If for some reason Denmark decided to throw in with the Central Powers, what would happen to the Faeroe Islands, Iceland, Greenland, and the Danish West Indies? "Happen" refers both to the immediate strategic situation as well as to the colonies' post-war status.
Denmark in CP, what happens to its colonies?
- Thread starter Qhapaq Inka
- Start date
In the pretty much ASB scenario that Denmark would be stupid enough to do so and not have a coup immediately after.
All Danish colonies would be taken within the first few months. The Danish West Indies would be given to the British and likely combined with their Virgin islands instead of them being sold to the United States for 25 million. Depending on how harshly the Entente are going to treat Denmark, Iceland may or may not be given independence, the Faeroe Islands would likely stay under Danish control, while Greenland would go to Norway.
All Danish colonies would be taken within the first few months. The Danish West Indies would be given to the British and likely combined with their Virgin islands instead of them being sold to the United States for 25 million. Depending on how harshly the Entente are going to treat Denmark, Iceland may or may not be given independence, the Faeroe Islands would likely stay under Danish control, while Greenland would go to Norway.
Could they, perhaps, grab the Orkney and Shetland Islands? It'd require decisively defeating the Royal Navy, most likely, but having Denmark in the Central Powers puts the CPs in a much better position to do exactly that, just by having naval bases further north up the Bight and having complete control over both the Skaggerak and the Sound.
If they couldn't get those islands in the peace treaty, perhaps they could get Ösel/Saaremaa and maybe even northern/all of modern-day Estonia or Livonia? I don't know if Danish rule over Livonia stretched as far south as modern-day Latvia, but IIRC, modern-day Estonia, including Saaremaa and Hiuumaa, were under Danish control (albeit) in the medieval period.
Perhaps such an arrangement would be hard to administer, and it might seem implausible at first glance, but here's why Denmark receiving Livonia could work:
- ensures that the Danes are well-rewarded for their efforts
- ensures that the Danes have the opportunity to territorially expand in another direction, blunting any revanchism or ill will with Germany over Schleswig-Holstein
- ensures that they have continued goodwill towards Germany, ensuring their acquiescence in remaining in the Central Powers and joining a German-led customs/economic union
- ensures that they have a dog in the pit with regards to Soviet (Russian) attempts to regain Brest-Litovsk territories, etc., thus ensuring that the Danes will continue looking towards Germany for security solutions.
In my mind, it would be best for all sides involved (barring the Russians/Soviets, of course) if Denmark annexed both modern-day Estonia and Latvia. The population of those two countries is about 3.2 million OTL, and so would be big enough in comparison to the population of Denmark proper that the Estonians and Latvians could reasonably expect to secure minority rights/devolution/autonomy/federalism to keep them content, but not too big to where the tail starts wagging the dog.
Any separatist movements could be countered with the claim, "Leave us and you won't be covered by the Central Powers anymore, and so you'll fall prey to the Big Bad Soviet Commie Bear (TM)".
If Denmark couldn't receive Livonia, they could just have North Schleswig returned to them by the Germans. The Germans will probably making territorial gains elsewhere to make up for that, and the North Schleswig region didn't have any particularly savory natural resources, AFAIK.
What else can the Danes get out of the war? Perhaps, you could have Livonia made a Danish protectorate or placed under the rule of a Glücksburg monarch, but negotiating to have an Entente colony ceded to Denmark would be tricky.
If CP negotiators can gain nothing for Denmark at the peace table, then Denmark may demand North Schleswig. Germany can-- and probably will-- refuse, but then you have an angry Denmark that may leave the Central Powers and/or refuse to join a customs union. Not in the German interest.
As mentioned, the only real border dispute that Denmark have is with Germany, who is also the most recent (only?) nation that they have serious grievances with, by this time its nearly 100 years ago that Denmark seriously warred with someone else, but SSW would only be some 50 years back, well within national memory.
