Communist Denmark: the fate of Iceland and Greenland

[loughery111]

Well, Icelandic independence was already decided, and US could easily dominate the new state. As my post above states: Greenland and the Faeroe islands would become very problematic.

Problematic, yes, but the outcome (for Greenland at least) is not at all in doubt. The US cannot afford to see it on the other side, cannot afford, in fact, to see it anywhere except firmly in the US orbit. If they have to annex it just to make sure that they get basing rights for radar and later sonar, it's extremely likely that they will. The Faeroes... I can't see either the US or the UK allowing those to go without the same treatment, TBH, though they aren't quite as important.

 

[loughery111]

I know the scenario would be problematic for the US. But in 1945 they are still (officially) allies to The Soviets, as well as to communist Denmark. Annexing the territory of another state is similar to a declaration of war, in accordance with international law, and I doubt the US will really risk this in 1945, where the significance of the Thule Airbase is relatively low.

Again what would the US do if communist Denmark in 1945, decides to send its' military to Greenland once again....after all the island belongs to Denmark?

I know they legally are Danish possessions, but, as I just said, the United States quite literally CANNOT allow them to escape their own control for military purposes. Anchoring the SOSUS line will eventually become the primary reason for this, but even in 1945 it was clear where things were headed, and Greenland-based radar and aerial patrols are indispensable in maintaining surveillance of the North Atlantic. The West was willing to threaten a war to maintain control over utterly unnecessary and burdensome West Berlin, and I see no reason why that would not be the response here, as well.

 

[ThomasTheviking]

Problematic, yes, but the outcome (for Greenland at least) is not at all in doubt. The US cannot afford to see it on the other side, cannot afford, in fact, to see it anywhere except firmly in the US orbit. If they have to annex it just to make sure that they get basing rights for radar and later sonar, it's extremely likely that they will. The Faeroes... I can't see either the US or the UK allowing those to go without the same treatment, TBH, though they aren't quite as important.

again I have to pint out the fact that this have to take place in 1945, where communist Denmark, the Soviets and the Western allies officially are all allies.

Denmark will after the Soviet "Liberation" wish to remilitarize its' overseas assets (e.g. the Faroe Islands and Greenland), which by all means and international law Denmark will be entitled to. Who wish to stop the Danish military ships going to either Greenland or the Faroe Islands in june of 1945??

BTW annexing another countrys terrotory is similar to a declaration of war, and I serously doubt that either the UK or the US is ready for this in the summer of 1945.

regarding the Faroe Islands an agreement could perhaps be worked out, de-militarizing the islands. Greenland however is a different matter.

 

[ThomasTheviking]

I know they legally are Danish possessions, but, as I just said, the United States quite literally CANNOT allow them to escape their own control for military purposes. Anchoring the SOSUS line will eventually become the primary reason for this, but even in 1945 it was clear where things were headed, and Greenland-based radar and aerial patrols are indispensable in maintaining surveillance of the North Atlantic. The West was willing to threaten a war to maintain control over utterly unnecessary and burdensome West Berlin, and I see no reason why that would not be the response here, as well.

Well Berlin and Greenland are to different matters. West Berlin belonged to the western zone of influence, Greenland does not!...I do not think simply stating that the US CANNOT let go of Greenland, will be a legitimate enough excuse, as in effect the Us will be occupying part of another country against its' will (officially anyway).

As stedted I know of the importance later on the Us, of the Thule base, but how would the US react to a (communist) re-militarization of Greenland in the summer of 1945?

 

[loughery111]

Well Berlin and Greenland are to different matters. West Berlin belonged to the western zone of influence, Greenland does not!...I do not think simply stating that the US CANNOT let go of Greenland, will be a legitimate enough excuse, as in effect the Us will be occupying part of another country against its' will (officially anyway).

As stedted I know of the importance later on the Us, of the Thule base, but how would the US react to a (communist) re-militarization of Greenland in the summer of 1945?

I don't think the US is going to be willing to back down; they need Greenland, they know it, and the niceties of international law are not sufficient barrier to keep them from making sure they can maintain their access. The most probable scenario I can see is their engineering a declaration of independence by at least Greenland and maybe the Faeroe Islands as well, and then recognizing them and basing forces in both. Hell, they might not even have to engineer it; I doubt there was overmuch sympathy for dictatorial Communist rule there.

