Jump to content

Talk:List of wars involving Denmark

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Drugs and it's prevention

[edit]

I'm from Pakistan &I want proper information about Denmark..and others country's 37.111.136.42 (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

War or not

[edit]

I do not agree with this change. The Soviet occupation of Bornholm, The Klaksvíkstriden and the whiskey war, all included the Danish military and was centered around a specific territory or administartive dispute.

The Soviet occupation of Bornholm included both the military of the USSR and Denmark, although no comfrontation took place between the armies, the Soviet army still hostilely occupied de jure Danish land. Bombardements of Rønne and Nexø led to 10 local deaths with only about 400 out of 3,400 properties being left unharmed in Rønne and nearly every building being damaged in Nexø. Around 650 properties in total were either burnt out or had to be demolished.

The Klaksvíkstriden (translated to The Klaksvík War) was a popular armed uprising in Klaksvík, the second biggest city in the Faroe Islands. This included Local sabotages such as bombings, and a local gaurd of armed men defending the city and the involvement of both the Danish Royal Navy and the Danish police. No one came seriously injured but it was still a conflict.

The Whiskey War, was a Bloodless war, yet still included both the Canadian and Danish militaries over a specific area. Thus being an armed conflict with no confrontations. Other blodless wars, which is included in the List of wars involving X, includes: The Anglo-Swedish War in the List of wars involving Sweden, the Pig War in the List of wars involving the United States, the Kettle War in the List of wars involving the Dutch Republic and the Turbot War in the List of wars involving Spain.