They would have to have a hell of a good reason why they should join up with Germany ... only reason why Denmark didn't join the Allies was realistic concerns about becoming the front line and instantly overrun by German troops.
They would have to have a hell of a good reason why they should join up with Germany ... only reason why Denmark didn't join the Allies was realistic concerns about becoming the front line and instantly overrun by German troops.
Yes, the main issue is why would Denmark join forces with Germany? But let's ignore that for a second.
Invading Iceland sounds like it could be a difficult campaign on the part of the Entente--that is, assuming the local Icelanders aren't in favour of it. If Iceland doesn't want to be a part of Denmark's wartime alliance with Germany, they could probably arrange a declaration of independence with British support. But if not, it could be a challenging campaign, and securing Iceland as a base is important for both sides of the war.
Greenland is an even more difficult campaign, so I don't think a land invasion would occur. Probably it would be limited to some coastal bombardments to make sure the place can't be used as a raiding base, since that could get the job done just as well.
The Faroes will probably have to be invaded, for the same reason Iceland might. Alternatively, shore bombardment will be enough to deal with the problem.
The Virgin Islands might as well not even bother putting up resistance, because those will be rapidly seized. However, I wonder if Denmark could try selling them to the US as an attempt at denying them to the British?
That's a cool idea--a Danish monarch for the United Baltic Duchy or another potential post-Russian Empire state in the Baltic.
Invading Iceland sounds like it could be a difficult campaign on the part of the Entente--that is, assuming the local Icelanders aren't in favour of it. If Iceland doesn't want to be a part of Denmark's wartime alliance with Germany, they could probably arrange a declaration of independence with British support. But if not, it could be a challenging campaign, and securing Iceland as a base is important for both sides of the war.
Greenland is an even more difficult campaign, so I don't think a land invasion would occur. Probably it would be limited to some coastal bombardments to make sure the place can't be used as a raiding base, since that could get the job done just as well.
The Faroes will probably have to be invaded, for the same reason Iceland might. Alternatively, shore bombardment will be enough to deal with the problem.
The Virgin Islands might as well not even bother putting up resistance, because those will be rapidly seized. However, I wonder if Denmark could try selling them to the US as an attempt at denying them to the British?
That's a cool idea--a Danish monarch for the United Baltic Duchy or another potential post-Russian Empire state in the Baltic.
Indeed, if the Germans insist on having a Hohenzollern or other German noble on the Baltic throne, they may put a Glücksburg on the Finnish throne. If the Reds still win the RCW, but the Whites are able to secure an area such as modern-day Belarus or Ukraine, you could even install a Glücksburg there! After all, wasn't the Danish Royal family rather closely related to the Russian? More likely it'd be the former, because A-H would probably want to put a Habsburg on the throne in Ukraine.
Ultimately, a Danish monarch in Belarus or somewhere like that probably wouldn't translate into any real benefits for Denmark, but the same can't be said for Finland and the Baltics.
Moving on, what actual effect would CP control of Denmark proper have on the naval war in the North Sea? What about the blockade?
How would Danish affiliation with the Central Powers influence the diplomatic front, as well as public opinion in neutral powers such as the US?
How is the Danish Army deployed in the conflict? Is it wasted on the Western Front, or does it contribute to operations in the Eastern Front?
Last edited:
I don't think it would be a difficult campaign at all. It's on par with invading a single town or city. The population of Iceland in 1914 was 88,000. For Greenland it was 14,000. Faroe Islands is 19,000. Combined with the complete lack of manufacturing or resources available to those populations you could practically ignore them and settle your own cities elsewhere and outweigh the population in mere years which gives a strong future right to claiming the regions.
So if Denmark joined the CP, the UK could seize all the islands and even just setting up naval bases would basically already make the populations 10% British (the biggest naval base in the world right now has personnel of 150,000).
Should they have any particular desire deporting those kind of numbers is fairly easy compared to some of the other scales of deportation and if they win and that was their desire (and they may see strong benefits in locking off the Atlantic ocean from the North Sea).
