From the Vikings to Trump: Greenland’s historic development negates recent White House territorial demands.
The first Nordic presence in Greenland dates back to Erik the Red, a Norse Viking banished from Iceland for manslaughter, who sought a new future in Greenland around the end of the 10th century. The name “Greenland” referred to the vegetation around Southern Greenland’s fjords, but the name was likely also given in an attempt to lure more Norse settlers to Erik’s settlement in Southeast Greenland. The Norse settlements in Greenland became part of a North Atlantic empire ruled from Norway.
The Norse stayed in Greenland for centuries. At the start of the 15th century, they disappeared with little trace. There are numerous possible reasons, including: a colder climate that made the island less habitable and conflict with the Inuit, who began to arrive in the areas that were populated by the Norse.
In 1721, Hans Egede, a Norwegian priest and missionary with support from the united Dano-Norwegian crown, reestablished contact with Greenland. A concern at the time was that the Norse settlers had missed the Reformation and were still Catholics. When Hans Egede arrived, however, he found only the Inuit, by then firmly established in most of Greenland, and he decided to focus his efforts on converting them to Christianity.
That marked the beginning of the colonial period. It was a slow start, and Norwegian-Danish influence in Greenland had to compete with other foreign powers, notably the Dutch. In a process that spanned generations, the Inuit were converted to Christianity, and Greenland was both politically and economically tied to Denmark-Norway in a colonial relationship.
When the monarchy of Denmark and Norway broke apart in 1814, Denmark kept Greenland. Danish-Greenlandic colonial relations in the 19th and early 20th centuries were characterized by a Danish paternalistic policy for cautious development, ensuring that Greenland would be a profitable colony. In 1916, Denmark’s rights to Greenland were confirmed by the United States, as part of a deal that facilitated the American purchase of the Danish West Indies. A controversy concerning a Norwegian claim to parts of Greenland ended in 1933, when the Permanent Court of International Justice, founded by the League of Nations, ruled against Norway.
After the Second World War, the United Nations pushed for decolonization in Greenland. In 1953, the former colony was incorporated into Denmark and granted two seats in the Danish Parliament. In 1979, Greenland achieved Home Rule, which included the formation of the Greenlandic Parliament, and it gained self-rule in 2009 through the passage of a law that included a ‘blueprint’ for seeking independence. The 2009 law firmly established that the decision to go for independence from Denmark would now rest with the Greenlandic people.
There is no doubt that the majority of Greenlanders want to use this option eventually. Polls show this. Independence has been accepted in Denmark as well. However, polls also consistently show that Greenlanders do not want independence if the price is the collapse of the Greenlandic welfare state. Herein lies the challenge. Greenland is vast, stretching over more than 800,000 square miles, but its population is tiny, consisting of only 56,000 people. Furthermore, the climate remains harsh for most of the year, especially in the North. For these reasons, among others, the Greenlandic government remains dependent on a yearly block grant from Denmark of roughly $600 million, as well as on the Danish state supporting services in areas such as defense, coast guard, and law enforcement. Greenlandic independence, therefore, depends on substantial continued Danish assistance after independence, something the Greenlandic government has yet to convince Denmark to accept.
It is in this context that President Donald Trump saw an opening to acquire Greenland. American strategic interests in Greenland are not new, but stretch back into the 19th century. Extensive U.S. involvement in Greenland, however, did not materialize until the Second World War, triggered by the German invasion of Denmark on April 9, 1940. As such, the German occupation of Denmark put Greenland in a peculiar position and caused worry in the United States that Greenland’s geography could eventually be used against it. For that reason, Washington reacted favorably when the Danish ambassador to the U.S., Henrik Kauffmann, took the rather unusual step of proposing himself as the true representative of free Denmark, cutting bonds with the occupied country. Kauffmann offered the United States base rights in Greenland for the duration of the war.
This was the start of the U.S. presence in Greenland. After the Second World War, a liberated Denmark honored Kauffmann’s commitments, and from 1949, the United States and Denmark became allies through NATO. During the Cold War and the decades after, the U.S. safeguarded its security interests in Greenland: tracking Russian missiles, bomber planes, and nuclear-armed submarines from that location. This became the basis for the “Greenland card” in U.S.-Danish relations: the idea that base rights in Greenland constituted an important contribution from Denmark and Greenland to the U.S. and NATO.