And obviously "we CANNOT let go of Greenland" will not be their justification. It will just be their reason. They'll come up with some kind of diplomatic coverage, but my point is still this: I can envision no circumstances under which the United States will allow the USSR or a Soviet client state to maintain a foothold that far into the North Atlantic. Even if it means threatening war to prevent it.

 

[arctic warrior]

So we can assume a communist Denmark would try to tear up the treaty, based upon the "loose" wording in the treaty. The question is if the US will fight this, and how?

I know that the Thule Base, especially in the early part of the Cold War, had great significance to the US, but isn't this significance lost somewhat, know that (ITL) a potential hostile country, communist Denmark, is in control of the rest of Greenland?

Problem being that the wording wasn't loose at least in the USA interpretation. The US would of course stick to the treaty being contracted between the legal representative of the Danish government and the USA government. Problem is of course that the new Danish government would object to this as the former goverment was in the pocket of the Nazi's thus no government existed post April 9, 1940 till this communist governments entering into existence.

Then they would probably play into the hands of the USA just by this claim leaving Kauffmann as THE legal representative of Denmark at the time being thus making the treaty valid; at least I would claim so appearing in the Hague if it was taken there.

Of course claiming the political system of the host country being a potential threat to the USA thus allowing the maintaining of US bases in Greenland according to treaty would somehow require Kauffmann being recognized by the USA as THE Danish government in exile following the communist take over in Denmark! (Phew! guess were are closing in on a USA annexation of Greenland in the guise of exile Danish government!)

The latter could prove complicated if the Danish communist government had been legally elected by ballot making any claims to validity of the Kauffmann actions void so the USA may simply decide to A) annexation or B) recognition of Danish government in return of basing rights in Greenland.

As A) would be in violation of US attempts at decolonization efforts B) could become the way to go. (remember this is 1945 pre-Churchill Fulton speech and Truman doctrine)

Its just all conjecture.

As to the second part - how is Danish control of Greenland ex-US bases a threat to said latter? Denmark had severe problems agreeing to occupy parts of Schleswig-Holstein as Christmas Møller had promised the British. It would need a great infusion of Soviet war materiel to move any troops anywhere! I don't really see this as a problem for some time to come. At least not in a 1945 perspective.
Remember the Soviets had problems of their own with famine on the doorstep and need to feed the East Europeans post war.
With a possible German last stand in Denmark resulting in utter devastation due to Soviet military doctrine and execution of operation count Denmark into that sphere needing feeding!

 

[loughery111]

As to the second part - how is Danish control of Greenland ex-US bases a threat to said latter? Denmark had severe problems agreeing to occupy parts of Schleswig-Holstein as Christmas Møller had promised the British. It would need a great infusion of Soviet war materiel to move any troops anywhere! I don't really see this as a problem for some time to come. At least not in a 1945 perspective.
Remember the Soviets had problems of their own with famine on the doorstep and need to feed the East Europeans post war.
With a possible German last stand in Denmark resulting in utter devastation due to Soviet military doctrine and execution of operation count Denmark into that sphere needing feeding!

Danish presence is not the threat; the lack of a US presence is. Frankly, Greenland and Iceland are both essential to maintaining control of the North Atlantic, which is, in turn, a strategic interest of the US that was and still is regarded as being essential in every way. They will NOT accept a situation in which they cannot base reconnaissance aircraft and early-warning radar systems in Greenland, let alone one in which the USSR or "Denmark" can do so.

 

[Devvy]

Iceland was already independent as a fully sovereign state (and recognised by Denmark as such) - although it was in a personal union with Denmark at the time and relied on Denmark for it's foreign relations. Much depends on the exact nature of the Communist takeover of Denmark. If the King is exiled, then it's possible he could just become King of Iceland in it's own right and unilaterally finish the divorce of Iceland and Denmark. If the King is legally desposed as the head of state, Iceland could argue that the Government they signed a treaty with no longer exists and that it is therefore free of it's provisions.

Either way, Iceland is quickly independent. It was, and still is, strongly neutral, so don't expect to see welcome mats for military bases.