I doubt it would make too big of a difference. Danish Navy is a few coastal defense ships and some smaller ships. I'd expect it to be used against Russia and mainly to help make sure the Öresund stays closed to Russian shipping. Germany can spare a few ships elsewhere now.
I don't think the UK is going to be to big into ethnically cleansing those islands. Especially since the population is scattered (even if most Icelanders live in Reyjavik, there are many who don't, especially back then), and the climate and terrain favour a guerilla warfare that can be kept supplied through U-Boats and possibly surface assistance. Setting up a base without subduing the islands is just inviting an attack. Also, there wouldn't be a real reason to set up a big base, either, since it would mainly be to guard the northern approach of the Iceland - Britain "gap". Not to mention, wouldn't it be better to get the locals to help instead of deporting them? Surely you'll find collaborators, plus having indigenous food resources is better than having to ship it all in or ship in British citizens to grow it.
No I doubt they will either which is why I said if they desired it. They wouldn't but if they wanted to it would be easy.
Also the population being scattered makes it easier to ignore it and just rule what you need (if people live in the middle of nowhere and don't agree that's hardly relevant for acquiring say fishing rights). It's not like the land of Iceland is valuable at all. It's merely its position and potentially the economic zone it would allow (see debate over Rockall).
Guerrilla warfare only works should the British or the Allies overextend. If they conquer Reyjavik, or indeed set up their own city elsewhere then the few people will struggle to do anything worth doing, are the U Boat crews going to start training Icelandic citizens? Even if they did they can attack a military base if they want, it's not going to be impactful.
Obviously it would be more helpful if the locals were on the side of the British, but if you were paying attention this was under the basis that we assume they were not in favour...
Denmark in OTL was a sympathetic neutral to Germany and sceptic neutral to the entente.
The British blockade hurt Denmark immensely and destroyed a lot of sympathy the Danish had towards the British.
Together with the knowledge that they were depend on good relations with Germany led to the Danish navy mining their waters and informing Germany of the location of those mines.
For Denmark to fully join the CP we would need a Danish Lusitania.
Maybe a Danish civilian ship tries to avoid the blockade and is mistaken for a German ship and thus sunken by the RN.
The British blockade hurt Denmark immensely and destroyed a lot of sympathy the Danish had towards the British.
Together with the knowledge that they were depend on good relations with Germany led to the Danish navy mining their waters and informing Germany of the location of those mines.
For Denmark to fully join the CP we would need a Danish Lusitania.
Maybe a Danish civilian ship tries to avoid the blockade and is mistaken for a German ship and thus sunken by the RN.
But what about the HSF/Kaiserliche Marine having access to new naval bases in strategic locations? Even if all of Denmark's colonies fall, could access to Danish bases in the Skaggerak, the Sound, and the northern portions of the Heligoland Bight help the Germans?
NoMommsen
Donor
TBH, ... IF Denmark would want to join the CP, I would assume Germany would please them to stay neutral, perhaps a bit 'friendlier' than OTL.
To have Denmark as a neutral trading with Germany and maybe for Germany as a strawman abroad, 'defending' Skagerak and the Sound would pay off for Germany much more, than having another ally, that has to be supported in its fight, esp. at sea.
Having Denmark as an ally to the CP would also make a british landing there much more likely though perhaps with a similar outlook as the Dardanells adventure.
To have Denmark as a neutral trading with Germany and maybe for Germany as a strawman abroad, 'defending' Skagerak and the Sound would pay off for Germany much more, than having another ally, that has to be supported in its fight, esp. at sea.
Having Denmark as an ally to the CP would also make a british landing there much more likely though perhaps with a similar outlook as the Dardanells adventure.
It was in Germany's best interest to support the Danish Navy ..... similar to the way they supported the Finnish independence movement (General Mannerheim) against the Finnish Communists. A few dozen German exchange officers helped push thousands of Red Army soldiers farther away from Germany.
