[HN Gopher] Why Is Greenland Part of the Kingdom of Denmark? A S...
___________________________________________________________________
Why Is Greenland Part of the Kingdom of Denmark? A Short History
Author : Anon84
Score : 85 points
Date : 2026-01-10 12:07 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.diis.dk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.diis.dk)
| tete wrote:
| lol "secure its legitimate security interests"
| xiphias2 wrote:
| This article creates more questions than answers.
|
| - Will the rare earth minerals be mined eventually? As far as I
| see EU is going into that direction as well, as Greenland became
| so strategic over time
|
| - What happens with all the land rights that American mineral
| extraction companies already bought? It means that even if
| EU/Greenland accepts mining they are already starting from a
| losing position
|
| - What happens if the American government pays off the people and
| they want to join US? Will the Danish government still believe in
| the self determination of Greenland, or it's just political talk?
|
| - what happens after US gets Greenland? Will NATO fall apart and
| EU get into an even worse position?
| lysace wrote:
| "A Short _History_ "
| exe34 wrote:
| > What happens if the American government pays off the people
| and they want to join US?
|
| Honestly I believe if they are willing to sell their future
| like that, they deserve everything the turd reich does to them.
| LarsKrimi wrote:
| - The only way minerals there will be mined profitably is by
| someone strongarming and displacing any local population,
| disregarding all environmental protection rules and destroying
| large swathes of land
|
| - They either mine the minerals responsibly or ask their king
| to take over the country so they can mine irresponsibly
|
| - Bribery to vote for independence and subsequent joining with
| the US is the only legal way that Greenland will become part of
| the US. It would have to be accepted by the Kingdom of Denmark
|
| - Depends on whether it is done legally or with force. If done
| with force NATO would go under pretty fast. If done with
| bribery NATO is probably done anyway just way further out.
| cornholio wrote:
| It seems the issue boils down to what the Greenlanders want: to
| become some sort of Venezuela of the north in Trump's imperial
| crown, and be used to maximize the profits of the American
| corporations that ultimately get to own it; OR full rights as EU
| citizens and local autonomy to decide who gets the mining
| concessions, under competitive terms open to all countries that
| maximize their profits, which stay in their hands.
|
| The historical path of Greenland in DK is irrelevant.
| therobots927 wrote:
| I don't think the wishes of the population are being taken into
| account. Maybe they should hold a vote?
| graemep wrote:
| The government of Greenland has a right to call an
| independence referendum so it could happen depending on who
| wins elections.
| yorwba wrote:
| There was an election in 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wik
| i/2025_Greenlandic_general_elect... Pro-independence
| parties won a supermajority. The only party whose leader
| said that he trusts Trump in the debate before the election
| got 305 votes and no seats.
|
| The next parliamentary elections are scheduled for 2029,
| too late for a pro-Trump swing unless he manages to stay in
| office somehow.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| One of the tricky situations now is that full independence
| for Greenland now would leave it weak to more aggressive
| imperialist predation from the USA.
|
| Not that Denmark (or even the EU) is capable of militarily
| defending it now. But politically it carries more clout than
| a tiny population in its own state.
|
| I think the situation of Quebec here in Canada does show it's
| possible for regions/provinces to become somewhat more
| sovereign in their own land without full legal independence.
| Even if that has been fraught with all sorts of ridiculous
| conflict.
| graemep wrote:
| > to become some sort of Venezuela of the north
|
| if it becomes US territory would it not be more like be more
| like Alaska than Venezuela?
|
| > full rights as EU citizens and local autonomy to decide who
| gets the mining concessions
|
| There is no such thing as an EU citizen - people are citizens
| of EU states. Would an independent Greenland join the EU? Would
| it join NATO? I can see advantages for a small (in population)
| country with rich national resources playing the big powers
| against each other.
|
| Indigenous Greenlanders have also been treated pretty badly by
| Denmark, even very recently, not just a long time ago when it
| was a colony:
|
| https://www.arctictoday.com/a-view-from-greenland-about-forc...
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yelp5466no
| simion314 wrote:
| >if it becomes US territory would it not be more like be more
| like Alaska than Venezuela?
|
| Why not something like Puerto Rico? why would Trump give
| rights to natives of Greenland? those people would vote
| Democrats , less of the two evils.
| fifticon wrote:
| it would probably be like ouerto rico yes. Favors would go
| in one direction only.
| bojan wrote:
| > There is no such thing as an EU citizen - people are
| citizens of EU states.
|
| People are citizens of both the EU and the member states:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_citizenship
| cornholio wrote:
| Alaska received statehood a century after it was acquired,
| and only after being substantially colonized by Americans.
| It's entirely laughable to suggest that US will grant 2 seats
| ~= 4% of the Senate (plus one representative and 3 electors)
| to basically a small city of Inuits and Danes, most of which
| won't even speak English for a good many years to come.
| hearsathought wrote:
| > It seems the issue boils down to what the Greenlanders want
|
| It's never been about what greenlanders want. It's why
| greenland was a colony for hundreds of years. It's why the
| argument over Greenland is between the US and Denmark/EU
| without much involvement from greenlanders. The US has been
| trying to buy Greenland from Denmark since we bought Alaska
| from the russians ( not the native alaskans ).
|
| > local autonomy to decide who gets the mining concessions,
| under competitive terms open to all countries that maximize
| their profits, which stay in their hands.
|
| In an ideal world sure. But we don't live in an ideal world.
| The US is not going allow the EU, Russia and most importantly
| China or anybody else to set up a significance presence in
| greenland.