Now i would like to see your response to this, and explain how these are not armed conflicts. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting this disscusion, ill provide my views on this topic;
  • The Soviets did not occupy danish land as it was under the conrtol of the germans during that time and was later given back to Denmark. In my opinion, that does not sound like a war.
  • You contradicted yourself by calling klakvikstriden an uprising instead of a war. I am not saying that the danish military did not play a role in the altercation, but just the presence of a military force does not make it a war. Almost all riots that has occured before 1950 has involved a crack-down by the military. That means that if we include Klaksvikstriden it opens the window for almost all riots in Danish history (which i believe we both can agree on that riots are not the same as wars). Klaksvikstriden does not translate to "the klaksvik war" either, the word "strid" means battle or altercation (striden = the battle/altercation).
  • The whiskey war did not include casualties or altercations nor a declaration of war. Diplomatic realations between canada and denmark remained positive and the "war" was resolved by diplomatic means only. Also, i do not count the examples of blodless wars as wars either as they were more in the category of diplomatic dispute (borrowing from the anglo swedish war as that one actually included a declaration of war).
Dencoolast33 (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply and i do see your point of view Dencoolast33 (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Acording to wikipedia, war is qoute,
"an intense armed conflict between states, governments, societies, or paramilitary groups such as mercenaries, insurgents, and militias."
All of the three conflicts disgussed fit this definition.
The conflicts were:
1. Soviet occupation of Bornholm. A conflict over the strategic importance of the Island of bornholm, especially in the newly arising cold war.
2. Klaksvíkstriden. A conflict over the dismissal of the Dr. Olaf Halvorsen against the civil will.
3. The Whiskey war. A conflict over the ownership of Hans island.
They were armed because of:
1. The soviet armed forces, were involved and responsible for the occupation of the Danish island.
2. The Danish Royal Navy and the Danish police sent respectively forces and naval units to Klaksvík, while the civil sociaty in Klaksvík prepared with an armed gaurd and explosives.
3. Both the Danish and Canadian armed forces and royal navy, were involved.
The last criteria is the confronting parties.
1. The Kingdom of Denmark, including the Danish government and local sociaty in bornholm were in a territorial dispute with the union of socialist soviet republics.
2. The Kingdom of Denmark, including the Danish and Faroese governments were in an internal conflicts against the sociaty in Klaksvík confronting as groups of insurgents.
3. The Kingdom of Denmark and the Greenaldic authorities were in an territorial dispute with the Dominion of Canada.
Since all of the conflicts fits the definition of a war, they should be included. The "opened windows" this may arise is irrelevant for the criteria of being a war. Riots, rebellions, territorial disputes, bloodless wars, occupations eccetera, may fit this definitive criteria or not, and should therefore be concluded with the individual conflict
notably the word intense in the definition, is a subjective word, which makes it hard to universally define. Aditionally the International commitee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has also commented on the intensity of the conflicts, qoute "It makes no difference how long the conflict lasts, or how much slaughter takes place" [1]https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/opinion-paper-armed-conflict.pdf Tinkaer1991 (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The occupation of bornholm did not involve denmark. While the battles were held on danish soil it did not in any way involve Denmark. This is proven further to be the case when the previous version of the article linked the conflict to Landing at Bornholm, which clearly show the lack of Danish involvment.
  • "The Danish Royal Navy and the Danish police sent respectively forces and naval units to Klaksvík, while the civil sociaty in Klaksvík prepared with an armed gaurd and explosives." You just said it yourself, it was just close to being a conflict.
  • I do not feel like going over the whiskey war again. Territorial disputes are not equal to wars, by that definition; sweden was just at war with norway a few months ago.
Dencoolast33 (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To claim that Denmark werent involved in any way, in the Soviet occupation of Bornholm, is an upright falsehood, and i presume such a statement would never had been the case if you did historical research on the Soviet presence on Bornholm.
Acording to the Danish Royal Library, qoute
"It was not until the beginning of 1946 that the negotiations between the Danish government and the Soviet Union began. The Russians proved willing to negotiate, however they demanded that the Danish military forces on Bornholm must not exceed a certain size and that foreign powers must not have influence on the island's administration."
This clearly and unarguably states the Danish involvement in the conflict.
The rest of your 'arguements' doesnt object to any of the criteria of an armed conflict. Territorial disputes are not a synonym of war, but some undoubtly cause wars and are wars. Indeed a considerable ammount of international conflicts are the result of an unsolved territorial disputes.- Tinkaer1991 (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quote you refrenced only talked about Denmarks diplomatic involvment in bornholm. And yes, territorial disputes may result in wars so we're lucky that the whiskey war did not devolve into a war. Dencoolast33 (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for the second time, i highly encourage you to read How is the Term "Armed Conflict" Defined in International Humanitarian Law? by the Internation Commitee of the Red Cross, which defines the definition of an armed conflict.
With the connection to an occupation between two soveign states, it states as following:
"The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance"