 

[loughery111]

Either way, Iceland is quickly independent. It was, and still is, strongly neutral, so don't expect to see welcome mats for military bases.

Intriguing definition of neutral you've got going, what with them being a founding member of NATO, and eventually playing host to its premier naval strategic asset. Do you really think watching the mother country get swallowed by the Soviets is going to change that somehow?

 

[ThomasTheviking]

Problem being that the wording wasn't loose at least in the USA interpretation. The US would of course stick to the treaty being contracted between the legal representative of the Danish government and the USA government. Problem is of course that the new Danish government would object to this as the former goverment was in the pocket of the Nazi's thus no government existed post April 9, 1940 till this communist governments entering into existence.

Then they would probably play into the hands of the USA just by this claim leaving Kauffmann as THE legal representative of Denmark at the time being thus making the treaty valid; at least I would claim so appearing in the Hague if it was taken there.

Of course claiming the political system of the host country being a potential threat to the USA thus allowing the maintaining of US bases in Greenland according to treaty would somehow require Kauffmann being recognized by the USA as THE Danish government in exile following the communist take over in Denmark! (Phew! guess were are closing in on a USA annexation of Greenland in the guise of exile Danish government!)

The latter could prove complicated if the Danish communist government had been legally elected by ballot making any claims to validity of the Kauffmann actions void so the USA may simply decide to A) annexation or B) recognition of Danish government in return of basing rights in Greenland.

As A) would be in violation of US attempts at decolonization efforts B) could become the way to go. (remember this is 1945 pre-Churchill Fulton speech and Truman doctrine)

Its just all conjecture.

As to the second part - how is Danish control of Greenland ex-US bases a threat to said latter? Denmark had severe problems agreeing to occupy parts of Schleswig-Holstein as Christmas Møller had promised the British. It would need a great infusion of Soviet war materiel to move any troops anywhere! I don't really see this as a problem for some time to come. At least not in a 1945 perspective.
Remember the Soviets had problems of their own with famine on the doorstep and need to feed the East Europeans post war.
With a possible German last stand in Denmark resulting in utter devastation due to Soviet military doctrine and execution of operation count Denmark into that sphere needing feeding!

You have many good points. But I doubt that the US can keep claiming that Kaufmann represents Denmark after the Liberation. Quite early the US accepted the governments set up by the Soviets in Eastern Europe, and I do not think that Denmark will be any different....why should it?

Secondly, I would guess that both communist Denmark and the Soviets see the potential importance of Greenland and perhaps the Faroe Islands. It does not take more than a couple of ships to ferry a military presence to both places....and BTW Denmark was sef-sufficient in food productions during the war....So they will proberly be feeding other parts of the Eastern bloc in stead.

Regarding the British wish for Danish participation of the occupation of Schleswig-Holstein; the British wanted an entire Danish Division, but eventually had to settle with a brigade. Communist Denmark, will proberly not have this task, and can now deplot their few assets elsewhere, for the glory of communism.....Red Greenland here we come!!

 

[ThomasTheviking]

I don't think the US is going to be willing to back down; they need Greenland, they know it, and the niceties of international law are not sufficient barrier to keep them from making sure they can maintain their access. The most probable scenario I can see is their engineering a declaration of independence by at least Greenland and maybe the Faeroe Islands as well, and then recognizing them and basing forces in both. Hell, they might not even have to engineer it; I doubt there was overmuch sympathy for dictatorial Communist rule there.

And obviously "we CANNOT let go of Greenland" will not be their justification. It will just be their reason. They'll come up with some kind of diplomatic coverage, but my point is still this: I can envision no circumstances under which the United States will allow the USSR or a Soviet client state to maintain a foothold that far into the North Atlantic. Even if it means threatening war to prevent it.

I would agree that the US would be smart enough to engineer some smart scheme, to justify them taking over Greenland.

But you do not answer, what I see at the main problem in the summer of 1945, that is what the US can/will do when communist Denmark decides it wants to make its military presence felt, by deploying a small number of troops to Greenland, which is rightfully Denmarks?

As I see it; in the summer of 1945 the US will have no option except accepting the deployment of Danish troops, which officially at this stage is still an allied nation, following the Soviet "liberation".