|
| Greenland is US territory in everything but name. Trump is just
| formalizing it and letting the international community come to
| terms with it.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Greenland left the EU decades ago in case you haven't gotten
| the memo
| hearsathought wrote:
| But denmark didn't. And the EU is backing denmark. That was
| my point.
| nso wrote:
| Please elaborate on how Greenland is US territory.
| hearsathought wrote:
| The US officially took over greenland after denmark allied
| with nazi germany during ww2. People forget that the danes
| were nazi collaborators. We defended greenland against the
| nazis/danes during ww2 and the soviets during the cold war.
| I'd say greenland is more of a US territory than even
| puerto rico or american samoa is. All trump has to do is
| make it official.
| wiseowise wrote:
| Oh boy, here we go. Now they even adopted Russia's
| playbook word by word.
|
| > The US officially took over greenland after denmark
| *allied* with nazi germany during ww2. People forget that
| the danes were nazi collaborators.
|
| Was occupied, comrade, is the word you're looking for.
| They've forgot to put it in your metodichka.
| hearsathought wrote:
| > Was occupied
|
| Occupied? More like warmly welcomed in. Read about the
| german "invasion" of denmark if you want a good laugh.
| Denmark was nazi collaborators.
| wiseowise wrote:
| > Read about the german "invasion" of denmark if you want
| a good laugh.
|
| Your comments are more than enough, don't need to go
| there.
| cornholio wrote:
| Seems Greenlanders didn't get the memo, the vast,
| overwhelming majority still think of themselves as "not
| Americans".
|
| This is the problem with historical narratives, history
| is not established fact but a continuous re-evaluation of
| the past. There is always that wako who will interpret
| some convenient or made up facts as proof that "Greenland
| is American in all but name".
| fifticon wrote:
| can you clarify on what grounds it is irrelevant? As I see it,
| most things in the world are arranged in their current way for
| 'hysterical raisins', so I don't quite follow? There are
| approximately 200 countries that could carry continued support
| for greenland,but currently denmark is the one doing it, for
| HR. By the same logic,greenland could go to China or Russia?
| lysace wrote:
| I see so many americans suddenly hyperfocus on the strategic
| importance of Greenland because Trump again talks about stealing
| it. They fall over themselves inventing fantastically involved
| rationales and really weird moral justifications. Meanwhile
| Donald is above such pretense. He just wants it. (In way that
| honesty is refreshing.)
|
| It's especially tragicomical when they frame it as a defense
| measure against Russia - which those same people are generally
| aligned with.
| davidw wrote:
| > It's especially tragicomical when they frame it as a defense
| measure against Russia
|
| There is more than a hint of "It became necessary to destroy
| the town to save it" to those kinds of rationalizations.
| graemep wrote:
| > It's especially tragicomical when they frame it as a defense
| measure against Russia - which they are generally aligned with.
|
| How is a country that has sanctions against Russia, sends aid
| to a country it is at war with, and has recently been seizing
| Russian ships be aligned with Russia?
| lysace wrote:
| I edited my comment to clarify that I meant the people who
| make these absurd statements. It was kinda clear before the
| edit ("they"); now it's very clear.
| analog31 wrote:
| I don't think "aligned with Russia" is what's happening.
| Instead, I think they are aligned with the old fashioned
| "spheres of influence" concept, where each superpower owns
| and operates its own region. Thus, Russia owning Ukraine and
| the US owning Greenland are not inconsistent.
|
| US aid towards Ukraine is just strong enough to keep the
| conflict going indefinitely (the "forever wars" policy)
| without resolving it.
| simion314 wrote:
| Exactly, USA already has military bases there and could nuke
| Ruzzia if they really would invade Greenland, but MAGAs can't
| use their brain, same like the Zed patriots, when the leader
| says something stupid and obviously fake they turn their brains
| off and use the hate in their harts to justify it.
| ourmandave wrote:
| They also listen to right wing media that fabricates a
| narrative that aligns with their prejudices and justifies the
| stupid.
| simion314 wrote:
| Is worse then an alternative reality, the logic does not
| work in those brains, anything is relative, if X did Y is
| good if X = Putin/Trump but is evil if X != Putin/Trump
| parpfish wrote:
| Im convinced that Donnie would lose a lot of interest if we
| stopped using Mercator projection so Greenland looks smaller.
| layer8 wrote:
| It's still quite large, 22% of the USA.
| mg wrote:
| I wonder what would happen if the USA offered to pay $1,000,000
| to every Greenlander if Greenland becomes part of the USA.
|
| That would be just $50B - a pretty cheap way to increase the size
| of the USA by 20%.
| throw8892 wrote:
| And then their children have to put up with racist Americans
| forever
| nephihaha wrote:
| There was a similar argument some years ago about the Falkland
| Islands, that every single local could be bought off by
| Argentina. I think most Americans are much more mobile and not
| used to the idea that someone could be strongly attached to an
| area as their home.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Canadian perspective: it seems like many (not all) Americans
| are also explicitly brought up with, and heavily absorb,
| "greatest country in the world" rhetoric that also leaves
| them incapable of understanding that this is not necessarily
| how people outside of it see the USA.
|
| Trying to be diplomatic? I've seen a lot of really insane
| shit in comment sections -- and even more insane shit from
| _public officials_ -- over the last year since these
| "topics" came up.
|
| Belief in or unconscious absorbance of the concept of
| "manifest destiny" and American exceptionalism seems to run
| deep in a portion of the American psyche.
|
| No, it's not "their" continent to take. Might doesn't make
| right. And it certainly doesn't make for superiority in
| anything but brawn and bravado.
