NUUK, Greenland (PNN) - January 8, 2025 - Greenland's saga during World War II is a story of abandonment and opportunity squandered. When Nazi Germany tightened its iron grip on Europe, Denmark - then Greenland’s colonial overseer - fell silent under the swastika's shadow. The United States stepped in, not as Greenland's conqueror but as its caretaker, filling a vacuum left by Denmark’s incapacitation. Yet, in a display of post-war naiveté, America willingly relinquished its hold on one of the most strategically vital territories of the 20th Century. This folly reveals a broader lesson: when a superpower abandons its gains under the guise of benevolence, it risks emboldening adversaries and undermining its own interests.
April 1940: Denmark capitulated to Nazi Germany in a mere six hours. Greenland, severed from its colonial master, was left adrift - a geopolitical orphan. With a population of roughly 18,000 people at the time, the island found itself at a crossroads. Eske Brun, Greenland's governor, made the shrewd choice to align with the Allies. While Denmark collaborated with its occupiers, Greenland became a free agent on the world stage.
Recognizing Greenland’s strategic importance as a steppingstone across the Atlantic and a base for weather stations vital to Allied convoys, America seized the initiative. President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized military occupation under the 1941 Greenland Agreement, brokered by Danish envoy Henrik Kauffmann - an act of defiance that came at great personal cost. As Denmark, under Nazi occupation, adopted a policy of collaboration to maintain its domestic stability, Kauffmann’s unilateral decision to side with the Allies was deemed treasonous by his homeland. By bypassing Copenhagen, which was effectively under Nazi control, Kauffmann ensured Greenland would serve as an Allied stronghold rather than fall into Axis hands. This bold move not only enraged Nazi authorities but also embarrassed Denmark’s collaborationist government, which sought to maintain a veneer of sovereignty despite its subservience to Berlin. Kauffmann’s branding as a traitor underscores the tension between moral conviction and political expediency in times of national crisis.
The island became a critical Allied outpost, hosting airbases and radar stations that bolstered the fight against the Axis. Greenland wasn’t just a slab of ice; it was a fortress and a gateway. Remarkably, these U.S. bases and operations established during World War II remain active to this day, underscoring Greenland’s enduring strategic significance in the Arctic and beyond.
During the war, U.S. forces effectively governed Greenland. The bases at Thule and Bluie West One became lifelines for transatlantic operations. Greenland provided meteorological data, a necessity for plotting the Allies’ North Atlantic crossings. Its geographical location, a bridge between Europe and North America, gave it an importance akin to Gibraltar or the Suez Canal.
Yet, when victory in Europe came, America handed Greenland back to Denmark without so much as a negotiation. The move, steeped in the idealism of post-war reconstruction, ignored both realpolitik and emerging Cold War dynamics.
The decision to return Greenland was no mere diplomatic formality - it was a strategic error. By 1946, the Harry Truman regime realized the blunder and attempted to rectify it, offering $100 million (about $1.5 billion today) to purchase Greenland outright. Denmark declined, clinging to its newly rediscovered sovereignty.
The Cold War amplified Greenland’s importance. Its position made it a bulwark against Soviet ambitions in the Arctic. The U.S. continued to maintain a military presence under lease agreements, but the island’s potential as an American asset had been diminished. Here was an example of America, victorious yet shortsighted, surrendering a chess piece it would later fight to protect.
Fast forward to today: Denmark has announced that Greenland possesses the right to declare full independence. Yet, in a move drenched in hypocrisy, it forbade Greenland from ever joining the United States. This is a glaring contradiction - if Denmark champions self-determination, how can it simultaneously restrict Greenland’s choice to ally with America? The French Foreign Minister compounded the absurdity by declaring that U.S. annexation of Greenland would violate European Union borders, a nonsensical claim given that Greenland has been outside the EU since 1985.
This resistance to U.S. involvement reveals a lingering colonial mindset among European powers. While claiming to support Greenland’s autonomy, Denmark and the EU cling tightly to the island, blocking its potential path toward partnership with a superpower that could offer it a dynamic future. The U.S. represents opportunity - a way forward. Denmark and its European allies, however, seem determined to tether Greenland to their diminishing influence.
Greenland’s story mirrors broader patterns of post-war diplomacy. Like Alexander the Great’s generals dividing his empire, the victors of WWII were tasked with redrawing global boundaries. Unlike the Soviets, who aggressively secured buffer zones, America opted for moral suasion and the restoration of sovereignty - an admirable gesture but one often exploited by adversaries.
Winston Churchill warned of this kind of appeasement when he described the policy of feeding the crocodile, hoping it would eat you last. By relinquishing Greenland, the U.S. signaled to the world that its wartime gains were negotiable. This misstep emboldened future challengers, from the Soviet Union to China, who saw in American magnanimity a weakness to exploit.
Greenland’s WWII saga is not merely a tale of a forgotten island but a cautionary parable for great powers. It reminds us that strategic assets, once gained, should not be surrendered lightly. In the frostbitten barrens of Greenland, America proved itself a benefactor but failed as a steward of its own interests.
Today, as the Arctic becomes a theater of competition among global powers, Greenland’s value has only increased. Denmark and the EU’s reluctance to let go of their hold on Greenland underscores a deep insecurity - a recognition of their waning relevance in global affairs. For the United States, the island represents more than strategic importance; it is a testament to the necessity of coupling strength with foresight. In the end, history favors those who understand the difference between altruism and naiveté.