 

[Devvy]

Intriguing definition of neutral you've got going, what with them being a founding member of NATO, and eventually playing host to its premier naval strategic asset. Do you really think watching the mother country get swallowed by the Soviets is going to change that somehow?

"Founding member of NATO"....it has no armed forced so the concept does mean that much other then it wanted some protection from Soviet forces. It doesn't contribute anything to NATO bar land for a base, so it can claim to be pretty neutral.

As for mother country, I think most cultural links from Iceland are with Norway not Denmark. Iceland had also struggled to attain home rule and independence from Denmark, in a similar fashion that Ireland struggled to leave the UK. And yet Ireland stayed neutral in WW2...

 

[loughery111]

I would agree that the US would be smart enough to engineer some smart scheme, to justify them taking over Greenland.

But you do not answer, what I see at the main problem in the summer of 1945, that is what the US can/will do when communist Denmark decides it wants to make its military presence felt, by deploying a small number of troops to Greenland, which is rightfully Denmarks?

As I see it; in the summer of 1945 the US will have no option except accepting the deployment of Danish troops, which officially at this stage is still an allied nation, following the Soviet "liberation".

The point was that they will preempt any such action by engineering a declaration of independence. If Communist Danish troops set foot on that island, their chances of getting it back in their camp go to Hell, because Soviet troops will likely soon follow. Whatever will keep Communist troops from landing there until they can engineer this, is what they will do. They'll come up with some diplomatic pretext for this exclusion, but it will happen. Danish troops simply will not be permitted to set foot on the island.

You keep acting like the US and the USSR were still actually allied in mid-1945, rather than just co-belligerents, and like that status would mean something. We essentially were not, and it did not. If Truman felt the need to secure something against Communist seizure, he would have done so regardless of the USSR's reaction. After all, the USSR was in no shape to continue prosecuting a war, and the United States and United Kingdom were well aware of this.

 

[loughery111]

"Founding member of NATO"....it has no armed forced so the concept does mean that much other then it wanted some protection from Soviet forces. It doesn't contribute anything to NATO bar land for a base, so it can claim to be pretty neutral.

You think a country of a few tens of thousands of people could actually contribute anything else? NATO needed one thing in 1949: a base to maintain air coverage of the North Atlantic and in which to set up a radar station. They got it. And I'm sorry, but if your country is a member of one of the two major alliance structures of the day, it is not neutral, whether it contributes significant firepower or not. Its contribution was to secure the northern flank of NATO for the entirety of the Cold War. The SOSUS line was the major strategic asset of the USN and RN for most of that time; it was the linchpin of their strategy in the North Atlantic. And Iceland's non-neutrality made it possible.

 

[Devvy]

You think a country of a few tens of thousands of people could actually contribute anything else? NATO needed one thing in 1949: a base to maintain air coverage of the North Atlantic and in which to set up a radar station. They got it. And I'm sorry, but if your country is a member of one of the two major alliance structures of the day, it is not neutral, whether it contributes significant firepower or not. Its contribution was to secure the northern flank of NATO for the entirety of the Cold War. The SOSUS line was the major strategic asset of the USN and RN for most of that time; it was the linchpin of their strategy in the North Atlantic. And Iceland's non-neutrality made it possible.

Hell no, bugger all Iceland can do bar land for a base. But NATO didn't come around until 1949 I think, and the POD is at the end of WW2, four years earlier so NATO isn't going to be rushing into Iceland quickly after it's independence.

Iceland may be part of NATO, but NATO and the American base at Keflavik in particular were highly disliked by Icelanders who had large pro-neutrality marches in OTL. It also continues to dislike the EU despite it's application, all of which led to my neutral comments.

I don't deny that Iceland is hugely important for the UK and USA, but whether it joins NATO ITTL or stays independent is questionable and probably relies on the exact nature of a Commie takeover as I mentioned earlier.

 

[arctic warrior]

Danish presence is not the threat; the lack of a US presence is. Frankly, Greenland and Iceland are both essential to maintaining control of the North Atlantic, which is, in turn, a strategic interest of the US that was and still is regarded as being essential in every way. They will NOT accept a situation in which they cannot base reconnaissance aircraft and early-warning radar systems in Greenland, let alone one in which the USSR or "Denmark" can do so.