|
| I'll also add this: the (imho encouraging) trend in the north
| and with the indigenous populations there has been in the
| _opposite_ direction from what the Trump regime is proposing:
| sovereignty and autonomy for the Inuit to run their own
| lands. Canada carved out new Inuit administered territories,
| trying in some respect (and inconsistently) to rectify over a
| century of mis(mal?)governance and exploitation and
| mistreatment.
|
| From the polls I see the Inuit in Greenland want more _self_
| governance, not a new external _boss_.
| nephihaha wrote:
| My perspective is from Scotland, and what annoys me is the
| vanilla press continually going to the Copenhagen
| government and even the Danish royal family for quotes.
| Greenland is a Danish colony/overseas territory (delete
| according to view), and I'd prefer to hear from
| Greenlanders. I'm sure the average Dane rarely thinks about
| Greenland, or didn't until recently. (Much like most
| British never thought about the Falkland Islands until
| Argentina invaded.)
|
| We had a similar scenario during the Scottish independence
| referendum with the international media going to London to
| talk about the matter.
|
| As for the Manifest Destiny thing, maybe I'm wrong here,
| but I'm thinking more Monroe Doctrine. Manifest Destiny was
| heading westward, and grabbing Greenland, or even
| Venezuela, seems more aimed at those who would influence
| them from outside the Americas.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Monroe Doctrine I think has always been considered to
| apply to Latin America. But probably mainly because the
| US has almost always (in the 20th century) had a
| subservient "partner" here in Canada.
|
| But we were invaded (twice) here in Canada (or what
| became Canada) by the US. The only people to have ever
| invaded us. And when they did so, their leaders at the
| time were _definitely_ flying the Manifest Destiny
| rhetoric. So much so they could not even imagine why the
| Quebecois and others didn 't just welcome them with open
| arms.
|
| So, no, I think it definitely applies northward too, not
| just westward. Or at least some of the ideological
| underpinnings of it.
| nephihaha wrote:
| Greenland, and Canada are in the Americas, as are
| Venezuela and Cuba. Three of these are independent
| nations while one is more or less a European colony.
| Venezuela and Cuba have strong ties with Russia that the
| USA resents.
|
| Yes, I'm aware of the US attempts on Canada. I think US
| pop culture, and TV has done a better job of
| Americanising Canada than the military... Same with
| Europe.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| I tend to think of it more like this: There is a North
| American culture and then subcultures. "Canada" is in
| large part contiguous culturally with two North American
| cultural regions -- the midwest [hi there Minnesota, we
| love you!] and (at least parts of) New England.
|
| This isn't really because of TV or cultural export but
| because of real population origins and movements. We say
| "pop" and have "Canadian raising" in our speech, and so
| do people from Minnesota or Wisconsin and that doesn't
| come from TV or radio or movies. It comes from being
| neighbours and descended from the same population groups.
| The border also used to be a lot more porous. My mother's
| mother were (German descendant) North Dakotans who just
| basically popped across the border and started farming
| and lived in Sask and Alberta... without a lot of legal
| hassle at all.
|
| Overtop of that, yes, there is a whole set of other
| cultural/legal/economic overlays, and media is a big part
| of that.
|
| But this is still a regional story-- there's I think more
| in common culturally between e.g. regular families in
| Ontario and Wisconsin than there is between Wisconsin and
| Florida.
|
| From that perspective, I have rarely fallen back to
| Canadian nationalism. I would in fact have been more in
| favour of a stronger union between some US states and the
| US economy and Canada -- in the past. But events of the
| last year have made clear what many our Loyalist
| ancestors already tried to warn us about 200 years ago:
| there is a dark and frankly kind of insane undercurrent
| in American political culture, and the foundations of the
| Canadian state are anything but artificial, they are
| based on an entirely different perspective on governance
| and culture because there's something kinda messed up in
| the kernel of the American conception of governance.
|
| Which I think the people of Minnesota are seeing right
| now.
| rayiner wrote:
| From an American perspective, it's not the "rhetoric," it's
| just "noticing." My mom is an immigrant who was not brought
| up here to absorb the rhetoric. But when she went to Canada
| and Australia to visit family, she came back ranting about
| how poor everyone was and how small the houses were. (I
| take it you have fewer suburban McMansions and giant SUVs.)
| It's hard not to notice our GDP per capita is 50% higher
| than yours. It's big enough now where we notice it just
| going up there to visit family.
|
| And you can say what you want about safety nets for poor
| people, but that doesn't affect most Americans. My parents
| are on Medicare and they head down to the ER every time
| have a stomach ache and get a CAT scan. Meanwhile my family
| is convinced that Canadian healthcare nearly killed my aunt
| when she had a kidney issue because they didn't immediately
| schedule her for a million tests and surgery. (I suspect
| that isn't true and the Canadian system reasonably triaged
| the care.)
|
| And to be clear, I like Canada (and I love Denmark). I'd
| rather have a more orderly society with an efficient and
| expansive government that's focused on comprehensive
| outcomes across the population, in contrast to our system
| where you have McMansions but randomly you can fall through
| a giant crack. But Americans temperamentally are biased
| towards upside potential and they devalue downside risk.
| This is a cultural trait that seems very quickly absorbed
| even by immigrants. My immigrant family isn't meaningfully
| American in many respects--they don't have Anglo
| sensibilities about things like civic institutions and
| personal freedoms--but they're indistinguishable from other
| americans in their materialistic optimism
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| I take a drive through Detroit and I "notice" entirely
| different things which somehow your screed above is
| mostly blind to.
|
| That's about as diplomatic as I can summon up as a reply
| to your comment, whose substance mostly proves my point
| about the bizarre exceptionalist world Americans seem to
| occupy in their heads. It really isn't "noticing"... what
| you're talking about. It's ideology.