This state of affairs changed with Donald Trump. In the broader context of U.S.-European relations in the age of “America First,” the U.S. had to push its ‘free-riding’ European allies to do more on every front. No longer would Washington be satisfied with having a free hand in Greenland. Instead, Denmark was now a bad ally for not taking responsibility for U.S. security concerning Greenland. In Trump’s narrative, this perceived Danish lapse justified an American takeover of Greenland in its entirety. Trump even went so far as to refuse to rule out the use of military force. Other reasons, voiced by Trump, included securing mineral wealth, especially rare earth minerals, as well as a more general ambition to make the U.S. greater through territorial expansion.
The Greenlandic right to self-determination should form the bedrock for any future developments. For that reason, as well as for many other reasons, the U.S. military conquest of Greenland is beyond unacceptable. The American public agrees: in a February 2025 poll, only 11% expressed support for using military force to take control of Greenland, while 69% opposed it. This may be why the Trump administration has not mentioned the military ‘option’ recently. Instead, the Trump administration now seems focused on winning over the ‘hearts and minds’ of the Greenlanders. At the same time, stories about US influence agents compiling lists of pro-American and anti-American individuals caused understandable worry in Nuuk and Copenhagen – a behavior that few countries would expect from their allies.
So far, the Trump administration has not been particularly successful. A poll from January shows that only 6% of Greenlanders are in favor of joining the U.S., with 85% against it. Greenlandic politicians have rejected the idea on numerous occasions, and in March, the party leaders of all Greenlandic parties issued a joint rejection of American attempts to annex Greenland. Most telling, the Trump team had to give up on finding Greenlandic hosts willing to meet the Second Lady Usha Vance during her planned trip to Nuuk that month.
Where do we go from here? The United States should cease its ill-fated adventurism and work with Greenland and Denmark to secure its legitimate security interests. This would be nothing new, but a return to policies that served the United States well for the last 75 years.
Read the original article
Comments
By perihelions 2026-01-1016:445 reply 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."
By margalabargala 2026-01-1021:563 reply > 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.
By oneneptune 2026-01-112:297 reply I hear this a lot from Americans, that the percentage of Americans that align with the current right-wing party is actually low. Sometimes you'll see people state that a lot of the right-wing posts you see online are mostly bots.
It's curious to me though, that:
The majority of state governorships,
The majority of state congresses,
The majority of law enforcement,
The majority of military members,
The majority of the US house,
The majority of the US senate,
The majority of the US labor unions,
The majority of the US corporations,
The majority of the US media organizations; both legacy and new,
The majority of the US Supreme Court,
and of course the US Executive branch....
... all belong to the right-wing party we're supposed to believe, according to online rhetoric, is actually only backed by ~30% of Americans. You'd expect a more broad and public resistance if that were true?
Supposedly the centrists and left-wing party members are the silent majority while the right-wing party enacts their agenda with no resistance?
I think the reality is; what we see and hear in the real world is who the US truly is.
By jdboyd 2026-01-113:11 In quite a few areas you mention (control of congresses, senates, president) the system has been optimized to allow less densely populated areas to have outsized control. Less densely populated areas historically were the ones that wanted slavery and currently are the areas dominated by Republicans for a number of reasons. The majority it the supreme Court reflects who was in power when people died it retired, not an actual reflection of the people. If a state has a Democrat governor it probably means most of the state is left wing. If that same state has a Republican Senate and a Democrat governor (like mine does) it means that more people are left, but the right has disproportionate control do to low population areas getting disproportionate control
I think for law enforcement and corporations, there is more money and power to be found in supporting the right, so it requires strong leadership to try to do what is best for the population instead of themselves. On the corporate side, this isn't helped by the view pushed into the legal system that corporations only social responsibility is to make the most money for their shareholders in the short term.
We seem to have a system of democracy that may be inferior to many other countries and the cracks are showing. On the not so positive other hand, countries that I would have said have a more robust system are also starting to show cracks, and I don't think it is only because of the influence of foreign big money.