Implying that even when the High Contracting Party of the occupied territory do not resist, it will still be considered an armed conflict. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though, it wasent danish bornholm that was occupied but german bornholm, the soviets even gave bornholm back after ww2. Dencoolast33 (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give a source for that? Yes Nazi Germany Occupied Bornholm, but never annexed it.
acording to British military historian, Caroline Kennedy-Pipe, "Bornholm became something of a blind spot to most Danish citizens with the national press unwilling to concede that not all the country had been liberated."
Stating it as Danish juristical territory Tinkaer1991 (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it was still de-facto german. It doesent include denmark just becuase it was fought on former danish territory. Dencoolast33 (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Give a source for it being de facto German land. It was de facto German land until The Landing at Bornholm, which then made the island de facto Soviet, yet still as sourced above, Danish international territory. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I aprritiate you sharing your views but it has become clear that we're not getting anywhere. Maybe it would be wise to involve a third party? Dencoolast33 (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support that proposal. Yet i would still like a source for the territory being de facto German between 9 May 1945 and 5 April 1946 (the Soviet occupation of Bornholm) Tinkaer1991 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you've never heard of ww2? Dencoolast33 (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet occupation of Bornholm happened one day after the Surrender of Germany. The german occupation and de facto rule on the Island ended on the 9 of May 1945. Meaning in the timeperiod of the Soviet occupation of Bornholm, no german ownership of bornholm was in place between 9 May 1945 and 5 April 1946. Neither de jure or de facto Tinkaer1991 (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German forces were still precent on Bornholm after the surrender. Dencoolast33 (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, as i just stated they were kicked out and thereby during the whole timeline of the Soviet occupation, no German military or administrative presence at Bornholm. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thereby making it a soviet-german conflict Dencoolast33 (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the landing at Bornholm, not the occupation. The events are linked but not the same. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the soviets dident occupy danish bornholm but german bornholm, the soviets only gave back former danish territory to denmark. Dencoolast33 (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Im asking for the third time now for a source, for a "German Bornholm" during the Soviet occupation of Bornholm (9 May 1945 and 5 April 1946). If you cant provide orignal research to your statements, this conversation should be. unfavourably for you, over Tinkaer1991 (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
bornholm was not under danish control when the soviets invaded but under germany/german soldiers, making it a gemran bornholm. Dencoolast33 (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes de facto German bornholm before the soviets took over and afterwords de facto Soivet Bornholm until 1946. Unless you prove by reliable sources, that there were a german military or administrative presence on bornholm, between 9 May 1945 and 5 April 1946, your argument is baseless. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
?
When did i say that there was a german presence in 1946?
My point was that the soviets invaded a bornholm under german control (making it a german bornholm). The soviets did not occupy any territory from denmark, the soviets actually were so kind to give back bornholm. Dencoolast33 (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you give reliable source about a "German bornholm" between the Soviet occupation, your argument will continue to be baseless. If you cant provide such sources, you should not have written it to begin with. And a third-party will be involved. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the germans dident conntrol bornholm? You should read the article that youve linked yourself:
Landing at Bornholm Dencoolast33 (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no German control of Bornholm in-between the Soviet occupation. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
who had control over bornholm when the soviets invaded? Dencoolast33 (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Germany had de facto military control and Denmark had de jure administrative authority over the island, which continued, when the Soviets landed and defeated the germans, which led to their own occupation and de facto military control. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
exactly Dencoolast33 (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you are ignorant on the historic basis. The conflict we are disgussing is the Soviet Occupation of Bornholm, which lasted between the 9th of May 1945, to the 5th of April 1946. The conflict you constantly and ignorantly are reffering to is the Landing at Bornholm, which is not teh same as the preceding occupation by the USSR.
Since your lack of sources for your statements and repeatingly ignoring my requests for sources, i think now is the right tiem to involve a third-party. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gankbank789 Maybe you can solve this? Tinkaer1991 (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i will admit im not exactly well versed in this topic but I have a few questions to ask. firstly, from what i know, denmark was placed under occupation and basically treated as a client state of germany, while de facto being under complete german occupation. if this is true, there can be a legal argument that if denmark had an independent government, even if it was a puppet government, that it was involved in germany's wars as a co-belligerent.