|
| Also GDP per capita is the kind of garbage metric I would
| expect someone frequent on this forum, and hopefully
| literate in statistics, to understand the ridiculousness
| of deploying in conversation.
|
| Also, there's rarely anybody more invested in seeing the
| superiority of their new (chosen) place other than
| immigrants, so I don't think that's the argumentative
| flex you think it is.
| rayiner wrote:
| As I said, I like Canada! I'm just trying to explain the
| American point of view. For example, I care about
| Detroit. But your typical American doesn't live in
| Detroit. The average new home is built in a booming, low
| tax, Sun Belt state like Georgia and Texas, where my
| cousins bought McMansions in the last few years.
|
| Also, my cousin grew up in Windsor and having been there
| plenty of times, it's shit too.
| ncruces wrote:
| Much of the world would have no problem with americans
| being in love with their McMansions.
|
| But many would find them wasteful, and a terrible place
| to live, compared to a decently sized apartment (one 10m2
| - 100 sq ft - bedroom per person/couple and maybe an
| extra office) in a walkable town.
|
| Just as we find american SUVs totally inadequate compared
| to our cars.
|
| And it's not matter of cost, we're perfectly "happy"
| paying borrowing millions of euro for such apartments,
| and paying far more for our cars.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| This comment underscores how mono-dimensional some people
| are.
|
| To Rayiner more stuff, bigger stuff = happier and more
| fullfilling life. An incredible lack of depth.
|
| That is also the reason why Americans when they go abroad
| are astonished and always come back saying "people are
| amazing" somewhere else, well no wonder considering the
| state of domestic affairs and domestic relationships
| between people.
|
| Please offer my apologies to your mom , as it's true that
| our vehicles are dangerously underdimensioned , maybe
| next time something in the order of 10-15 short tons
| could be adequate to transport her to the nearest
| McMansion (or McDonald's rather).
| palata wrote:
| > An incredible lack of depth.
|
| A more diplomatic way to say it would be that it is a
| different culture. And I would agree that Americans
| struggle to see that other countries have different
| cultures and different priorities.
|
| If you believe that the goal in life is to live like an
| American, then obviously the best at doing that are...
| the Americans. The mistake is to not recognise that other
| people may have different beliefs.
| rayiner wrote:
| > To Rayiner more stuff, bigger stuff = happier and more
| fullfilling life. An incredible lack of depth
|
| Please read my whole post! I'm a Europoor at heart. I
| live in a 3BR house with three kids and no yard despite
| being able to afford a bigger one. I drive an EV, and
| it's not a Tesla. I'm just trying to convey my impression
| of American culture though the lens of my mom, who
| embodies this aspect of American culture quite strongly.
| palata wrote:
| > From an American perspective, it's not the "rhetoric,"
| it's just "noticing."
|
| Yes, but that does not go against the parent comment.
| When you grow up in it, you have it in you, and it's
| difficult to question it. If you ask Americans who live
| abroad, they often have a more nuanced perspective.
|
| Apart from American finding it better in the US than
| everywhere else in the world (your "noticing"), there is
| this tendency from Americans to genuinely believe that
| the rest of the world agrees with that. "Everybody wants
| to live in the US because it is the best country in the
| world".
|
| And this is very, very far from true. It's not just about
| money. The US have a lot of fossil energy, which is good
| for their economy, which is good for their military. The
| US is a big and rich country, which makes it powerful.
| But that is bad for the countries and people who are
| threatened by the US (and recently the US have been
| militarily threatening countries who until then were
| seeing the US as an ally or at least a friend), and it is
| bad for our survival (through the climate and
| biodiversity issues).
|
| Tons of people outside of the US wouldn't want to live in
| the US, even if it meant earning more money. And on top
| of that, tons of people outside of the US feel threatened
| by the US, for good reasons.
| rjrjrjrj wrote:
| GDP is not a great measure of quality of life.
|
| What are your Mom's thoughts on the US's poor life
| expectancy compared to Australia, Canada, etc?
| rayiner wrote:
| Why would she have thoughts about that? South Asian
| Americans like us have a life expectancy of 84.4 years,
| just a hair short of Japan.
| anon291 wrote:
| Same experience as the child of migrants. America has
| boundless optimism and integrates people well
|
| Same experience with safety nets too. America has tons of
| welfare. Not sure why people have issues with it
| honestly.
| anonnon wrote:
| > Canadian perspective: it seems like many (not all)
| Americans are also explicitly brought up with, and heavily
| absorb, "greatest country in the world" rhetoric that also
| leaves them incapable of understanding that this is not
| necessarily how people outside of it see the USA.
|
| Your "perspective" is out of step with the reality of
| migration between the two countries: https://www150.statcan
| .gc.ca/n1/pub/36-28-0001/2025007/artic...
|
| Canadians are much more likely to come here than the
| reverse. In fact, many, maybe even most, of your most
| celebrated sons and daughters already live here, e.g., Mike
| Myers (who ironically appeared in an "Elbows Up" campaign
| ad for Carney), Dan Aykroyd, Jim Carey. It's as though deep
| down, Canadians don't even consider themselves successful
| unless they make it big down here. Even your current Prime
| Minister, who largely made his money in America, sent his
| daughter to an American university (Harvard), because
| evidently, McGill and Carleton just weren't good enough.
|
| Where Canadians get this bizarre superiority complex from,
| I'll never know. They're like Europeans, but with none of
| the history and culture.
| hearsathought wrote:
| The big difference is the falkland islands are populated by
| brits loyal to britain whereas Greenland is populated by
| greenlanders who hate denmark because the danes committed
| many acts of genocide against greenlanders.
|
| > I think most Americans are much more mobile and not used to
| the idea that someone could be strongly attached to an area
| as their home.