By jaredklewis 2026-01-114:351 reply I think it is true that many policies of this administration are only supported by a small minority of Americans and this doesn't seem at all strange to me. The US is (with various state and local exceptions) a first-past-the-post democracy. That means that all political interests necessarily have to coalesce into two political parties or forgo any chance at representation. So the Republican party (and the Democratic party) are really coalitions of dozens of different political interests.
Some people are Republicans because of their opinions on abortion. Some because of their opinions on immigration or crypto regulation. Or their dislike of covid lockdown policies associated with Democrats. Or their preference for tariffs. And so on.
So if a given voter's most important issue is crypto regulation, even if this voter is pro-choice and supports traditional multi-lateral foreign policy, they very may well support Republican politicians, not because they are against abortion or want to invade Greenland, but because those issues are less important to them than their primary issue of crypto regulation.
Now I'm not saying this exonerates the character of the nation. One could argue that it is immoral for voters to prioritize crypto deregulation over multi-lateral foreign policy.
I'm just saying that it is very plausible that only a small minority of the US population supports an invasion of Greenland and, given the political system, there is nothing particularly mysterious about that fact.
By tacticalturtle 2026-01-113:18 Half of these items can be attributed to the fact that low density, rural states have a structural advantage in representation in federal governments, and in the current political era these states lean conservative.
Some of these are just wrong - unions generally lean democratic:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/17/key-facts...
I’m also skeptical of the media organization claim.
And it should surprise no one that purely profit driven corporations switch their professed values with different administrations - see the rapid adoption of DEI programs during the Biden administration, then subsequent abandonment in the Trump era.
By cmrdporcupine 2026-01-1116:50 Bunch of people explaining this based on voting representation structures but I think they're missing the forest for the trees.
It comes down to power and money. In any capitalist economy with large highly profitable corporate entities, the part(ies) that represent their interests most strongly are simply going to have more leverage and power.
Biden and Harris made the "mistake" of starting to go after Silly Valley for tax evasion and for social/communal issues and so on.
They made the "mistake" of trying to actually advance, modestly, some climate change policy that hurt the oil industry. They made the "mistake" of harming the same global energy industry by heavily sanctioning energy superpower Russia and trying to defeat it in a proxy war.
They made the "mistake" of trying to regulate the cancer that is the cryptocurrency "industry."
And they were completely buried for it. "Allies" in the tech industry just completely abandoned them, and put Vance up as their sock puppet. Musk went scorched earth.
It doesn't matter that centrist opinions might accord with the majority of US society. At least to some degree.
It doesn't match with those who hold real effective power -- monetary, capital power -- need.
Capitalism and democracy only sometimes overlap. They only do so when people keep corporate interests in check through mass action and opposition and unionization and having an active social democratic party, etc. Something the US entirely lacks.
What are you expecting in terms of "broad and public resistance"?
Unfortunately, the political system in the US has been untenable since Citizens United. We only have two viable parties, and both receive their funding from the same sources. I regularly send letters to my Democrat senators and representative, and based on the responses I get back, I can only assume Republicans and Democrat are the same party - they just wear different fashion.
The powers at be are waiting for a Reichstag fire. But, (luckily) Americans are too lazy for that.
By fastasucan 2026-01-1120:39 A bit unrelated vut this "sending letters" schpiel is genious. A letter sent is not seen by anyone else than the one sending it and the receiving it. They could get millions of letters and the public could still think it was a minor issue.
By pseudony 2026-01-1216:54 I know I’ll get downvoted for this but it needs saying.
I don’t think the allies made any exemptions for the German that wrote their representatives in the lead-up to and during the second world war. All got stuck with the bill, 6 million got forcibly deported from their homes. There is a thing as collective guilt and responsibility.
Your country is on collision course with mine, threatening invasion. I really don’t think a few letters absolve you.
I might like you as an individual, who knows, but you can’t run from some responsibility for this.
What are you expecting in terms of "broad and public resistance"?