was there a formal peace treaty or declaration of war between denmark and the ussr? i do believe denmark's military had some participation. correct me if i am wrong though Gankbank789 (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were no formal declaration of war, just like at the German invasion of the mainland, but a treaty were conducted between Denmark and the USSR. The Statement Dencoolast33 is making, is that the Soviet occupation of Bornholm involved Germany and The USSR, rather than Denmark and the USSR. Stating that Bornholm was de facto german during the Soviet occupation and not Danish. What he fails to realize is that there were no German presence in Bornholm after they got kicked out in the Landing at Bornholm. And when confronted with a request to source his claims, he ignores, Making the situation tough to solve. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i saw that diplomacy was signed between denmark and the ussr, thats a good point in your favor. do u have a source for there not being german forces on the island, I would like to take a look at it. this seems like a debate between de facto and de jure. when it comes to wars like this, i think including denmark as a combatant does not cause harm if it was the danish government who fought and settled the dispute. was there any military action between denmark and the ussr?
considering that from what I have seen, denmark had its own government, and even concluded peace negotiations, I am leaning towards supporting your viewpoint, but I would like to give User:Dencoolast33 a chance to respond and provide his argument Gankbank789 (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The german forces were all kicked out after may 9th 1945. [2], which is also stated in the Landing at Bornholm article. Meaning the claim that Bornholm was de facto German at the time of Soviet occupation false.- Tinkaer1991 (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so basically the USSR landed in bornholm and seized it from the germany. denmark was restored following ww2 and the two nations disputed over control of the island until an eventual treaty between the two? from this i am willing to support that this occupation and the following dispute was definitely between denmark and the USSR, though including germany as a potential co-belligerent would make sense as well considering the original soviet landing was between germany and the USSR. correct me if i got any details wrong though.
the only other debate here that I can see is whether this is a war or not. again i would like to wait for Dencoolast33 to provide his viewpoint and any relevant sources before making a decision Gankbank789 (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, You could label this as a border dispute. But i would put it as a continuation of the already existing ocupation by germany on bornholm, which was extended by the USSR. For more information i would encourage to look at [3]https://www.historytoday.com/miscellanies/stalin%E2%80%99s-danish-mystery
Now, i indeed also think that the most prevelevant question to ask is that if this is a conflict or not.
And acording to the document How is the Term "Armed Conflict" Defined in International Humanitarian Law? by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which defines the definition of an armed conflict.
With the connection to an occupation between two soveign states, it states as following:
"The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance"
the Soviet occupation of Bornholm fits in this category. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and to answer your other question no, there were no military controntations between Denmark and the USSR. Denmark's military had the previous decades been disarmed, both by its own government, but also by Germany at operation Safari. Combined with such a military might as the USSR. Denmark could simply not posses any resistance to the Soviet occupation. Thus that does not descale it as a war. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for not responding! i was asleep.
Ive read through your discusion and i am dissapointed to know that i did not lay out my argument clearly enough.
My point was; that the soviets dident occupy a bornholm under danish control (which we can all agree on), yes the battles were held on former danish territory but that doesent make denmark a belligirent. I do agree that the following border dispute was between the soviets and denmark but border diputes are not wars. When the french and british briefly occupied åland after the crimean war (former swedish territory) it did not mean that sweden was involved in the war even though the french and british offered åland to the swedes.
I hope this cleared some things up! Dencoolast33 (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again that is blatantly false, which is further proven by your lack of sources.
"the soviets dident occupy a bornholm under danish control ". Is so utterly false, and could easily have been prevented, if you did some research on the topic.
Bornholm was administrated by Denmark during the whole period of both the German and Soviet occupation.
Here are some examples of the Danish administration.
  • Bornholm had a Danish mayor, Hermann Aagesen, and Danish city council in Rønne, which coexisted durign the occupation.
  • The Danish Royal Family even visited Bornholm, despite tensions, further proving a Danish juristical presence
  • Lastly acording to Caroline Kennedy-Pipe, Bornholm was "became something of a blind spot to most Danish citizens with the national press unwilling to concede that not all the country had been liberated" Which also is evidence to Bornholm being a Danish international territory.