|
| You think the people in the falklands are "native" to the
| falkland islands?
| nephihaha wrote:
| There are people who have been born and brought up in the
| Falkland Islands and have connections going back
| generations. They have been there longer than anyone else,
| and the islands had no previous indigenous population
| before France first colonised them.
|
| As to whether they are native, that is a whole other can of
| worms, but they are more rooted to there than people who
| live in continental South America. Geographically they
| can't claim to be British but by sympathy they are. Things
| were shifting in Argentina's favour until the invasion.
|
| By the way, this does apply to a certain percentage of
| Greenlanders. There are a few European Greenlanders, or
| people of recent mixed heritage so we could make similar
| arguments about them.
| luke5441 wrote:
| Is it 1 million USD plus statehood? Or 1 million per head to
| become a US colony?
| Grikbdl wrote:
| > polls also consistently show that Greenlanders do not want
| independence if the price is the collapse of the Greenlandic
| welfare state.
|
| Even replacing independence with becoming part of the US - any
| one time payment couldn't ensure the continuation of the
| welfare state. That is, free healthcare, free higher education,
| access to social support, etc.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| > > Even replacing independence with becoming part of the US
| - any one time payment couldn't ensure the continuation of
| the welfare state. That is, free healthcare, free higher
| education, access to social support, etc.
|
| Yes if the one time payment is then invested in a big fund
| like Norway has, or considering the outcome that is at play
| here...more like California has with its CalPers
|
| Of course it means that the actual money would be invested in
| US companies , hence subject to expropriation of the stock
|
| And even the actual money if in dollars they can be taken
| away at any time
| victorbjorklund wrote:
| How much could China pay to every resident in Purto Rico to
| size it from the US? How much for Alaska?
| Ekaros wrote:
| Wyoming or Vermont at 1 million each would be sub trillion
| range. Seems like reasonable. Technically they could just
| transfer all the debt they hold to residents there and get
| deal done.
|
| Maybe they should try this one.
| morkalork wrote:
| The thought of the USA losing a state over debt collections
| is rather humerous.
| echoangle wrote:
| Even if every person on Greenland wanted to join the US, could
| they? Isn't the Land property of every Dane, not just the
| people currently living there?
| xiphias2 wrote:
| In theory Greenland is independent, but Danish government
| doesn't treat it as independent
| rvnx wrote:
| If Greeland declares independence, Danish army would arrest
| all the local resisting people for terrorism, unlawful
| orders, etc (or shoot at them if needed).
|
| They don't have a choice, they can't split away from
| Denmark right now, they are like in jail.
|
| If someone tells you that Greenland can declare
| independence tomorrow without consequences from Denmark
| this is not true. They would first need to do great PR "we
| want freedom" and spread in the news that Denmark is evil
| and forgot about them, etc.
| skdkbdjdbd wrote:
| You are insane
| wiseowise wrote:
| Greendland People's Republic? Actually they were American all
| along, USA needs to save them from nazi Denmark. Grab it quick,
| before Russia does its usual scheme.
| teemur wrote:
| I'm too lazy, but I hope someone is less lazy and would set up
| a Kickstarter and collect funds to be given to every resident
| of US Virgin Islands once they rejoined[1] Denmark. Would
| happily chip in a hundred or two for a good cause.
|
| [1] Just learned that US Virgin islands are ex Danish colony US
| bought from Denmark about a century ago. In that agreement
| United States recognized Denmark's control over Greenland.
| Funny that.
| bojan wrote:
| They would have declined, as it's obviously a bad deal.
| European TV channels are interviewing Greenlanders these days
| asking the same question. They don't want it.
|
| Furthermore, what you are suggesting is literally a mafia
| practice - sell us your business/property for an unfair price
| or we'll take it by force anyway.
| andsoitis wrote:
| For context, The Guardian reports[1]:
|
| _Inuit people are understood to have lived in Greenland since as
| early as 2,500BC and it was reached by Norse seafarers in the
| first millennium AD, who established settlements lasting several
| centuries. Modern colonisation began after the arrival of Hans
| Egede in 1721, acting with the support of what was then Denmark-
| Norway. During the second world war, when Denmark was occupied by
| Germany, Greenland was occupied by the US and was returned to
| Denmark in 1945.
|
| It became part of the kingdom of Denmark in 1953, and in 1979
| home rule was introduced. But Denmark still controls Greenland's
| foreign and security policy. It has its own parliament,
| Inatsisartut, and two MPs in the Danish parliament, Folketing.
| But calls for independence have been growing.
|
| Tensions have escalated significantly between Greenland and
| Denmark in recent years. There is intense anger in Greenland over
| investigations into the forced contraceptive (IUD) scandal of the
| 1960s and 70s, prompting the former Greenlandic prime minister to
| accuse Denmark of genocide. There have also been protests in
| Copenhagen and Nuuk over the separation of Greenlandic children
| from their parents. Denmark has banned the use of highly
| controversial "parenting competency" tests on Greenlandic people
| that have resulted in Greenlandic mothers being separated from
| their children. In September, after years of failing to
| acknowledge the violations, Denmark officially apologised to the
| victims of the IUD scandal, in which thousands of Greenlandic
| women and girls were forcibly fitted with contraceptive coils
| without their knowledge or consent. And in December, victims won
| a legal fight with the Danish government to receive compensation.
|
| In recent years there has been growing support for Greenlandic
| independence. But amid the spectre of Trump's threat, Greenland
| in March formed a new four-party coalition government in a show
| of national unity, with the first page of the coalition agreement
| stating: "Greenland belongs to us." The pro-independence party,
| Naleraq, which is the most US- and Trump-friendly party, came
| second in the election and is now in opposition. According to a
| 2009 agreement with Denmark, Greenland must hold a successful
| referendum before declaring independence._
|
| [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/06/why-is-
| donald-...