At the very least, a general strike. That's absolutely the bare minimum that should be expected of the 94% of US citizens that do not support this regime (as is the claim upthread).
By encrypted_bird 2026-01-122:08 Not parent, but while I agree with you, I have very little faith (virtually none) in that happening. Most people are in a week-to-week or month-to-month financial situation; so, even if the desire & political will were to manifest, most people literally can't afford to strike.
By afpx 2026-01-1217:34 If it's true that history repeats, the rational thing to do right now is to lay low, take care of those nearby, and wait for an external rescue party
By jjk166 2026-01-1222:38 Hint: these are not independent, random samplings. Turns out when you eliminate restrictions on campaign finance the people who run corporations, the people who get elected, and the people hired and appointed by those elected all wind up being aligned.
It's like commenting that it's weird everyone in any sort of position of power in Russia just happens to be a Putin supporter.
By seanmcdirmid 2026-01-1117:49 > I hear this a lot from Americans, that the percentage of Americans that align with the current right-wing party is actually low.
The percentage isn't low, you just aren’t going to find them here. And by here I mean hackernews, or the cities that people who are on hackernews live in. There are basically two Americas and they don’t really mix.
There are also moderates who see both sides as corrupt. I’m one of those, but unlike me some of them were disillusioned enough to vote for trump and didn’t know what they were getting into. If you actually look at those voters, they are really confused by this Greenland nonsense.
By fastasucan 2026-01-1120:362 reply Well, but a majority voted for these people. Twice.
By margalabargala 2026-01-1214:51 Well, no, 30% voted for these people. This turned out to be a majority of the people who bothered to vote.
The invasion of Greenland was not a topic of discussion during the election.
By hn_throwaway_99 2026-01-121:21 Agreed (mostly, but going into the Electoral College debate is a whole other rabbit hole, and regardless a majority voted for these people at least once, with full prior knowledge), and in a democracy we get the government we deserve.
But still, I saw a good clip from Bernie Sanders arguing that when people voted for Trump, they weren't really voting for giant tax breaks for billionaires, or making health care much more expensive, or kicking lots of people off food stamps (though I'd argue they should have realized these things were coming if they had paid attention). What they were voting for was a fundamental shake up of the system, and (for better or worse) Trump was the only one offering fundamental change, vs. the incremental anodyne "can't we all just get along" milquetoast plans from the Democrats (or at least the "elite" Democrats).
Also, for this imperial expansionism issue in particular, I'd argue that this really does feel like a 180 flip flop from Trump after all his "America First" and isolationist rhetoric. For a lot of other issues, for example the immigration crackdown or tariffs, I was truly baffled that some people were surprised how dumb or extreme his policies were, as he basically laid out that this was exactly what he was going to do in the campaign. But putting us in the path of more global conflict and territorial expansionism was actually the exact opposite of what he said he'd do. I'm not that surprised because he's such a transparent malignant narcissist, but again, at least on this issue he flip flopped.
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)
By JumpCrisscross 2026-01-1023:01 > This is also equal to the percentage of Americans who wanted to forcefully depose Maduro
It’s not. Maduro’s removal is supported by roughly a third of Americans [1].
It’s vastly more popular than a military engagement over Greenland.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/only-33-americans-app...
Invading Venezuela is not even remotely the same thing as invading a fellow NATO country, and most Americans know it. If Trump tries to invade, he'll trigger a domestic crisis. i.e. Will congress block it? Will the military obey orders? How severe will the protests be?
If Trump quells all that and his invasion goes ahead, he'll trigger an international crisis too. Does NATO simply implode, or do the EU and other former-NATO countries form an anti-U.S. alliance? What kind of insurgency forms in Greenland? Does what's left of the old world order turn against the U.S. with economic sanctions? Does China take advantage of the moment to finally invade Taiwan? How loudly will Putin be laughing during all this?
We can only hope Trump is merely trying to distract people from the Epstein files with a bluff.
Regarding an 'invasion' of Greenland, it would actually be done in a day, and I highly doubt an effective insurgency would form. The US already has military control over the territory, and the population is way too low and concentrated to offer opposition.
This is implicit in the reaction of the EU: If the US takes over Greenland, Europe will close down all American bases in Europe.
