The fundamental point is--what casualties are you willing to take, once again "difficult"? We have seen this in warfare throughout the centuries--that's why the term "Pyrrhic victory" exists after all. And I'm not going to go into all the examples where the concept of casualties suffered versus what you're getting out of it played a major role in decision making both militarily and politically. Now, am I saying, "Britain invades Iceland = Central Powers victory", no, I'm not, and I never said that. In combination with whatever Denmark can muster for the CP? Possibly. Remember Sun Tzu: "There are roads which must not be followed, armies which must not be attacked, towns which must not be besieged, positions which must not be contested..."
Look I really don't think you actually use the word difficult like this.
If I have to punch a toddler that's easy okay. But if I have to punch a 100 toddlers it's difficult. But each INDIVIDUAL TODDLER is still an easy task. Now if what you're saying that WW1 was difficult then yes WW1 is difficult. The addition of the Icelandic campaign makes WW1 more difficult (it does not change it from not difficult to difficult). But none of that makes the campaign itself difficult. 100 toddlers are difficult. 101 toddlers are difficult. The 101st toddler is not difficult. The fight is difficult for an individual toddler, but probably easy for the toddler size at large. The toddlers would have to make a lot of mistakes to lose to me and I have to do a lot of things well to win, if there's even any way I can. No one would genuinely say a toddler is a difficult fight.
That's exactly the point here--there's very, very few battles (if any) in that theatre the Japanese could have in some way won. But they were there, and the US strategy demanded they fight there. Likewise, Iceland (and Faroes) is there, and voices will be raised demanding they be captured or neutralised. Like the island hopping campaign, there were ways of neutralising the threat an island might post besides an all-out invasion. I think I've stated multiple times that naval bombardment is an option, and probably a saner one for a place like Greenland or even the Faroes. I'm not sure if Iceland can be totally neutralised by naval bombardment, but it can deal enough damage to reduce the threat. And make no mistake, any sane British general isn't going for a land invasion of Iceland without checking all the other option. Not that the Royal Navy is totally safe, since this affects the ships fighting U-Boat patrols, ships which could be used elsewhere for other tasks--engaging in offensive operations against Iceland or the Faroes invites possibilities for the Germans to exploit.
So now that you're talking about naval bombardment are you saying that you randomly made up a scenario to exclude naval bombardment even though every naval commander would naval bombard just so you could randomly say an Icelandic invasion was difficult? Because yes, I would say if you don't have any boats, invading Iceland would be difficult. Probably impossible, I can't imagine anyone can swim that.
I don't think I've been clear enough about potentials for CP victory on Iceland--it isn't so much they can win as they can avoid losing, and that means if Britain withdraws. In some conflicts that would be a possibility, but knowing WWI, extremely unlikely for this one. But an Iceland battle does affect things in the grand scheme of things for the conflict. And historical memory will play a huge role in what happens post-war, to the point where, if Britain, Iceland, Denmark, believe it was a difficult campaign and a bloodbath (it will be, for reasons I've said), then it effectively was a difficult battle based on the impact historical memory will play on things to come. The role of the British general, however likely his odds of victory are (near 100% if not 100%), is to minimise casualties to make the campaign as less bad as it has to be. And once again knowing WWI, that'll be a tall order.
Look, Britain backed down after WW2 and cost themselves millions in the COD war, all literally to stop Iceland from leaving NATO. Why with any reasoning would Britain ever withdraw from Iceland during an active war? As you rightly say, not a chance. And as my analogy shows just because you lose more than you should doesn't mean it is difficult. If I the toddlers lose 20 or 30 toddlers when fighting me, it doesn't ever mean it was difficult from them. Also no, how exactly does Iceland ever become a bloodbath? Even if even every man on the island was weaponize that is nothing, I repeat nothing, compared to stuff like the Somme. You're not going to have trenches in Iceland and trenches kill more people than guerrilla tactics.
I said that and I stand by it. I've added a lot more to our discussion since my first post. I think with your response involving deportations, sending in settlers, etc., we are presuming a scenario where Iceland will be hostile and clearly on the defenders' side which affects all of my responses since. And from there, I think our main disagreement is on the meaning of the word "difficult" in context to warfare. Which, I think we might be writing a bit too much on what ultimately amounts to semantics.
I was very clear this was semantic when you started using difficult weirdly.
Can an Icelandic/Danish/German general win an Iceland campaign? Highly, highly doubtful. I believe if things went right (both for preparations as well as the course of battle on both sides), they could inflict enough casualties to force a withdrawal. But this is WWI with generals feeding lives into a meatgrinder. Yes, any British general/admiral can win an Iceland campaign. But it will be difficult, for the same reason the US remembers Iwo Jima as a difficult battle even though Iwo Jima's result was never in doubt. And it isn't just popular memory--it's fact that leadership (political and military) will look at the campaign and ask the leadership serious questions about it which will have butterfly effects on promotions, assignments, etc. as well as the individual soldiers and officers involved who might live, might die, end up being different people. What goes on in an Iceland/Faroes campaign is setting loose a swarm of butterflies, if not directly affecting the result of the war in the grand scheme of things.
Look costly and difficult is not the same. For example, pushing a button that cuts off your arm and gives you a chocolate bar. It is costly to push that button, and you lose a lot, but there's no skill involved in pushing a button. Even on the Wiki page at no point does it say the battle was difficult. The only reason people talk about is whether it was worth it or not, that's yet again, not the same as being difficult. Was it worth it to push that button, was the chocolate bar worth an arm? I will always remember the costly decision of choosing to push that button.
And no one is going to disagree with the strategic value of Iceland, consider how much the Cod Wars cost again, any rioting about that?
I am not, and have never made the point that Iceland being stupidly aggressive towards the UK would not involve butterflies.
I don't know if Iceland is doable. Seems like something the US would rather have as a client state rather than deal with assimilating a restless population that doesn't speak English. Greenland and the DWI definitely, though.
I'm not sure if you know much of the USA's history but I can tell you that they've assimilated many times the population of Iceland, hostile and otherwise. You don't think they spoke English in Louisiana did you?