Tinkaer1991 (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i think once again this argument seems to boil down to de facto vs de jure for the belligerents. for the most part denmark was a client of germany in the original confrontation, but legally denmark's government still existed in some form. but the following crisis, despite not seeing blood, we can agree was a dano-soviet conflict. List of bloodless wars contains multiple bloodless wars and from the sources the other party has sent, it supports the notion of "bloodless wars". can u provide a source stating that a bloodless occupation is not a war? Gankbank789 (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert, but I react to the idea that Bornholm was "German territory" (or "former Danish territory") at any point. An occupation is not the same as an annexation. Bornholm was occupied by the Germans from April 1940 until the Soviets landed, from when it was occupied by the Soviet Union. It was never annexed to either of the occupying states. In my understanding, that should mean that Bornholm was "occupied Danish territory" throughout the whole period. --T*U (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but occupation is not the same as war, the events after the invasion is a territorial dispute. Dencoolast33 (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following that logic would mean that Denmark was part of WW2 from the Germans crossed their border 9 April 1940 at 04.15 until the Danish surrender at 08.15, after that they were just in a territorial dispute with Germany??? C'mon, give us a break. --T*U (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the invasion of denmark, the occupation of bornholm did not see any casualties nor confrontations between the two armies. The danes did not foot on bornholm and bornholm was occupied from germany, not denmark.
But i see that the opinion of the masses are bigger than mine, the occupation of bornholm can stay if its what you want. But i still firmly beleive that the two others (whiskey war and klaksvikstriden) are not wars. Dencoolast33 (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with the opinion of the masses, it has to do with international law, as cited by Tinkaer1991 just below: all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. --T*U (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i said that to move on to the others, not as a serious statement. Dencoolast33 (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay
Klaksvikstriden = riot
Whiskey war = border dispute Dencoolast33 (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the documents i send? Keep in mind riots and border disputes can in some cases, easily be an armed conflict. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, could be Dencoolast33 (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the documents i send? Tinkaer1991 (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no Dencoolast33 (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then please do that, instead of staying uneducated in the disgussion Tinkaer1991 (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
do not think that i have to read some documents to know that putting whikey on an island is not a war Dencoolast33 (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. But if you read the documents, this discussion would not have been a thing. The reason i want you to read the documents is for you to know the international agreed criteria for an international armed conflict and a non-international conflict, instead of you defining the previous differently.
Now because you did'nt read the documents, i will instead explain how they fit the defintion of an armed conflict
For an international conflict, like the Whiskey War, it defines as following:
"International armed conflicts exist whenever there is resort to armed force between two or more States."
This is also the case in the Whiskey War, when the armed forces of Denmark and Canada bloodlessly fought over Hans Island
Further and more restrictive definitions includes:
""any use of armed force by one State against the territory of another, triggers the applicability of the Geneva Conventions between the two States." - H.-P. Gasser. (Here both nations used armed forces against the territory of another)
"an international armed conflict exists if one party uses force of arms against another party" - The German Joint Services Regulations (ZDv). (In this case Denmark and Canada used forced arms against each others claimed territory of Hans Island)
Lastly the ICRC also states that "any difference arising between two States and leading to the intervention of armed forces is an armed conflict within the meaning of Article 2, even if one of the Parties denies the existence of a state of war. It makes no difference how long the conflict lasts, or how much slaughter takes place". Meaning counterarguments from you stating that its not a war, because of the lack of bloodshed and war declarations, are going to be meaningless.
Now, for non-international armed conflicts, like the Klaksvíkstriden, it states:
"Non-international armed conflicts are protracted armed confrontations occurring between governmental armed forces and the forces of one or more armed groups, or between such groups arising on the territory of a State [party to the Geneva Conventions]. The armed confrontation must reach a minimum level of intensity and the parties involved in the conflict must show a minimum of organisation."
These criterias also fit the Klaksvíkstriden
1. It was protracted, lasting nearly a year
2. It was an armed confrontation (The confrontation happened in Klaksvík when Danish Marine soldiers, police, and navy, were confronted by the inhabitants in Klaksvík) occurring between governmental armed forces (Danish forces) and the forces of one or more armed groups (The armed gaurd, and civilians in Klaksvík)
3. It reached a point of intensity. Now intensity is hard to define, but the ICRC defines an intensity as "when the hostilities are of a collective character or when the government is obliged to use military force against the insurgents, instead of mere police forces", which is the case in the Klaksvíkstriden. Marine soldiers and the frigate Rolf Krake, are both from the Danish military
4. And lastly it had a minimum of organisation. Again the ICRC, defines that as following "non-governmental groups involved in the conflict must be considered as "parties to the conflict", meaning that they possess organized armed forces. This means for example that these forces have to be under a certain command structure and have the capacity to sustain military operations.", this too is the case in Klaksvík when the minimum of organisation is shown by the creation of an armed guard and a blockade on their own port, with explosives.
This is how both conflicts fit in the definition. All of this could have been avoided if you took time to research the definition we are discussing. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The danes dident use military force in klaksvikstriden.ö The military was only there to make sure that fighting dident brake out.

