In early May 1940, a tense and chaotic scene unfolded in the North Atlantic as a makeshift British force sailed toward Iceland. Aboard two Royal Navy cruisers, the decks reeked of seasickness. Many soldiers were prostrate from the waves, and one young marine even tragically took his own life amid the ordeal.
This mission followed the sudden escalation of World War II after months of inactivity during the so-called “Phoney War.” Hitler’s invasions of Denmark and Norway in April 1940, and his rapid advance into France and the Low Countries, created a crisis that demanded immediate action. One strategic priority for Britain was to secure Iceland before it could fall under Nazi control. The Cabinet decided to act unilaterally, sending troops to seize the island.
Despite fierce protests from the Icelandic government over the violation of neutrality, the British quickly established control over the capital. Over time, the Allies strengthened their presence, joined later by American forces. By the end of 1941, Iceland was home to 30,000 Allied personnel, including naval and air bases. Allied influence extended to the Faroe Islands and Greenland, critical locations that helped defeat the German U-boat threat and ensured dominance in the Atlantic.
The US maintained a military link with Greenland through the Cold War, though today only a small contingent of around 150 personnel remains. Yet in recent years, President Donald Trump has suggested that America must regain control over Greenland to protect its Atlantic defense interests. Claiming the seas are “covered with China and Russian ships,” his administration explored options ranging from purchasing the island to military annexation.
While Trump’s approach echoes Britain’s actions in Iceland in 1940, there is a crucial difference: Denmark, which governs Greenland, is a long-standing US ally. Unlike wartime Iceland, Greenland is part of a democratic nation that has supported American-led operations, including in Afghanistan.
European leaders who criticize Trump for undermining NATO overlook a key point: much of the alliance’s challenges stem from Europe’s reliance on American defense spending and failure to maintain robust militaries of their own.
Some argue that Trump’s decisive actions, like the recent capture of Venezuela’s authoritarian leader Nicolás Maduro, demonstrate strategic effectiveness in restoring democracy. However, any attempt to seize Greenland militarily would likely benefit adversaries rather than the West.
A cooperative solution is entirely possible. Military access agreements and negotiations over natural resources could strengthen alliances without violating sovereignty an approach perfectly suited to a deal-making president.
The current US focus on spheres of influence and military might carries echoes of imperial ambition. As Stephen Miller, a senior White House aide, has noted, “The real world is governed by force.” Yet America was founded through rebellion against imperial control. The principles of sovereignty, liberty, and self-determination should guide international relations, and only in rare, genuine emergencies like Iceland in 1940 should they be temporarily set aside.
Comments
Post a Comment