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| The guardian's historical overview is a bit lacking. The
| "Inuit" didn't exist in 2500BCE to inhabit Greenland. The
| Arctic small tool tradition did, but the branch which inhabited
| Greenland isn't the one that modern Inuit trace their ancestry
| to and it went extinct when the Dorset culture disappeared. The
| Thule culture that became modern Inuits arose in Alaska around
| 1000CE and spread eastward. Modern Greenlandics are related to
| those first inhabitants, they simply weren't Inuit.
| dolphinscorpion wrote:
| $1 trillion divided equally. Case closed
| parpfish wrote:
| The maga base would lose their minds. Stopping "Foreigners
| living off government handouts" is one of their founding
| tenets.
| torlok wrote:
| Not everybody's for sale, even more so in actually developed
| countries with functioning public services. Buying votes is
| illegal even in the US, in theory.
| nephihaha wrote:
| This was oddly predictive
| https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2008/12/01/our-friends-in-the-...
| heresie-dabord wrote:
| Greenlanders appear to understand as well as the rest of the EU
| that the current US administration is only capable of ludicrous
| offers and a deeply abusive relationship.
|
| > A poll from January shows that only 6% of Greenlanders are in
| favor of joining the U.S., with 85% against it.
| epolanski wrote:
| This won't bother at all this administration.
|
| Say what you want but presidential democracies where presidents
| are elected by popular vote are a disaster for stability and
| democracy.
|
| What's happening with this doing and undoing in the US (or
| Russia, Belarus, Hungary and countless other presidential
| republics) fully displays why this is a terrible political
| system:
|
| 1. Winner takes all. You may have been voted by 50% + 1 (even
| less) citizens but the other half is totally not represented
| like in a parliament.
|
| 2. No parliament/party that you need to have backing of. In a
| parliamentary democracy the prime minister won't just lose
| opposition's votes, but has to govern in a way that its own
| party won't boot you.
|
| 3. Single person can claim popular mandate. Often in opposition
| to the parliament/senate whatever. So you end up in situations
| like the disaster in Poland where government and president are
| from different parties and the government gets vetoed
| everything.
|
| 4. Extremely hard to remove. A prime minister is a vote of no
| confidence away from losing its seat. The president can ask
| them to resign in extreme situations. A president? Removing
| them is beyond difficult.
|
| Honestly this is such an obvious disaster to have people vote
| for a president rather than a parliamentary prime minister.
|
| The last parliamentary democracy to turn authoritarian has been
| Sri Lanka 50+ years ago. It's very hard to get so bad so fast
| in parliamentary republics.
|
| Honestly I can't comprehend Americans thinking their
| constitution is some holy grail. It's old and has been written
| centuries ago without all the experience we have in modern
| democracies. Eastern Europe too has made very bad choices with
| similar setups and democratically elected presidents.
|
| Say what you want but Germany or Italy have built in way more
| resilience to these absurdities by having the parliament elect
| the president which forces them to elect mostly neutral
| unbiased figures that will support and oversee whoever ends up
| being in government.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Yes, I guess I'm biased by living in a Westminster system
| (which isn't perfect, I'd prefer Germany's structure like you
| say, but) I think you're entirely right that the American
| republic system is just broken. I think we'll look back on it
| in 100 years as an absolutely awful way to run government
| because it effectively created an "elected" "king" role and
| gave them real powers -- and then let that king get more and
| more powers over 100 years until, effectively, they have a
| rotating (for now) despot.
|
| The Westminster system "solves" this problem by having an
| _actual_ king but giving them zero powers. The German system
| I think you 're right is superior. Ireland also seems to have
| a nice system.
|
| Americans are very enamoured with their constitution, and it
| has some good words in it. Too bad they don't seem like they
| want to actually defend it with the _real_ source of power ..
| which is not words, or "well-armed militias" [almost always
| the wrong kind], but feet in the street.
|
| And that's not even getting into the complete and total
| dysfunction of their two party structure.
| cloche wrote:
| The leader of the US was actually supposed to function as a
| king. Washington was offered the role of king for the new
| country however he rejected it which ended up leading to
| the presidential role.
|
| It's strange how much reverence Americans place in the
| presidential role as if it were actually a king.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| It's also strangely martial. Commander in chief, first
| president a general, all that stuff.
|
| The blurring of the executive and the military, the
| adoration of troops and war, etc. All very strange(?) for
| a country whose military has only ever been really
| involved in outside interference and war and not defense
| of homeland.
|
| "Thank you for your service" is an odd phrase to hear to
| non-Americans -- service for what? The US is at no risk
| of invasion.
|
| Hegseth is a low-IQ fascist fool, but renaming to
| Department of War is at least acknowledging reality.
|
| The Trump government just mostly says the formerly quiet
| part out loud.
| palata wrote:
| > "Thank you for your service" is an odd phrase to hear
| to non-Americans -- service for what?
|
| Well they are serving the US military, which is generally
| used for the benefit of the US people. Does not mean it's
| defending their territory.
|
| Now to be fair, when the US people thanks their soldiers
| for their service, I don't think they are necessarily
| thankful for the US threatening to invade what used to be
| considered as allies (like Canada or Europe).
|
| But I do agree that it is an odd phrase to hear to non-
| Americans.
| palata wrote:
| > Honestly I can't comprehend Americans thinking their
| constitution is some holy grail
|
| There exists a concept of "American exceptionalism" [1],
| which describes this popular belief that the US are superior.
