WI A Kingdom of Iceland?

Scandinavia also differs from Fennoscandia, which I believe is what you mean here. Map for clarification:

Fennoscandia.png

That's definitely further confusion.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
I don't know... I tough they were part of scandinavia but not nordic since they are finno ugric, unless finno-ugrics are nordics, then they are and Estonia are too. (I sincerely don't know)
Other way around. Believe it or not Scandinavia is the cultural expression and consist of Sweden, Norway and Denmark, while Nordic is the geographic expression and includes Finland and Iceland. I know it makes no sense.
 
Iceland was part of Denmark from it's conquest until it's independence in 1918, however it still was under danish influence until WWII when it was occupied by the UK after the nazis occupied Denmark and in 1944 it became a republic, a status that continues until this day.

Conquest from whom? The 12 Irish monks who were probably there? But that's not particularly important.

Anyway, as you subtly indicate, Iceland was technically a kingdom under union with the Danish crown from 1918, though in many ways it was still treated a lot like a Danish colony.

There are two problems with just grabbing another prince and making him King of Iceland in 1944 upon "real independence":

1. The Icelandic independence movement historically was very republican. Part of this was the general liberal trend common to nationalist movements in the 19th Century, but also the Icelandic nationalists drew on the Thing to argue that the traditional form of government on their island was a republic

2. The declaration of the Icelandic republic happened because of the US. The US likes republics, it does not like monarchies.

I thing you would need more autonomy, more quickly, so that by the time Denmark gets conquered by the Nazis (butterfly genocide!), Iceland is already very independent and so has no need to further cut ties with the "mainland".
 

Devvy

Donor
1. The Icelandic independence movement historically was very republican. Part of this was the general liberal trend common to nationalist movements in the 19th Century, but also the Icelandic nationalists drew on the Thing to argue that the traditional form of government on their island was a republic

This I wholeheartedly agree with. Icelanders were republican at nature, with little time for pomp and circumstance (back then the population was tiny, and you needed every man working in the harsh climate), and just wanted to be left alone to get on with life away from the global stage.

2. The declaration of the Icelandic republic happened because of the US. The US likes republics, it does not like monarchies.

But this has nothing to do with it. Iceland broke relations with Denmark because the 1918 Act of Union with established Iceland as a sovereign country, but asking Denmark to handle defence matters and foreign relations (and some other smaller things, coast guard, and supreme court affairs until Iceland could set up it's own supreme court). The "Union" could be renegotiated after 1940, and could be revoked by 1943 by either party. Post 1940, Denmark was occupied by Nazi Germany; practically speaking it was not the time to enquire about a significant constitutional law with an occupied country, but a few months after the treaty was revocable, the Icelanders voted to break all relations with Denmark and Christian X in a referendum which was won with over 98% of the vote. Nothing to do with the US!
 
But this has nothing to do with it. Iceland broke relations with Denmark because the 1918 Act of Union with established Iceland as a sovereign country, but asking Denmark to handle defence matters and foreign relations (and some other smaller things, coast guard, and supreme court affairs until Iceland could set up it's own supreme court). The "Union" could be renegotiated after 1940, and could be revoked by 1943 by either party. Post 1940, Denmark was occupied by Nazi Germany; practically speaking it was not the time to enquire about a significant constitutional law with an occupied country, but a few months after the treaty was revocable, the Icelanders voted to break all relations with Denmark and Christian X in a referendum which was won with over 98% of the vote. Nothing to do with the US!

I'm sure that the Icelandic declaration of independence and republic was completely uninfluenced by the fact that, in 1944, one out of every five people on the island of Iceland was an American soldier.

It's very possible that absent that, Iceland would have chosen to remain a junior partner in union with Denmark, since the pertinent facts didn't much change between 1918 and 1939.
 
I'm sure that the Icelandic declaration of independence and republic was completely uninfluenced by the fact that, in 1944, one out of every five people on the island of Iceland was an American soldier.

It's very possible that absent that, Iceland would have chosen to remain a junior partner in union with Denmark, since the pertinent facts didn't much change between 1918 and 1939.

One can argue that Iceland became independent, in the event, because of WWII and the German occupation of Denmark. In other words, the wartime events led the locals to that direction. The US occupation, though, was just a part of the wartime events. Denmark would have been occupied even without US troops being in Iceland, and Reykjavik's relations with Copenhagen would have thus been troubled by the German occupation of the Danish mainland anyway. We can then also posit a scenario where Iceland is occupied by British or Canadian troops instead, and if it chooses independence in 1944, it will still be a republic instead of a monarchy. The political system of the occupier was not really relevant for the Icelandic people choosing their system of government as they overwhelmingly voted for independence and for a republican constitution in May 1944.
 
Last edited:

Devvy

Donor
I can't even see the events of WW2 or the Occupation making that much difference. Maybe entrenched republicanism & breaking the union in Iceland, but Iceland was on a trajectory towards full independence since 1918. Even after WW2, Iceland relies on NATO (and thus, in part, Denmark) for defence.

So in a "no-WW2" scenario, a "renegotiated Act of Union" would probably include:
  • Removal of Christian X as head of state, and establishment of a republic.
  • Icelandic control of their own foreign relations.
  • Defence provided by Denmark, with Icelandic Coast Guard handed over to Icelandic control as and when Iceland requests it.
  • Continued reciprocal citizenship rights.
In the mid-1940s, Iceland had a population of circa 130,000 people. It's a tiny country; it's going to take longer then usual to lay down the functions of state, and is a slow progress to train people and establish government departments post-1918 sovereignty.
 
Top