Please read what I write! I've stating all way through that the Kauffmann treaty wouldn't go out the window ITTL.

 

[arctic warrior]

You have many good points. But I doubt that the US can keep claiming that Kaufmann represents Denmark after the Liberation. Quite early the US accepted the governments set up by the Soviets in Eastern Europe, and I do not think that Denmark will be any different....why should it?

Secondly, I would guess that both communist Denmark and the Soviets see the potential importance of Greenland and perhaps the Faroe Islands. It does not take more than a couple of ships to ferry a military presence to both places....and BTW Denmark was sef-sufficient in food productions during the war....So they will proberly be feeding other parts of the Eastern bloc in stead.

Regarding the British wish for Danish participation of the occupation of Schleswig-Holstein; the British wanted an entire Danish Division, but eventually had to settle with a brigade. Communist Denmark, will proberly not have this task, and can now deplot their few assets elsewhere, for the glory of communism.....Red Greenland here we come!!

The US could throw a spanner in the works by recognizing the government and claim continuity since April 9, 1940 as such stick to that the treaty was valid as contracted by the government representative in Washington and the present government having to observe it - like it or not.

The point is as you well know that Denmark didn't have the military 1945 for doing such. Oceangoing ships were on the bottom of the Baltic.
The Danish Brigade would certainly not support the communist government if such one came about.

It just isn't possible.

Denmark ITTL isn't going to feed Eastern Europe - it'll be devasted by Blumentritt's last stand, I did write so.

Christmas Møller had promised 10.000 troops but had to pull back in the light of internal politics; Brits surely didn't like that. Of course communist Denmark wouldn't want to do any of this and as I alreade wrote won't have the means to do so.

BTW the brits might not ITTL want to lease the large number of minesweepers they did to Denmark as well as let the Kriegsmarine redraftet personnel do part of the job; these units would be off to Norway instead. But they were needed in Danish waters to clear the 28.000 mines laid there during the war. The Red Navy isn't going through for some time.

 

[arctic warrior]

On a differnet note which have been dealt with here before:

2. Para brigade was in reserve for being dropped on Sjaelland should the need be so as was 1. Para brigade for operations in Norway.
The Swedes had a corps of two divisions as well as airassets ready for operation Resque Denmark - Rädda Danmark - but SHAEF declined the need. In Sweden were also the Danish Brigade.

Should the Soviets managed to break Blumentritt's line on the Kiel Canal or wherever playing this card could secure eastern Denmark for the western allies and the Germans were eager to surrender to them. That would pull the air out of the Soviets.

Another factor to take into account is the Soviet withdrawal from Finnmark, Northern Norway September 1945. The Soviets may abide to the agreements and pull out like they did from Bornholm 1946 or earlier should the Brits and Swedes as well as Danish Brigade in Sweden be present.

Thus should the Soviets win the race for Denmark they might see their pole position sour by western allied actions and retreat relying on win by ballot like in Czechoslovachia.

 

[loughery111]

Hell no, bugger all Iceland can do bar land for a base. But NATO didn't come around until 1949 I think, and the POD is at the end of WW2, four years earlier so NATO isn't going to be rushing into Iceland quickly after it's independence.

Iceland may be part of NATO, but NATO and the American base at Keflavik in particular were highly disliked by Icelanders who had large pro-neutrality marches in OTL. It also continues to dislike the EU despite it's application, all of which led to my neutral comments.

I don't deny that Iceland is hugely important for the UK and USA, but whether it joins NATO ITTL or stays independent is questionable and probably relies on the exact nature of a Commie takeover as I mentioned earlier.

Fair enough, but pro-neutrality sentiment is not actually neutrality, as Germany found out the hard way in WWI with the United States.

Please read what I write! I've stating all way through that the Kauffmann treaty wouldn't go out the window ITTL.

I know, I just wanted to point out that even not being able to base there is more than threat enough, leaving aside all considerations of the East Bloc doing so itself.

 

[arctic warrior]

I know, I just wanted to point out that even not being able to base there is more than threat enough, leaving aside all considerations of the East Bloc doing so itself.

I think you did manage to communicate your point!

Besides it was the USA that wanted the security thingy - Kauffmann probably didn't think of it the issue.