This is what makes this particular foreign policy so incredibly stupid: The US already gets everything it needs from Denmark/Greenland. The US is considering throwing away European allies to have their flag be bigger on a world map.
By nephihaha 2026-01-1120:03 Yes, it could be done quickly. There are only several population centres of any note, often separated by hundreds of miles/km but Nuuk would be the main target.
If Trump does something it will be the same as with Venezuela. This invalidates most of your pointed questions against it happening.
These questions would at most be raised after it already happened, and after watching a few political influencer like Zack who routinely gets 50k+ viewers I suspect your trust in "most Americans know the difference" to be exaggerated, sadly.
This scenario also strongly reminds me of an old fable from the Middle ages, where the king reassures the peasant that the noble will be punished if he kills the peasant... But what meaning does such a punishment have for the peasant who'd be dead?
So yeah, there will be political fallout once Trump's invades it's ally Denmark, at it will invalidate NATO entirely. But does that matter to the annexed people? They'll still have lost their sovereignty to be exploited by American mega corporations.
Take a second look at Venezuela. Congress passed an act limiting Trump's ability to operate in the country. The U.S. is currently not occupying or controlling the country. They have not effected regime change. The former VP has taken over and may take some pro-U.S. actions due to threats of being kidnapped but, with Maduro gone, she could be replaced at any moment. Meanwhile, U.S. oil execs are balking at doing anything in Venezuela and all Trump can do to keep Venezuela on the front page (instead of the Epstein files) is continue pirating oil tankers.
Venezuela could realistically come out of this with their sovereignty intact and no significant U.S. takeover of their oil industry materializing. If anything, the lesson we should learn here is that Trump is so inept that, should he try to take over Greenland, he may trigger all the negative consequences of doing so without actually accomplishing much of anything. Someone living in Nuuk, far from any American military base, might be forgiven for not noticing when they wake up in an American territory. A couple of leaders might get a promotion and the cheques may start coming from Washington rather than Copenhagen, but the Americans may have no interest in governing Greenlanders and American mining companies may refuse to get bogged down in another one of Trump's swamps.
What may happen to Venezuela is not the point. The point is how little control American people have on this Administration (which BTW last week started effectively giving immunity to ICE agents who kill Americans)
By beloch 2026-01-121:40 That's a matter of perspective. You'll have to forgive the rest of the world for being more concerned with the rest of the world.
By JumpCrisscross 2026-01-1023:011 reply > the polls are 85% against 6% in the "we don't want to be Americans" direction
The realistic plan for Greenland involves it voting for independence from Denmark and then entering into a compact with the U.S. in the model of Palau.
By Dah00n 2026-01-1623:29 Realistic suicide plan, maybe. No US state gets as much federal funding per capita as Greenland do from Denmark (and that funding doesn't include police, jails, courts, hospitals, etc. as that's paid by Denmark directly). Voting to become part of the US is like voting that you want less freedom, less money, less healthcare, and so on. It won't ever happen. Greenland isn't full of people that believe the US fairytale of "The Worlds Best XYZ".
By irthomasthomas 2026-01-1019:49 Ameerikkamiuunianngilagut=American trucking company
By cadamsdotcom 2026-01-1022:291 reply > they desire to own the people who are speaking
No.
People are not their government.
By Dah00n 2026-01-1623:30 No.
But a president voted into office twice is the voice of everyone who voted for him.
By antonymoose 2026-01-1022:23 > 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.
By heresie-dabord 2026-01-1016:253 reply 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.
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.
By cmrdporcupine 2026-01-1016:421 reply 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.
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.
By pyuser583 2026-01-1221:54 The President is roughly like a federal version of a state governor. State governors are modeled after Tudor monarchs.
Over time the symbolism has evolved - the American people tend to want more pomp and ceremony than the presidents themselves.
We are looking for something like the Venetian Doge - a very showy anti-monarch.
By cmrdporcupine 2026-01-1017:461 reply 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.
> "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.
Well, it’s usually in the context of saying thanks, for things like nights and weekends away from family and friends on training deployments (or real ones), getting up early every morning, being the first one who has to take action if there is a crises and put their life at risk.