| It also probably goes with the fact that it is a very big
| country sharing one culture, and it is easy to not spend too
| much time looking at what other countries are doing.
|
| > presidential democracies where presidents are elected by
| popular vote are a disaster
|
| I would like to add France to the examples supporting your
| case: in the first round, Macron got less than 20% of the
| votes, and a non-negligible part of those was already trying
| to be "efficient". As in, the people would have voted for
| someone else, but they voted for Macron because it seemed
| more likely that he could win against Le Pen, the far-right
| candidate.
|
| This means that less than 20% of the people (those who voted
| of course) wanted Macron. On his first day, more than 80%
| didn't want him. Still he behaves like if the French people
| wanted him.
|
| > by having the parliament elect the president
|
| An example I like is Switzerland: they don't have a president
| at all. They elect their parliament, and the parliament
| elects the Federal Council made of 7 people from the main
| parties.
|
| What this means is that the executive power is a consensus by
| construction, and most of the people is represented (because
| the Federal Council is made of the major parties, which
| represent the majority of the people and go from left to
| right).
|
| Feeling represented is very important: when the people does
| not feel represented, they take out to the street and
| protest. I don't think it happens as much in the countries
| you described (Germany, Italy) or Switzerland.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
| mcphage wrote:
| > This means that less than 20% of the people (those who
| voted of course) wanted Macron. On his first day, more than
| 80% didn't want him.
|
| That's not true. "I want someone else more than X" isn't
| the same as "I don't want X". That's the advantage of
| Approval voting and Ranked Choice voting--you can make
| those things clear.
| palata wrote:
| Not sure what this brings other than nitpicking.
|
| If you look at the situation in France, I think it's
| pretty damn obvious that the people don't feel
| represented by their government.
|
| My point was not to nitpick on the numbers, but rather to
| say that having a president elected by the people and
| having as much executive power as the president has in
| France doesn't seem to work really well. As opposed to
| countries that enforce a consensus.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| > > Still he behaves like if the French people wanted him.
|
| Well he's the closest to that benchmark no?
|
| You can hardly regulate how emboldened a person feels,
| especially after having obtained such a big result.
|
| He is the most liked person in France , as if you just take
| into consideration the raw number of people who like him
| and ignore those who dislike , his number would be higher
| than the everybody else.
|
| It's always like that with elections, once the polls are
| closed and the votes counted someone will have a mandate
| and a mandate is determined by number of preferences
| expressed. Those who stayed home or the raw number of
| "dislikes" doesn't count.
|
| A thing that would somewhat diminish the power of the
| elected person is an election where just 15-20% of the
| population who has the right to vote decided to cast their
| vote
| palata wrote:
| I think you missed my point.
|
| My point was that instead of having one person trying to
| "represent" the people, you can split that role.
| morkalork wrote:
| Even the United States government and its advisors are aware
| of this; when they installed a new form of government in Iraq
| after the invasion, it was a parliamentary system.
| epolanski wrote:
| That's quite an interesting observation.
| somerandomqaguy wrote:
| >Honestly I can't comprehend Americans thinking their
| constitution is some holy grail. It's old and has been
| written centuries ago without all the experience we have in
| modern democracies. Eastern Europe too has made very bad
| choices with similar setups and democratically elected
| presidents.
|
| I don't think it's the Constitution in of itself that's a
| holy grail. Just look at how hotly debated the 2nd Amendment
| is, especially among Americans.
|
| I think the true holy grail is the process to amend it,
| because that requires a relatively clear majority of
| Americans to agree to change it; well beyond 50% if I
| remember American civics correctly. It's a living document,
| changed as needed. It just hasn't as of late because the
| process is arduous on purpose to prevent heated decisions
| from being rushed through.
| ranit wrote:
| > Greenlanders ... as well as the rest of the EU ...
|
| This might be off-topic for the main discussion, but worth to
| point out: Greenland is not a part of EU.
| layer8 wrote:
| Greenlanders are EU citizens, however: https://en.wikipedia.o
| rg/wiki/Greenland_and_the_European_Uni...
| SilverElfin wrote:
| The US agreed to recognize Greenland being a part of Denmark in
| the same treaty where the US purchased the Virgin Islands. If the
| US changes its mind right now and uses force or other coercion,
| why would anyone trust any treaty or other agreement with the US
| ever again?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_the_Danish_West_Indi...
|
| > During 1916, the two sides agreed to a sale price of
| $25,000,000, and the United States accepted a Danish demand for a
| declaration stating that they would "not object to the Danish
| Government extending their political and economic interests to
| the whole of Greenland".
| skywal_l wrote:
| And does it mean the Virgin Islands revert back to Denmark?
| wiseowise wrote:
| > why would anyone trust any treaty or other agreement with the
| US ever again?
|
| Nobody would, but 1 trillion defense (scratch that) _war_
| budget says you have to agree.
| torlok wrote:
| The 1 trillion budget says the US can flex its muscles, but
| once sovereignty is at stake, the US army becomes an
| ineffective money sinkhole only good at committing war
| crimes, as the last century has clearly shown.
| hearsathought wrote:
| > If the US changes its mind right now and uses force or other
| coercion, why would anyone trust any treaty or other agreement
| with the US ever again?
|
| Why did denmark trust any treaty with the US when the US had
| broken pretty much every international treaty prior to and
| since?
|
| The history of the world is a history of broken treaties. The
| US nor Denmark would exist without broken treaties.
| perihelions wrote:
| In the context of the instant "debate", this is missing the mark.
| The moral question isn't what happened hundreds of years ago to
| dead people; it's what do living people want (as is their right
| to self-determine), and the polls are 85% against 6% in the "we
| don't want to be Americans" direction. (I infer
| "Ameerikkamiuunianngilagut" is their word for that?)
