with Germany conquered, the allies now have the resources of central Europe available to them. Meanwhile, in the north, Sweden and Finland have joined forces, while in the east Japan is not involved in any wars so might be looking for a re-match of 1939.

Stalin's best case scenario is hanging on to his gains in Eastern Poland and the Baltics and he won't be risking any aggressive moves.
 
In this TL, Stalin is very cautious (as I think he was internationally IOTL). He has just seen the Anglo-French alliance utterly defeat Germany in less time than it took the Great War, without American involvement or an eastern front for Germany for any part of it. Not only that, but with Germany conquered, the allies now have the resources of central Europe available to them. Meanwhile, in the north, Sweden and Finland have joined forces, while in the east Japan is not involved in any wars so might be looking for a re-match of 1939.

Stalin's best case scenario is hanging on to his gains in Eastern Poland and the Baltics and he won't be risking any aggressive moves.
I mean something on the lines of "If the Communists had been running Poland, this wouldn't have happened". What I'm unclear on is how much information on the Famines of 1932-1933 were known outside the USSR. Now, I have zero doubt that by April/May that the Poles will be back to, if not pre-war levels of nutrition, then close to it. As soon as either the German or Polish ports are cleared *or* the Railroads are restored, Canadian/US/Argentine wheat and other foodstuffs will be flowing to Poland.
 
I mean something on the lines of "If the Communists had been running Poland, this wouldn't have happened". What I'm unclear on is how much information on the Famines of 1932-1933 were known outside the USSR. Now, I have zero doubt that by April/May that the Poles will be back to, if not pre-war levels of nutrition, then close to it. As soon as either the German or Polish ports are cleared *or* the Railroads are restored, Canadian/US/Argentine wheat and other foodstuffs will be flowing to Poland.
Oh yes, definitely lots of propaganda on the topic. The headlines are easy to imagine: "The Communist Party, lead by Comrade Stalin ensured that the people of Belorussia and Ukraine were kept safe from Fascist Aggression", "Capitalist soldiers prevent starving Poles from entering the Soviet land of plenty", etc. Maybe not in Pravda though, since it's high profile and might be needed to signal peaceful overtures to London and Paris.
 
Top