So usually it’s said even if the nation isn’t at war because it’s not an easy job. You’ll hear Americans say it to first responders, nurses, fire fighters, police officers, &c.
Idk why it’s being characterized as weird though instead of what it is which is just an aspect of our culture to say thanks to others who are doing jobs you perceive to be dangerous or difficult.
As a veteran of the US armed forces I hate it because I never know what to say…”thanks for your service’ …uh you’re welcome? But it comes from a good place. Though I try to remind folks that saying thanks isn’t enough, spend time and money helping others, vote, keep your community clean, have high standards for yourself and others, because otherwise your fellow citizens are doing all this for nothing.
That's kind of what I was trying to say: it comes from a good place.
But the "service" is more likely to be "invading another country" than "defending the US territory from an invasion", so when you are not a US citizen, it may feel odd.
Again, the US have threatened to invade quite a few democracies in the last year. Not sure how happy the people living there are about that "service"...
By cmrdporcupine 2026-01-1117:431 reply The assumption throughout here seems to be that US troops are performing service that is of advantage to all Americans and thus their sacrifice is worth of respect. And you're recognizing this may not be the case for at least some non-Americans.
I'd go further: I am not convinced the actions of the US military -- which are primarily abroad -- are always advancing the interests for all Americans. In fact they sometimes are directly undermining the interests of some of the poorest members of society. The US's imperial interests abroad can suppress global labour prices, it can contribute to climate change (by advancing and encouraging more fossil fuel exploration), among other things. It can indirectly or even directly harm the interests of some working people in the United States. While at the same time recruiting directly from those people.
So while I feel for armed forces members individually as people, the product of their service in their forces I don't think is some universal good. In fact, for much of the 20th century outside of WWII it's been mostly malevolent and imperial. And I'd argue not just to the world outside the US, but to many of its own broader population.
I don't think it's for a universal good either, but for most Americans they are basically saying, well as a country we voted for whatever it is the government is doing and that may be good or bad but we support the institution you represent and wish it to generally be successful. You don't need to over-analyze it.
You're right that US military action sometimes cause harm even for people that are supposedly represented, but the military is just another tool leveraged by governments which do good or bad things all the time. It's really as simple as the US spending taxpayer dollars on initiative X with spending taxpayer dollars on initiative Y just with a bomb. You could argue that bombs kill people so the military is different, but so do rising interest rates and civil wars and famines. Even saying that some actions taken by the US might not be good for non-Americans it's kind of a weird criticism. It's true, but that applies to all countries and all peoples, and the United States has no moral obligation to take actions that are specifically good for other people while advancing American interests. Hopefully we do, and I think we should, but it's unfair to characterize the US as having a moral failure for not doing so unless you're going to apply those standards to everyone else. For example, if you are going to criticize the United States in this way, I'll criticize China for taking actions that harmed Americans by manufacturing products so cheaply and efficiently that it put American workers out of jobs. Many people died because of that over the years. Maybe China should do better and not undermine the interests of poor Americans for whom a manufacturing job is the gateway to as good of a life as they can expect?
I was one of those folks "recruited". The 4 years I put in including a tour taught me a lot not just about myself but about the countries I was stationed in, and eventually paid for me to college through a semester or two of grad school and allowed me to take college courses while I was in. I learned how to work out, learned about nutrition, and learned a lot about working with other people from different backgrounds, handling conflict, teamwork, all of those things. Many people make the military a career, too, or they're able to land jobs after their time in working as contractors helping to fix or maintain equipment. It's not all bad, and I think your characterization which is effectively: "the US takes actions that harm poor people and then recruits them to further harm those same people" is, well, to put it politely rather uncharitable.
I also don't think we should over-index on actions taken by a country undermining the interests of some of the poorest members of society. I think we should do what we can to help those who are the least well off at least here in the US. Healthcare, education, you name it. But we should not have a dogmatic approach toward helping one group at the expense of everyone else. If the US took an action that didn't benefit the poorest members of society but benefited everyone else at their expense, maybe it's still a good action and maybe we should continue to do it. It depends on the action and the effects. Was bombing Iraq good? Idk, maybe over the long term, but Americans including the poorest sure do like cheap gas prices.
