Norwegian forces in Exile occupy Greenland

The Greenlanders were also aware of the heavy Norwegian presence in Canada. In the event that Canada attempted to occupy the colony, they were worried that Free Norwegian Forces would be stationed in the area.[3] This was a cause for concern, as the Norwegians had been vying for control over part of the territory until the Permanent Court of International Justice settled the dispute in 1933.[4] Instead, they requested the protection of the United States, whose Treasury Department agreed to dispatch the U.S. Coast Guard vessels, USCGC Comanche and USCGC Campbell with supplies and a consular team to establish a provisional consulate at Godthaab. Accepting the protection of the Americans, a third party, was seen as less of a threat to Greenland's sovereignty.[3] Comanche arrived at Ivigtut on 20 May, and Godthaab on 22 May, thereby establishing direct diplomatic relations with Greenland.[1] Canada sent a consul and vice-consul to Godthaab two weeks later.

Let's say the Norwegians do indeed pull it off, sending one of the destroyers they managed to evacuate from back home (maybe the PoD is that it doesn't suffer the damage that required it to undergo repairs).

If the US being uninterested or unwilling to intervene, will Norway get to keep Greenland?
 
First off Norway have just shown it doesn't respect the rulings of the Permanent Court of International Justice and Denmark will be outraged perhaps to the effect of letting Minister Kauffmann at Washington let the USA ASAP occupy Greenland for the duration of war and not just negotiate diplomatic support against Canada and Britain.
It will sour the relations of Denmark and Norway perhaps even to make the Danes decide to neglect the difficulties of the Norwegians in the last winter of the war with famine on the doorstep though it will be hotly debated in Denmark. And in the end private initiative will prevail as it did OTL.
Post war the Danes will certainly remember what happened and won't love the Norwegians which will make the political alignment of Denmarks post war more interesting. Perhaps try opting harder for neutrality even if Danish toops does take part in the occupation of Germany.
 
I was just reading how the Germans had landed (by U-Boat) some teams of meteorologists on Greenland's coast and how the US Coast Guard was tasked with rooting them out (which they did).
 
I was just reading how the Germans had landed (by U-Boat) some teams of meteorologists on Greenland's coast and how the US Coast Guard was tasked with rooting them out (which they did).

That was post the US-Kauffmann talks. Anyway Kauffmann and the minister/landshøvding in Greenland decided to set up the nowaday special forces unit Sirius then termed the Sleigh Patrol that would patrol the coastline to prevent or at least report just such with USCG backup which worked. The Sleigh Patrol also went into battle with the Germans to defent from attack and later when discovering German weatherstations.
 
That was post the US-Kauffmann talks. Anyway Kauffmann and the minister/landshøvding in Greenland decided to set up the nowaday special forces unit Sirius then termed the Sleigh Patrol that would patrol the coastline to prevent or at least report just such with USCG backup which worked. The Sleigh Patrol also went into battle with the Germans to defent from attack and later when discovering German weatherstations.

Semi random fact.

The Sirius sled patrol until fairly recently still used US made Enfield Model 1917 chambered in 30:06 and has replaced it with a similar bolt action rifle chambered in 30:06. They were using rifles made in WW1 into the 2010's. They had plenty of opportunities to replace them but kept with the 1917's because they regarded them as the most reliable rifle with the best possible round for shooting polar bears in the world. As far as I know they're still the only regular military unit in the world to continue using 30:06 ammunition.
 
Semi random fact.

The Sirius sled patrol until fairly recently still used US made Enfield Model 1917 chambered in 30:06 and has replaced it with a similar bolt action rifle chambered in 30:06. They were using rifles made in WW1 into the 2010's. They had plenty of opportunities to replace them but kept with the 1917's because they regarded them as the most reliable rifle with the best possible round for shooting polar bears in the world. As far as I know they're still the only regular military unit in the world to continue using 30:06 ammunition.
And it's not like they were just too cheap to buy new guns...their preferred handgun is a modern platform (Glock, I think) chambered in 10mm. again, chosen for its suitability shooting big white bears. Additional fact, they use(?d?) 30-06 AP for bear and hollow point for moose. IIRC.
 