Canada and Denmark dident use any military force against each other neither. The militaries role in the conflict was just to transport whiskey to the island. Dencoolast33 (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again if you read the ICRC's documents you would know that, that doesnt change anything. Theres nowhere in the international sets of laws, which relates to a international armed conflict or non-international conflicts, that states fighting an all out battle has to accour for it to be a conflict. The opposing sides, did confront each other, either territorially (as in the Whiskey War) and suppressively (as in the Klaksvíkstriden). Let me make it clear and in acordance with the ICRC, it doesnt matter the the intensity (only for a IAC), bloodshed, declarations of war nor armed resistance for a confrontation to be a international war Tinkaer1991 (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it was no intenisity at all. Thereby; its not a conflict. Dencoolast33 (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To say there where no intensity in the Whiskey War and Klaksvíkstriden is all out ignorant.
In the whiskey war, letters of protest, warships, and official statements declaring the opposing part is occupying the island, all contribute to atleast a certain intensity of the armed conflict.
In the Klaksvíkstriden, Beatings, stone trowings, bombings, and more civil unrest, also all contribute to atleast a certain ammount of intensity. And also the intensity needed, acording to the ICRC.
Your ignorance clearly shows that a third-party opinion in yet again needed. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Klaksvikstriden is clearly a riot (an opinion shared by Denmark) and i do not consider putting whiskey on an island as intense. Dencoolast33 (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Riots can be considered an armed conflict, if it fits the ICRC criteria which as explained previous it does.
Also the definition and criteria of a international armed conflict doesnt include the word, intensity. Thats only included in teh non.international conflict
Your opinion does not matter. The International consensus of Law matters. Please see Wikipedia:Consensus Tinkaer1991 (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well then almost all riots in history fit Dencoolast33 (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does not matter. If it fits teh criteria of an IAC or NIAC, it should be included. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
even if so, its still not a war but a conflict and should not be included. Military force was not used in klaksvikstriden either, the military only was there to keep the peace. Dencoolast33 (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet they kept the peace, with the use of violence. The cases are armed confrontations, if you cant agree with that established consensus, we should ask a trird party again. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a source stating the military used violence? (not asking in a challenging way) Dencoolast33 (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eyewitness testimony of then teens, being interwieved about their experiences on Denmarks Radio [4]https://www.dr.dk/drtv/se/klaksvikstriden_-bomber-og-krigsskibe_247691
Litterature includes
  • Asgaard, Frede (1990). Klaksvig-striden (Danish). 1. Hobro: Forlaget INsight. ISBN 87-89651-00-6.
  • Asgaard, Frede (1991). Klaksvig-striden (Danish). 2. Hobro: Forlaget INsight. ISBN 87-89651-02-2.
  • Bø, Líggjas í (2015). Klakksvíksstríðið 1952–1955 (Faroese). Klaksvík: Status. ISBN 978-99918-3-468-9.
  • Feilberg-Jørgensen, Johannes (1984). «Klaksvig-sagen». Politihistorisk Selskabs årsskrift (Danish): 71–92. ISBN 87-88061-07-8.
  • Niclasen, Arnstein (2017). Herskin herðindi: Læknastríðið í Klaksvík 1952–1956 (Faroese). ISBN 978-99918-3-516-7.
Tinkaer1991 (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the sources, though, i still believe that it should not be included on the list as its still regarded as a riot in denmark and many other riots have included military action. Dencoolast33 (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is not about what you believe. Its about the international law of war. If a riot fits the definition of a NIAC, it should be included. No matter how many fits the criteria Tinkaer1991 (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not try to invalidate my points by saying its my belief.
These are all sources describing klaksvikstriden as a riot. Please provide a source that out-right states that it is a war. Dencoolast33 (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, i never claimed it wasnt a riot. Even tho riots and Wars are not the same. Riots can be described as wars and vice verse, if the riot fits the definition of a war. This is not about me, founding sources directly stating it as a war. This is about the popular uprising fitting the criteria of being a war, and thereby going to the list.
let me ask you, do you agree that it fits the Criteria of being an non-international armed conflict, mentioned by the ICRC? If that answer is no, we need a third-party opinion Tinkaer1991 (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The icrc says that if military force is conducted on insurgents, its a war. But i couldent find any sources describing them as such. Dencoolast33 (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so you disagree. User:TU-nor and User:Gankbank789 can you intervene again? Tinkaer1991 (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
are we still debating about the occupation of bornholm or have we shifted topics? Gankbank789 (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Klaksvikstriden this time Dencoolast33 (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic now is the Klaksvíkstriden' Tinkaer1991 (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dencoolast33 and Tinkaer1991: This thread has now become almost impossible to follow with all the quibbering, the endless repetitions and the clueless indentation nightmare that makes the text unreadable on most platforms. (At least it is possible to do something about the last matter, see {{outdent}}.) If you want me to participate in discussion about Klaksvíkstriden (and/or the Whiskey War), I am certainly not going to read through all of the quibbering above to try to extract what your arguments are. I suggest that you make a new section (or one for each war/“war”) in which the two of you state calmly your point of view – once. I promise to read your arguments, and I will give my opinion if I think I have something useful to say. --T*U (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mean, no one said that you had to do anything, you dont have to Dencoolast33 (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thats highly understandable, and i will do so now. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before we in detail disguss the other two cases, i yet again highly encourage you, User:Dencoolast33, to read the How is the Term "Armed Conflict" Defined in International Humanitarian Law? made by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), on the basis of the Geneva Conventions, before i have to educate you on the laws of war
[5]https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/opinion-paper-armed-conflict.pdf Tinkaer1991 (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As explained previously. The ducoments How is the Term "Armed Conflict" Defined in International Humanitarian Law?, by the Internation Commitee of the Red Cross, defines the definition of an armed conflict.
With the connection to an occupation between two soveign states, it states as following:
"The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance"
meaning this is still and international armed conflict Tinkaer1991 (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of Bishop Valdemar