> but it's unfair to characterize the US as having a moral failure for not doing so unless you're going to apply those standards to everyone else
Who says we aren't? There is always criticism against countries that invade other countries. Be it the US, Russia, China, you name it.
But it's not as if Greenland (or the EU, or Canada) was threatening to invade the US, is it?
> Was bombing Iraq good? Idk, maybe over the long term, but Americans including the poorest sure do like cheap gas prices.
I think this is an interesting point: people in many countries would not be grateful if their military invaded other countries. So they wouldn't "thank the military for their service". That the Americans do it may sound weird to non-Americans, given that the US are generally more invading than defending their own territory. "Thanks for destroying an entire country and disrupting millions of life, because I like cheap gas".
> Who says we aren't? There is always criticism against countries that invade other countries. Be it the US, Russia, China, you name it.
Because while I recognize the OP being about the US, the vast majority of the criticism and discussion takes place regarding the United States. But even in criticizing the US here one could in good faith argue a caveat is required saying "but this is done by all countries" or something along those lines.
> But it's not as if Greenland (or the EU, or Canada) was threatening to invade the US, is it?
No, but I don't think that's particularly relevant in this context? You're just venting.
> I think this is an interesting point: people in many countries would not be grateful if their military invaded other countries. So they wouldn't "thank the military for their service". That the Americans do it may sound weird to non-Americans, given that the US are generally more invading than defending their own territory. "Thanks for destroying an entire country and disrupting millions of life, because I like cheap gas".
Well my point here was just that the Iraq war is widely criticized, and in this context I think it's safe to assume that it would also have been criticized as not being good for the poorer folks in the United States, and I just wanted to point out that they want their cheap gas prices too, and they're also thanking the US military for bombing Iraq. Some want to try and say America is bad but not the poor people because of an internal juxtaposition they hold in their mind. The poor Americans are just as complicit and benefit too. In fact, they're typically more supportive of these endeavors than the wealthy elites regardless of who benefits.
> people in many countries would not be grateful if their military invaded other countries
Well most countries lack a military that is capable of doing much of anything so they don't really experience this happening, and if their country does try to invade another one it is usually facing repercussions from the United States, so your sample size is small.
But I also don't think this is quite true and you can broaden it to general military activity.
Iranians for example were celebrating in the streets over bombings of Israel. Israelis were celebrating the bombing of Iran's military and leadership. Do I need to even get in to Russia and Z? Nevermind Pakistan and India, even internally in countries like India you have religious or ethnic minorities murdered and it is celebrated. Do you think there is a lack of patriotic Chinese who are eagerly awaiting the bombing and invasion of Taiwan? You're thinking about this in an American-centric way. Americans aren't special, all countries like and do these things and have done so historically and will continue to do so in the future provided they have the means and internal justification.
By palata 2026-01-1222:15 > No, but I don't think that's particularly relevant in this context? You're just venting.
Okay let me take a step back. The discussion starts with:
> 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.
And you say that it's unfair because all countries who have a powerful enough military also invade other countries, and their people also thank them for doing it". Sounds like I am not the only one venting, to be honest.
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.
By epolanski 2026-01-1019:37 That's quite an interesting observation.
> 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.
By JumpinJack_Cash 2026-01-1020:131 reply > > 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
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.
By JumpinJack_Cash 2026-01-110:471 reply it's the same! The Prime Minister would then be the person performing better than everybody else and would thus be emboldened
By palata 2026-01-1112:11 I gave examples where it's not like that. If you don't want to read them, I don't know what to say.
> 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.
By palata 2026-01-1019:25 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.
> It also probably goes with the fact that it is a very big country sharing one culture
Some Americans, even here on HN, genuinely believe that different states have different cultures in the same way different countries in Europe have different cultures cultures.
By palata 2026-01-1112:10 Sure, it's not incompatible. There is a European culture, it's just a question of granularity. And there are subcultures in countries (some countries are even divided between different languages).
