Danish troops waiting for the German invasion — *Danish machine gun units, 9 April 1940, await the German invasion.* Photographer unknown.

DENMARK, GREENLAND, AND THE INTERESTS OF GREAT POWERS

History has a tendency to rhyme. Small nations like Denmark have often found themselves caught between great powers. In the lead-up to 9 April 1940, the Danish government faced an impossible choice: should Denmark attempt to resist a German invasion militarily, risking devastating destruction and loss of life, or try to maintain its neutrality in the hope of avoiding occupation? The government chose the latter - a strategy that ultimately failed to prevent German occupation.

Today, Denmark is in a much stronger position as a member of both NATO and the EU, yet the pressure from great powers has not disappeared. The increasing American interest in Greenland, most notably exemplified by Donald Trump’s return to the White House on 20 January 2025, has put renewed focus on the vulnerabilities of the Danish Realm in geopolitics. In the weeks before and after Trump’s inauguration, the Danish government adopted a cautious approach, much like it did in the days leading up to 9 April 1940. However, in the past week, Denmark has taken a firmer stance, rejecting US pressure on Greenland with greater confidence - knowing that the EU stands firmly behind it and NATO remains committed to the alliance, even though US influence within NATO makes the situation more complex.

The similarities between past and present are striking, but so are the differences. How can Denmark navigate this situation, and what historical lessons can be applied?

Former Danish Prime Minister Jens Otto Krag signed Denmark’s Accession Treaty to the European Communities on 22 January 1972, enabling Denmark, along with the United Kingdom and Ireland, to join the EC from 1 January 1973.

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN 1940 AND TODAY

1. Great Power Interest in Danish Territory

Both in 1940 and today, Denmark - and now Greenland - has been of strategic importance to great powers. In 1940, Germany saw Denmark as a key piece in its plans to secure access to the Atlantic and control Scandinavia.

Today, Greenland is at the centre of great power interest. The Trump administration considers Greenland vital to its Arctic strategy, particularly as melting ice opens new shipping routes and access to natural resources. Just as Germany viewed Denmark as geopolitically significant in 1940, the Trump administration now sees Greenland as a crucial player in the ongoing strategic rivalry between the US, Russia, and China in the Arctic.

2. The Danish Government’s Cautious Initial Response

In the days before 9 April 1940, the Danish government was aware of the growing German threat but sought to avoid provocation. The policy of neutrality, combined with limited military preparations, was meant to delay or deter German aggression. However, this did not prevent occupation when Germany deemed it strategically necessary.

Similarly, in the weeks before and after Donald Trump’s return to the US presidency in January 2025, the Danish government initially adopted a careful, diplomatic approach to American demands regarding Greenland. Rather than publicly confronting the US, Denmark relied on behind-the-scenes diplomacy, seeking reassurances from allies while avoiding direct escalation.

3. Fear of Being Abandoned by Allies

In the lead-up to 9 April 1940, it became clear that Britain was unable to come to Denmark’s aid in the event of a German invasion. A British military intervention in Denmark would have been extremely risky, as the country’s immediate proximity to Germany made it highly vulnerable to a rapid German counterattack. In contrast, Norway’s long coastline and rugged terrain offered better strategic conditions for British forces, making intervention there more feasible. As a result, Denmark was effectively left without a strong ally to prevent the German occupation.

Today, Denmark primarily seeks EU support in countering US pressure over Greenland, particularly as Trump has refused to rule out military or economic measures to gain more control over the island and has threatened a trade war with Denmark. In response, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has met with the NATO Secretary General to reaffirm security commitments but has primarily sought backing from the EU, recognising that European solidarity offers the strongest counterbalance to American pressure.

4. Limited Military Preparedness Then and Now

In 1940, Denmark’s military was underfunded, poorly equipped, and unprepared for a German invasion. The lack of significant defensive preparations meant that Denmark was quickly overrun with minimal resistance.

Today, while Denmark has a professional military, it remains relatively small and has suffered decades of budget cuts and restructuring since the end of the Cold War. Outdated equipment, procurement failures, and a historically low defence budget have left the country vulnerable in a crisis. Like in 1940, Denmark would struggle to defend itself alone against a major power, making its reliance on alliances crucial.

*The American President Donald Trump and the Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen.* Collage.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 1940 AND TODAY

1. Denmark Now Has Strong Alliances and Open Support

The most significant difference between 1940 and today is that Denmark is no longer standing alone. As a member of both NATO and the EU, Denmark has security guarantees that did not exist at the time.

In 1940, Denmark was militarily isolated, and a British intervention was impossible. Today, Denmark is part of NATO, which strengthens its overall security. However, as the United States is also a NATO member, the situation is more complex, and any military escalation over Greenland would primarily be handled through diplomatic and alliance mechanisms rather than direct confrontation.

In the past week, Denmark’s confidence has grown as the EU has publicly reaffirmed its support. This shift in tone marks a clear departure from Denmark’s initial hesitancy in the weeks before and after Trump’s inauguration.

2. Greenland Has a Self-Governing Government

In 1940, Greenland was fully administered by Denmark. Today, Greenland has home rule and makes many of its own decisions, particularly regarding economic development and natural resource management. This means that Greenland itself can negotiate with great powers like the US and China, which changes the dynamics compared to 1940.