[edit]

@Tinkaer1991 We should discuss it here instead of going back and forth. Did you have a citation of some sort for the kings of Sweden and Norway supporting the bishop's invasion? Because I can't find anywhere on the article that states they did Gvssy (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the citation i gave, following my reversal. It states:
"Thi biskop Valdemar af Slesvig, kong Knuds søn, havde oplagt råd imod kong Knud for at tilegne sig riget, og havde fået hjælp af kongerne i Norge og Sverig;" A.D. Jørgensen, Valdemar Sejr, p 21
Translated into modern English
"Bishop Valdemar of Schleswig, king Canute's son, had evidently conspired against King Canute to usurp the kingdom, and had recieved help from the kings in Norway and Sweden" Tinkaer1991 (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you Gvssy (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

war discussion 2.0

[edit]

my arguments:

Klaksvikstriden is not a war but a riot, these sources all state that;

Just becuase light military force was used does not mean its a war as most riots in history has involved military force and the rioters has never been described as insurgents.

The whiskey war is not a war but a border dispute, it does not involve any intesity. The most bloody part of the whiskey war was putting whiskey on an island. Collins dictionary defines a border dispute as; 'a disagreement between countries about where the border between them should be drawn.', the whiskey war falls into this as there as no military altercations during the 'war'. Save the children's defintion of war is; 'War is the hostility towards other parties issued officially by governments/states.'