Still, Americans from everywhere in the US have this tendency to genuinely believe that the whole world believes the US are the best country in the world. That seems like a cultural trait in the US.
By phantom784 2026-01-1023:131 reply > 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.
I agree with your argument in general, but couldn't this still happen with a parliament? If a party controls 50% + 1 of the parliament, then they're in control. Still, it's better than that control being given to a single person of course.
By surgical_fire 2026-01-1023:471 reply Typically no (unless you're the UK with a very dysfunctional FPTP system).
Typically the parliament is fractured in multiple parties, because in parliamentarism there is not automatic incentive to vote for one of the big parties otherwise you are wasting your vote. If the party you vote for has 5% of the representation in the parliament, it can still be part of a coalition to form the government and influence decisions.
By Etherlord87 2026-01-110:412 reply I'm not an expert on this, but the way I see it, the opposite is true: people don't vote on small parties, because if a small party doesn't reach the minimum required, the vote is wasted. This way there's only a few parties (if the minimum is 5% then there can't really be more than 20 parties, and since the distribution is very far from even, you get around around 4-7 parties with 5% minimum).
However, the big parties often consist of sub-factions.
However, it seems there are mechanisms that turn parties into dictatorships with one person ruling everything in the entire party, as well as people get carried away with negative emotions and vote against, polarizing the politics into just 2 parties alternating in power.
By surgical_fire 2026-01-112:40 Pick any European parliamentarism. You will find at least 4 or 5 parties with some relevance in any country. Besides the UK (with their absolutely bonkers FPTP system), I can't remember a single one with 2 major parties and that's it.
Those smaller parties end up having an important role, because typically the Major parties cannot form a government otherwise. So the major parties end up having to make some concessions to get a coalition going.
It is a stabilizing force.
By defrost 2026-01-110:56 Australia has a proportional voting "washminster" system with two and half major parties ..
( Labor Vs. Liberal+Nationals OR (cartoonishly) "Masses" Vs Urban-Capital+Rural-LandOwners (comically grotesque oversimplification) )
There are, however, many smaller parties that a great many people vote on first in proportional run-offs.
Australians are well aware that the smaller parties often don't get a seat but they're also well aware that the voltes are tallied to reveal the issues championed by smaller parties and how the secondary preferences "run off" to the majors.
eg: (say) Labor only squeaked in ahead of the Liberals because people that care about issue {X} first then preferenced Labor second .. expecting Labor to address that issue.
Fail to address an issue and the margin votes switch secondary preferences.
( That said, a number of small parties do hold independant seats )
Much of this small party preference voting kicked off from The Australian Democrats, a centrist political party founded in 1977 with the slogan
Keep the Bastards Honest.
By JumpCrisscross 2026-01-1023:03 > you end up in situations like the disaster in Poland where government and president are from different parties and the government gets vetoed everything
This sounds like the system failing as designed.
By somerandomqaguy 2026-01-1021:57 >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.
> 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.
Greenlanders are EU citizens, however: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_and_the_European_Uni...
By ranit 2026-01-1512:34 Thanks for the clarification.
By nephihaha 2026-01-1120:07 Not off topic at all. For what its worth, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey and the Faroe Islands have never been in the EU either. Gibraltar has been though, and has a land border with the EU unlike these other territories.
By nephihaha 2026-01-1120:05 "Greenlanders appear to understand as well as the rest of the EU"
Greenland has never been in the European Union, even though it is effectively a Danish colony. It left its predecessor, the EEC, many years ago. Its interaction with the other EU member states is minimal.
By SilverElfin 2026-01-1016:303 reply 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".
> 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.
By torlok 2026-01-1021:53 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.
If the other side have sufficient nuclear warheads it does not really matter the size of the war budget.
You have to be willing to use them though and suffer the consequences. Having them isn’t enough on its own.
By barbazoo 2026-01-114:40 Exactly, and that isn't in the billionaires interest so it's not going to happen. They'd rather all their consumers attention be available to them than dealing with nuclear fallout.
By hearsathought 2026-01-1017:03 > 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.
By skywal_l 2026-01-1016:37 And does it mean the Virgin Islands revert back to Denmark?