The US was against any nation other than Denmark (other than potentially the US itself) ruling Greenland. To quote an old soc.history.what-if post of mine:

"In 1920 the Danish government asked the UK to recognize its right to extend its political and economic interest in the whole of Greenland--a claim to sovereignty already acknowledged by the US as a condition of the cession of the Danish West Indies four years earlier. The British government replied that it would agree to this proposition only if granted the right of pre-emptive purchase in case Denmark should consider disposing of Greenland. When word of the British demand reached Washington, Secretary of State Colby strongly objected, and in deference to the US objection, the UK softened its conditions.

"Even in 1940, when one might think after Hitler's occupation of Denmark, the US might welcome a British or Canadian occupation of Greenland, instead the US was anxious to prevent precisely this event, while not yet ready to dispatch troops itself. (Eventually it did, of course, but only after keeping the question in suspense for a year.) This was partly out of a desire to deny Japan an excuse for a 'protective' occupation of the Dutch East Indies should Hitler make his expected assault on Holland. But it was also a product of the US belief that Greenland was part of the Western Hemisphere, and that the Monroe Doctrine (including the no-transfer policy) applied. Hull specifically reminded Lord Lothian of Colby's 1920 note, which Hull called an 'express application of the Monroe Doctrine by the United States." https://soc.history.what-if.narkive.com/tAo6KXk1/greenland-and-iceland-join-canada#post18

As I note later in that thread: "It's clear from the above sources that in 1940 the US objected--at least in part on Monroe Doctrine grounds--to Canadian as well as British occupation of Greenland. This may have been due to a belief that despite the Statute of Westminster, Canada was still part of the British Empire, but I think what was at least as important was the idea that since Greenland was considered to be covered by the Monroe Doctrine, a Canadian military
presence there should be avoided because if it were attacked by the Germans, then the US would have to go to war to vindicate the Doctrine." https://soc.history.what-if.narkive.com/tAo6KXk1/greenland-and-iceland-join-canada#post21
 
This might not be a popular view, but I would suggest that IF the Norwegian forces had been landed on Greenland, they wouldn't actually be taking control of Greenland for Norway. Why not? Well Norway (as represented by the Norwegian government in exile and the Free Norwegian Forces would be acting as the military under that government in exile) had abandoned claims to the Erik the Red's Land (eastern Greenland) in 1933. We would now be in 1940, seven years later with both Denmark and Norway occupied by Germany and the Norwegian puppet government of Vidkun Quisling having revived the claim and extending it to the whole island. Can't see the Free Norwegians landing on Greenland to enforce a claim by Quisling and one that was already abandoned by their own government.

Additionally as the Free Norwegians depended heavily on the British, they would be very unlikely to push for an action that the British would only see as a headache and which they would disapprove of. Lest we forget, Churchill was very much opposed to a change in the status of the Faroes, which were occupied by the British during the war and indicated from the very onset of the occupation that the intention was to hand them back to Denmark after liberation. He also was not about to allow what happened in Iceland (with the referendum on becoming a republic and ending the personal union with Denmark) to be repeated in the Faroes and he most certainly would never support the Free Norwegians claiming Greenland.

Honestly I would expect that if the Americans had not landed, but still opposed British or Canadian forces landing, then the British/Canadians might plan to have the Free Norwegians land alone to secure the island (or at least certain key points on the island).

The Americans would still likely oppose this though, not because the Norwegians would be claiming the island, but because I think as David T noted, the presence of Free Norwegian troops in Greenland might tempt an attack by the Germans and the US would then be forced into military action because of the Monroe Doctrine. Hence the presence of American soldiers as neutrals would be best.

If hypothetically Norway had not been invaded and had remained neutral or in some ASB world Brazil was now in Canada in 1940, the presence of Norwegian or Brazilian troops in Greenland might not be opposed by the Americans on the condition that the presence of such forces in no way indicated a claim of sovereignty by their governments on the island.
 
I very much doubt that America would go to war with Nazi Germany in 1940 if the latter landed a couple of hundred men in Danish Greenland (remember, the Danish government eventually "agreed" to the German military presence in Denmark, so even legally they'd have no excuse)
 
Top