In 1918 & 1919, German exchange officers also indirectly helped Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania gain independence because the Russian Communist Army was to weak to prevent them from leaving Mother Russia.
Again Germany profited by creating more buffer states against Russia.
Iceland and Greenland would be most valuable as refuelling ports for U-boats harassing WALLY convoys across the North Atlantic.
OTOH Greenland is expensive to administer in peacetime. I got the impression that European Denmark spent a few million Krona/Euro every year maintaining their Greenland colony.
Maybe the cruelest Versailles Reparations would involve forcing Denmark to continue paying for schools, hospitals, police, customs officers, etc. in Greenland.
Hah!
Hah!
In 1918 & 1919, German exchange officers also indirectly helped Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania gain independence because the Russian Communist Army was to weak to prevent them from leaving Mother Russia.
Again Germany profited by creating more buffer states against Russia.
Iceland and Greenland would be most valuable as refuelling ports for U-boats harassing WALLY convoys across the North Atlantic.
OTOH Greenland is expensive to administer in peacetime. I got the impression that European Denmark spent a few million Krona/Euro every year maintaining their Greenland colony.
Maybe the cruelest Versailles Reparations would involve forcing Denmark to continue paying for schools, hospitals, police, customs officers, etc. in Greenland.
Hah!
Hah!
But thinking this over, those logistics for an Iceland campaign are truly difficult, and I can't imagine how many people die taking the place--shore bombardment seems best. My guess is, if any general's serious about it, a campaign on the Faroes will be done as a dry run for Iceland. Since those casualties will be enormous compared to what the result will bring, it'll probably make the British think twice before attacking Iceland.
Well, this is the British Empire at its peak, but surely they can find a more economic way of doing things than building their own city on Iceland. We can assume that if Denmark is in the Central Powers, they'll put some level of troops on Iceland/Faroes, as will Germany, plus there are the local police forces, plus any armed civilians conscripted to make a militia. Also, you could raise a few thousand men if needed out of Iceland, more realistically something the size of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment perhaps. Reykjavik will either be burnt by retreating CP forces or at the very least the port facilities utterly crippled if defeat is imminent.
10% British on Iceland is almost 9,000 people. That's 9,000 people not on the Western Front or any other front, 9,000 people not doing logistical work for the Western Front or any other front, 9,000 people not defending the British Empire where they need it more. Then they need to get these 9,000 people to Iceland--with U-Boats plus Danish submarines (they have several, plus were evidently planning/constructing new ones in 1915-1916 OTL) in the way, as well as any surface ships. These people need to be fed--they sure won't get the supplies out of the Icelanders who they are royally pissing off. No, it's best these 9,000 people are British soldiers helping to subdue the island and not people working at a naval base. And that requires a campaign against Iceland.
And where are you going to find 9,000 civilians (or more) to make a city? Who would want to move to a city in an active war zone (through an active war zone)? Even if you do this early in the war when enthusiasm is still high, that's going to piss off your own people. Plus aren't they needed at home more anyway, to keep British industry running? I mean, it's doable, but there's better ways of doing things. Plus colonising a Western nation as they'd be doing to Iceland is an utterly bizarre concept that wouldn't be lost in the age of imperialism. Since Britain has no logical claim on Iceland (this isn't Alsace-Lorraine, this isn't Schleswig-Holstein, etc.), that doesn't make sense why they would try that.
Now, I don't doubt there could be a huge British base as part of a cession if and when Denmark loses (that's probably a given, the region's too strategic).
Well, this is the British Empire at its peak, but surely they can find a more economic way of doing things than building their own city on Iceland. We can assume that if Denmark is in the Central Powers, they'll put some level of troops on Iceland/Faroes, as will Germany, plus there are the local police forces, plus any armed civilians conscripted to make a militia. Also, you could raise a few thousand men if needed out of Iceland, more realistically something the size of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment perhaps. Reykjavik will either be burnt by retreating CP forces or at the very least the port facilities utterly crippled if defeat is imminent.