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/poll-shows-85-greenlanders-do-... (
| _" Greenlanders overwhelmingly oppose becoming part of the United
| States, poll shows"_ / _" only 6% of Greenlanders are in favour
| of their island becoming part of the U.S."_)
|
| Here's a joint statement from yesterday by every major political
| party in Greenland speaking in unison, which you can't post on HN
| because it offends Americans and they flag these things on sight,
| though they desire to own the people who are speaking. ( _" The
| mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice_" (214 comments) is,
| of course, welcomed by HN). You're invited to translate it for
| yourself, as they have pointedly _not_ released official
| statements in English, which is not and never has been their
| language.
|
| https://siumut.gl/inuiattut-ataatsimoorpugut/ (Greenlandic)
|
| https://dk.siumut.gl/vi-star-sammen-som-et-folk/ (Danish)
|
| > _" Ameerikkamiuunianngilagut, qallunaajunianngilagut,
| Kalaaliuniarpugut."_
| irthomasthomas wrote:
| Ameerikkamiuunianngilagut=American trucking company
| margalabargala wrote:
| > which you can't post on HN because it offends Americans
|
| They may be loud, but the actual percentage of Americans who
| want to force Greenland to become a part of the US is similar
| to the percentage of Greenlanders who want Greenland to become
| part of the US.
| dh2022 wrote:
| This is also equal to the percentage of Americans who wanted
| to forcefully depose Maduro. And the low percentage did not
| stop Trump. Unfortunately this same low percentage by itself
| will not stop Trump from attacking Greenland.
|
| (On a side note, I was quite surprised when during Trump's
| inaugural speech on Jan 20 2025 he said America will expand
| its territory. I had no idea he really meant to attack other
| countries. How little did I know)
| antonymoose wrote:
| > which you can't post on HN because it offends Americans
|
| Alternatively, folks are not interested in /r/politics tier
| posting in _Hacker_ News.
|
| The history of Greenland is interesting enough. A political
| statement from a political body is the kind of thing one can go
| see on CNN.
| cadamsdotcom wrote:
| > they desire to own the people who are speaking
|
| No.
|
| People are not their government.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| The sad thing is there's an obvious path forward if America wants
| to control Greenland.
|
| 1. Campaign for Greenland's independence, and apply pressure on
| Denmark to achieve that. Offer security agreements and trade
| deals to a newly independent Greenland.
|
| A small majority of Greenlander's support independence today;
| this number would likely rise if they knew they had strong
| external support.
|
| 2. The trade agreements, security agreements and goodwill of
| Greenlanders for #1 would bring Greenland into the American
| sphere of influence.
|
| 3. Over time, use carrots and sticks to tie Greenland closer &
| closer to America.
|
| This strategy has a high likelihood of success, has the moral
| high ground and would minimize the damage to America's alliances.
|
| The only problem is that it would take multiple decades, and
| Trump won't be around that long.
| rvnx wrote:
| Faster:
|
| Put sanctions on Denmark, not like actual sanctions, just
| +10000% tariffs.
|
| Open investigations for corruption, funding terrorism, release
| dirty secrets of the government.
|
| Help migrants to go to Denmark.
|
| Arrange with Russia little green men to come on the island or
| just make it fear that Russia is planning an attack. US to the
| rescue.
|
| Offer lot of money to each inhabitants.
|
| Spread information that Denmark abandoned the island for so
| many years.
|
| Plenty of ideas.
|
| Those in my list are somewhat debatable, but you can get
| creative and figure out good ones.
|
| etc
| bojan wrote:
| > just +10000% tariffs.
|
| Denmark is in the EU, the US would have to apply this tariff
| to the whole of the EU.
|
| I find it surprising how many people don't know this simple
| fact.
| rvnx wrote:
| Steel, cheese, wines, pastas, etc, are all country-
| specific.
|
| ...
| klatchex_too wrote:
| Fastest:
|
| U.S. Marine Corps expeditionary units.
|
| This could be done tonight.
| eurotraveler wrote:
| I need it ! Give it to me!
| pan69 wrote:
| Since Denmark and Greenland are already NATO allies, the US has
| pretty much full access to Greenland. The Trump admin says they
| need it for defence purposes, well, there already is a US base
| in Greenland and I'm sure the other NATO allies would happily
| allow the US to expand their presence for defence purposes. Re.
| the minerals and what's not, also here, the US has pretty much
| full access. However, there is no company that's interested
| since digging out those minerals is very difficult and not
| really worth the investment at this point in time. So, the "I
| need it" argument is really weak as they already pretty much
| have it for the purposes they say they want it for.
|
| What is really happening here is part of the Monroe Doctrine
| [1]. Trump is trying to consolidate the Western Hemisphere.
| Remember Canada being the 51st state?
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
| rvnx wrote:
| > the land belongs to the one with the bigger guns, and a
| willingness to use it
|
| Yes it's true, this is how US was built (and almost all
| countries)
| dasKrokodil wrote:
| > the land belongs to the one with the bigger guns, and a
| willingness to use it
|
| Not necessarily. USA certainly had bigger guns in Vietnam and
| Afghanistan, and yet they eventually had to retreat from both.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| During the Cold War the United States military had 15,000
| soldiers stationed in Greenland. That presence has been reduced
| by 99% to just 150 soldiers today.
|
| Denmark has given the US exclusive and full military access to
| Greenland but the US does not use it. This has nothing to do with
| security.
| cf100clunk wrote:
| Parallel discussion of Silicon Valley's impact on White House's
| Greenland interest:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46566444
| beanjuiceII wrote:
| lets go america!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-10 23:01 UTC)