Although Denmark still manages Greenland’s foreign and defence policy, the Naalakkersuisut (Greenlandic government) has a growing voice in international affairs and has firmly rejected American attempts to gain more influence.

3. Denmark Is Now Strengthening Its Military Presence and Increasing Defence Spending

Unlike in 1940, when Denmark’s military remained weak due to deliberate political choices, the government is now responding to rising geopolitical tensions by significantly increasing defence spending and strengthening its military presence in the Arctic. Russia’s war in Ukraine, US pressure over Greenland, and growing Arctic competition have forced Denmark to prioritise military readiness in ways not seen for decades.

Denmark has announced major investments in Arctic surveillance, naval capabilities, and enhanced military infrastructure in Greenland. New initiatives include expanded radar systems, more frequent military patrols, and closer security cooperation with Arctic allies. These efforts signal a shift towards a more proactive security strategy, even though Denmark still depends on NATO and EU partnerships for broader defence.

Although Denmark’s military remains relatively small, these changes mark a major departure from the passive defence posture of 1940, when Denmark had neither the capability nor the political will to resist external pressure.

Triton (F358) is one of the outdated Danish offshore patrol vessels that regularly patrol the waters around Greenland and the Faroe Islands. Seen here in Copenhagen Harbour on 2 February 2025. Half an hour later, it changed course to track an unidentified submarine passing through Danish waters. Video: Max.

WHAT SHOULD DENMARK’S STRATEGY BE TODAY?

1. Strengthening Diplomatic Alliances

Denmark should continue to strengthen cooperation with the EU to ensure that Greenland remains part of a broader international security network. At the same time, collaboration within the Arctic Council should be reinforced so that Greenland’s future is not simply a bilateral issue between Denmark and the US but part of a larger international dialogue.

2. Increasing Military Presence in the Arctic

To assert sovereignty and prevent great powers like the US and China from dominating Greenland, Denmark should invest more in Arctic surveillance and patrolling. The recent announcements of military reinforcements in Greenland should be followed by further strategic investments.

3. Economic Investments in Greenland

One of the biggest risks is that Greenland becomes economically dependent on a great power like the US or China. Denmark should therefore support investments in Greenland’s infrastructure and industries to ensure that Greenland has a strong economic foundation that does not make it vulnerable to foreign influence.

4. Resisting US Pressure More Clearly

In contrast to the hesitant diplomatic response in January 2025, Denmark should now take a firmer stance and clearly communicate that Greenland is not up for negotiation. This is already happening, as seen in the Danish government’s stronger rhetoric in recent days.

CONCLUSION: HISTORY DOES NOT REPEAT ITSELF - BUT IT RHYMES

While Denmark was isolated and vulnerable to German aggression in 1940, the situation today is fundamentally different. Denmark has strong alliances, an improved military, and a Greenlandic government that plays an active role in shaping its own future.

Nevertheless, great power pressure remains a reality, and Denmark must navigate carefully to ensure the continued integrity of the Danish Realm. Unlike in 1940, Denmark now has the confidence to push back, knowing that the EU will support its position.

By balancing diplomacy, economic investment, and strategic defence, Denmark can resist great power pressure—learning from history rather than repeating it.

A CENTURY AGO: A MOMENT OF UNITY BETWEEN THE US, DENMARK, AND GREENLAND IN 1925

While recent tensions over Greenland highlight the complexities of US-Danish relations today, history also reminds us that this relationship has long been shaped by cooperation as much as by competition. A century ago, Greenland was not a geopolitical flashpoint but a shared space for scientific collaboration, exploration, and diplomacy.

One such moment occurred in 1925, when the American Geographical Society honoured Knud Rasmussen, the renowned Danish-Greenlandic polar explorer, for his groundbreaking Arctic expeditions. At a ceremony at the US Legation in Copenhagen, Dr John D. Prince, the US Minister to Denmark, presented Rasmussen with a gold medal in recognition of his contributions to Arctic research. Among those present were Danish Prime Minister Thorvald Stauning, Greenlandic representatives Arnarulúnguaq and Qavigârsuaq, and leading Danish scholars and politicians, all gathered to celebrate Rasmussen’s achievements and the scientific ties between Denmark, Greenland, and the United States.

Though Greenlandic voices were present at the event, their political influence remained limited, as Greenland was still governed as a Danish colony. Yet, the participation of Arnarulúnguaq and Qavigârsuaq—both of whom had accompanied Rasmussen on his legendary Fifth Thule Expedition—symbolised the Greenlandic contribution to Arctic exploration and knowledge.

This historic event reflected a time when Greenland was a bridge between Denmark and the United States, not a source of tension but a platform for mutual respect and shared exploration. As Denmark and the US now navigate new geopolitical realities in the Arctic, this legacy serves as a reminder that their relationship is not solely defined by strategic rivalry but also by a long tradition of collaboration, diplomacy, and mutual interest in Greenland’s unique place in the world.

Max

FROM NEUTRALITY TO STRATEGIC ALLIANCE