10% British on Iceland is almost 9,000 people. That's 9,000 people not on the Western Front or any other front, 9,000 people not doing logistical work for the Western Front or any other front, 9,000 people not defending the British Empire where they need it more. Then they need to get these 9,000 people to Iceland--with U-Boats plus Danish submarines (they have several, plus were evidently planning/constructing new ones in 1915-1916 OTL) in the way, as well as any surface ships. These people need to be fed--they sure won't get the supplies out of the Icelanders who they are royally pissing off. No, it's best these 9,000 people are British soldiers helping to subdue the island and not people working at a naval base. And that requires a campaign against Iceland.
And where are you going to find 9,000 civilians (or more) to make a city? Who would want to move to a city in an active war zone (through an active war zone)? Even if you do this early in the war when enthusiasm is still high, that's going to piss off your own people. Plus aren't they needed at home more anyway, to keep British industry running? I mean, it's doable, but there's better ways of doing things. Plus colonising a Western nation as they'd be doing to Iceland is an utterly bizarre concept that wouldn't be lost in the age of imperialism. Since Britain has no logical claim on Iceland (this isn't Alsace-Lorraine, this isn't Schleswig-Holstein, etc.), that doesn't make sense why they would try that.
Now, I don't doubt there could be a huge British base as part of a cession if and when Denmark loses (that's probably a given, the region's too strategic).
Look, how exactly is the Faroe Island going to cause any damage to the British? It was occupied without loss in World War 2 (though in this case that case the homelands didn't side with Nazi Germany and the people were on their side) but should the British want they could literally just bomb it from well out of range. What casualties are going to appear? And certainly I highly doubt any amount of deaths would cause the British Empire to not decide to at the very least reduce the capacity of Icelandic ports.
And again we can look at the Invasion of Iceland in WW2 as proof that it really is not a problem even when landing without notice and with terrible planning they only brought 1,000 men.
Armed civilians, yes, no doubt they pose a mighty threat! How many guns were in civilian hands in 1914 Iceland? If Denmark attempts to fortify the Faroes then the UK will move far faster before war is even declared. Something like the Cuban blockade might develop prior to the war starting if Denmark and Germany are openly shipping troops to the islands. Plus if that's the case it'll give Britain more time to put troops in France because it's an indication that Germany will force their hand.
I'm sure the multimillion men armies of the Allies can spare 9,000 men to take out Iceland. Or no, in your world they would close their eyes and allow U-Boats and Danish subs to restock there? Wonder why they didn't do it in WW2 too... Speaking of which they stationed 10s of thousands of troops there in WW2 (Foreign troop numbers in some years equalled 25% of the population or almost 50% of the native male population and this is with a largely supportive Iceland!) so how terrible that reality is not as smart as you...
And would you stop bringing up pissing of Iceland? This whole think is SOLELY BASED ON the premise that Iceland is not cooperating. None the less stop moving the goal posts, nothing you've said makes it a "difficult campaign". 9,000 men is not a difficult campaign. Troops would be happy they were going to Iceland and not say fighting in the Battle of the Somme. Now that's a difficult campaign.
I don't know where you possibly got the idea that I was advocating the best idea for a CP Iceland. I was merely pointing out that it wouldn't be a difficult campaign and showing that by being grotesque in my misuse of resources to prove that even with a minuscule amount of effort Iceland could be completely dominated. AND YES OF COURSE, 9,000 PEOPLE ARE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KEEPING THE BRITISH INDUSTRY RUNNING AND IT NOT. SURE.
Also if Britain wanted to keep a CP Iceland they would have a perfectly reasonable claim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIUK_gap), and the whole point of the civilian presence was to undermine that. No one is going to be defending Iceland in the defeat table after WW1.