Provide your points below! Dencoolast33 (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my arguments for why the Klaksvíkstriden should be included in the list of Wars involving Denmark:
for the definition of a non-international armed conflict, like the Klaksvíkstriden, the International Committee of the Red Cross have defined such term, it states:
"Non-international armed conflicts are protracted armed confrontations occurring between governmental armed forces and the forces of one or more armed groups, or between such groups arising on the territory of a State [party to the Geneva Conventions]. The armed confrontation must reach a minimum level of intensity and the parties involved in the conflict must show a minimum of organisation."
These criterias also fit the Klaksvíkstriden
1. It was protracted, lasting nearly two years
2. It was an armed confrontation (The confrontation happened in Klaksvík when Danish Marine soldiers, police, and navy, were confronted by the inhabitants in Klaksvík) occurring between governmental armed forces (Danish forces) and the forces of one or more armed groups (The armed gaurd, and civilians in Klaksvík)
3. It reached a point of intensity. Now intensity is hard to define, but the ICRC defines an intensity as "when the hostilities are of a collective character or when the government is obliged to use military force against the insurgents, instead of mere police forces", which is the case in the Klaksvíkstriden. Marine soldiers and the frigate Rolf Krake, are both from the Danish military
4. And lastly it had a minimum of organisation. Again the ICRC, defines that as following "non-governmental groups involved in the conflict must be considered as "parties to the conflict", meaning that they possess organized armed forces. This means for example that these forces have to be under a certain command structure and have the capacity to sustain military operations.", this too is the case in Klaksvík when the minimum of organisation is shown by the creation of an armed guard and a blockade on their own port, with explosives.
Also Dencoolasts arguements are weak and baseless.
First he says
"Just because light military force was used does not mean its a war as most riots in history has involved military force"
That is outright contradicting with the the International Committee of the Red Cross' definition, which says that " the hostilities must reach a minimum level of intensity. This may be the case, for example, when the hostilities are of a collective character or when the government is obliged to use military force against the insurgents, instead of mere police forces." This clearly states that in order for it to be considered a non-international conflict, it has include military forces, in any way. Specificly, it doesnt mention, how much military force, nor anything about "light military forces". Therefore that arguement is invalid.
Also, in a video of one of the sources he himself sent, it states that "then, there started a war and a conflict, which quickly becomes very serious" https://www.dr.dk/om-dr/nyheder/klaksvikstriden-viser-en-skraemmende-side-af-mennesket#!/. Altho this is not about which sources reffer to it as a war, rather that if the conflict fits teh definition of a war. Ill go over the Whiskey War, once we have settled, klaksvíkstriden. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good! Now we let other users decide. Dencoolast33 (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is better to concentrate on one case at the time, so I will only comment on Klaksvíkstriden for now. It is obviously a riot, but whether or not it is a war will depend on the definition of 'war'. The definition in the Wikipedia article War is an intense armed conflict between states, governments, societies, or paramilitary groups such as mercenaries, insurgents, and militias. According to Dencoolast33, the rioters has never been described as insurgents, but that is not correct. In the book given as a source, Færøerne efter freden, the chapter about Klaksvíkstriden is titled Et væbnet oprør, and it is stated that in court, the participants were charged with oprør. The word oprør can be translated as “rebellion” or “insurgency”, far stronger than “riot” (which would be equivalent to optøjer).
In the DR (Danmarks Radio) TV series linked to in the dr.dk source (four half-hour episodes, and yes, I have seen all of it), the landing of the frigate Rolf Krake in Klaksvík is described around halfway through episode 3. The ship was made klar for kamp – “ready for fight”, it was opsat for krig – “in combat mode”, kanonene roterede — “cannons rotating”. Then followed a long period with occational clashes between the local community and besættelsesmagten – “the occupying forces” (quote from the TV series), and bombs being fired. In my opinion, it is quite obvious that the conflict was far more than a mere “riot” and that it may well be seen as an “intense armed conflict” between the central authorities and insurgents.
Having said this, I have to remind you that this is Wikipedia. One of the main principles of Wikipedia is that we do not base the articles on what we know or think we know. My opinion, your opinion, what we think we can deduce, prove, disprove, all that is original research unless supported by reliable sources. So where are the sources that say that this is a war?
  • Tinkaer1991 mentions that it is called a war in the video. So it is (even if is not subtitled). However, the person saying it, Peter Lund Madsen, is a doctor, writer and radio host, not a historian.
  • In the DR series, there is a facsimile of a newspaper heading appearing on the screen: Danmark er for tiden i krig med Færøerne – “Denmark is currently at war with the Faroes”. I do not know which newspaper or when, but it would certainly be interesting if that newspaper article could be found.
  • One of the two historians appearing in the DR series, the Dane Frede Asgaard, has written a two volume work on the conflict, which ought to be consulted:
Asgaard, Frede (1990). Klaksvig-striden, 1. Hobro: Forlaget INsight. ISBN 87-89651-00-6
– (1991). Klaksvig-striden, 2. Hobro: Forlaget INsight. ISBN 87-89651-02-2
  • The other historian in the series, Faroese Hans Andreas Sølvará, has written the book mentioned above, including the use of the term væbnet oprør. He has also written the article “Uppreistur í Klaksvík – læknasetanin sum elvdi til uppreistur” in Fróðskaparrit 60:10, accessible here. My Faroese is rather scethcy, so I cannot really say how he describes the conflict there. He has also probably written a lot more on the subject.
To sum up: My opinion is that the conflict might merit a place in the list, but I would want sources to back up the use of the word 'war' or 'armed conflict'. --T*U (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though, the diffrence between an insurrection and a riot is when it becomes;
"violent uprising against an authority or government." (https://time.com/6137604/history-insurrection-jan-6/)
But klaksvikstriden did not see any casualties. Dencoolast33 (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not violent enough for you? I would otherwise have thought that bombing a police station could be considered to be part of a 'violent uprising'. Or to quote from the source you provided: den nok voldsomste konflikt i efterkrigstidens Danmark (p. 67), den lange og meget voldsomme konflikt (p. 70), så voldsomme optøjer i Klaksvík (p. 73), Urolighedene var så vedholdende og voldsomme (p. 74). --T*U (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds more riot-esk than an insurgency to me, but i do your point of view. Dencoolast33 (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not found any sources directly reffering to it as a war. Instead internal armed conflicts, like this, is commonly described in other ways, like a "Real rebellion" and as mentioned previous "armed uprising", by Hans Andreas Sølvará. In Faroese, the conflict is called "Klaksvíksstríðið", " Klaksvík" --T*U (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)being the city of Klaksvík and "stríðið" meaning the war acording to https://www.bing.com/translator?to=fo&setlang=en, https://tradukka.com/translate/fo/en/str%C3%AD%C3%B0i%C3%B0, https://glosbe.com/fo/en/str%C3%AD%C3%B0i%C3%B0 Tinkaer1991 (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think you can use etymological arguments here. In Old West Norse the word stríð would mean “war”, as it still does in Icelandic, but in Faroese (as in other Scandinavian languages) the word has mostly been replaced by the loan word kriech from Middle Low German, in Faroese kríggj, definite form kríggið, and the word stríð, definite form stríðið, now usually will mean “fight” or “struggle”. Machine translation is certainly not reliable for small languages. And as you will see, most of the examples in Glosbe actually translate stríð with “fight”. --T*U (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
stríðið, can though still mean war. Altho i agree it serves no purpose. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to this discussion? User:TU-nor in your opinion should it be included or not? Tinkaer1991 (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind the reformatting/outdenting. Clean start!?
I feel that I have said my piece above in my 14 Feb posting: the conflict might merit a place in the list, but I would want sources to back up the use of the word 'war' or 'armed conflict'. My three last bulletpoints have given possible ways to find such sources. It would be great to find the origin of the newspaper heading shown at 11:27 in episode 3 of the TV series. The people at DR behind the TV series could be contacted about that. People at WP:WikiProject Denmark and WP:WikiProject Faroe Islands might help searching the works of Asgaard and Sølvará. Best of luck! --T*U (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont even know if its possible to dig up such old Faroese newspapers, also how do we get in contact with the people at WP:WikiProject Denmark and WP:WikiProject Faroe Islands? Tinkaer1991 (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have guessed that the headline was from a Danish newspaper, not a Faroese, but I may be wrong. Anyway, since the people at DR found it, it obviously must be possible to find ... As for WikiProjects, I must admit that I have no experience whatsoever about how they work, but they exist, they have lists of members and presumably they will have some way of alerting the members of articles in need of activity. You could perhaps take a look at the contributions of the members, find an editor that has been active for a while and still is, preferably one who has edited articles related to history, and ask them the directly about how the WikiProject works and how to reach other interested members. --T*U (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i'll try, thank you for your time Tinkaer1991 (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_wars_involving_Denmark&oldid=1209975258"