As the International Court ruled in favour of Denmark, it also demanded that Denmark assert its sovereignty over the area. Therefore they created the Sirius Dog Sled Patrol whose job it is to patrol 16.000 km of coastline.
Yeah. Applied for Sirius back in the day Army Sergent at the time. Went to Officers Academy instead but still wish I'd had the experience. (On the other hand I probably wouldn't have had the experience of 3 years as observer in Hindu Kush, Karakorum and Pamir Mountains had I gone there...)
@@Defferleffer as a reaction to the German landing weather stations in Eastern Greenland. Local trappers and hunters had to deal with it then, but post-war a LRRP was established to avoid it happening again. Nordøstgrønlands Slædepatrulje Ved afgørelsen i den internationale domstol i Haag i 1933, der endeligt afgjorde, at Østgrønland tilhørte Danmark og ikke Norge, blev det understreget, at det var nødvendigt, at Danmark fremover på en synlig måde hævdede suveræniteten over dette område. Det var baggrunden for oprettelsen i 1941 af Nordøstgrønlands Slædepatrulje, der imidlertid blev nedlagt efter 2. Verdenskrig. Ny patrulje og nyt navn Zoom indSirius Daværende kronprins Frederik sætter i juni 2000 slædehundene i gang til den sidste tur med Sirius inden turen gik hjemad. Sirius Byline: Keld Navntoft/Ritzau Scanpix. Licens: Begrænset anvendelse Den 18. august 1950 blev tjenesten på ny etableret på Lauge Kochs station på Ella Ø i Kong Oscar Fjord som Slædepatrulje Resolut. I 1951 flyttede man til den nuværende station i Daneborg. Pga. navnelighed med en canadisk vejrstation antog patruljen i 1953 det nuværende navn efter den klareste stjerne i stjernebilledet Store Hund, der nu indgår i slædepatruljens våbenskjold. Sirius hørte fra starten under Grønlands Kommando, fra 31. oktober 2012 Arktisk Kommando. Fra 1. september 2014 blev Slædepatruljen Sirius sammen med Frømandskorpset og Jægerkorpset sammenlagt i Forsvarets Specialoperationskommandoen (SOKOM), der har hovedkvarter på Flyvestation Aalborg.
As a result of the Norwegian challenges, to this day Denmark has a tiny special force trained in arctic survival, the Sirius Patrol, which continuously perform armed dog-sled patrols in Northern and Eastern Greenland to assert Danish sovereignty. They take recruits from all branches of the Danish military, but most are from the other two special forces (Jæger - paratroopers, and Frømand - amphibious). The entire force is 14 men signing on to only see each other and sled dogs for 2 years, so 7 are replaced every year. They operate out of a base in Eastern Greenland called Daneborg, literally Dane-Castle, which despite its name is just a small collection of houses, sheds, a dock and a runway. They've operated since the 30s, but wasn't officially made a unit until 1950. In 2000 they had a special 50th anniversary expedition where they brought along a cameraman to film it, and a young bored Frømand lieutenant called Frederik, who needed something to occupy his time while waiting to become king.
Sirius Patrol is not considered a special force by Norwegian standards. The main element of Norwegian army, Brigade Nord, is in the Arctic. I was through Arctic long range recon program, dog sledding in cold conditions, have little to do with being a special operator.
@@torrustmaybe not as well regarded as The Norwegian Standard, but here is the NATO definition; NATO has defined special operations as "military activities conducted by specially designated, organized, selected, trained and equipped forces using unconventional techniques and modes of employment".
@@user-sr5iv9pp6p in other countries it's a civilian function to supervise national parks and own territory, we use police, coast guard and rescue service. Norwegian principle is, we don't use military against civilians. In case of terrorism, the police can request assistance from special forces, but the police special unit "Delta" should solve most tasks and are educated policemen. Sirus Patrol would been a civilian function in Norway, it's a Danish political decision to assign the patrol task to the military and it's rather odd to organize this patrol service as special force. I was in Brigade Nord and military base was at 70 degree north, maybe the northernmost military garrison in NATO. In my view, Sirus Patrol ain't a military combat unit, the rifle is what I would use on a civilian vacation to Svalbard, needed for polar bear protection.
As a Dane, I can't say the same 😁 But it is adequate and that is really the best you can hope for. I've never met a non-native Danish speaker who can pronounce "d" or "g" like we do. And we like it that way 😁 We appreciate when people try but we dont really want them to succeed. That's our thing😉
@@esbenm6544 Lisp?? I get the feminine part tho. However norwegian is written like a dane with tantrums changing a letter or word here and there. Spoken like a swedish child with learning disabilities. Xoxo
Fun vid. Small correction; It was the danish ambassador to US H. Kauffman who on his own made and signed the deal with US to 'safeguard' Greenland against German occupation when Denmark was occupied in 1940. There was no Greenlandish Government. It was administered from Copenhagen before 1979 when home-rule was established.
Greenland wasn't colonized in the same way like the British & Spanish did elsewhere in North & South America. When the Norse arrived in Eiriksfjord it legitimately was in a period when it was empty land. There had been people living there before, but not when the Norse arrived. The Norse lived there until a people expanded down south from the north who the Norse called "skrælinger". They were much better equipped to live on Greenland due to hunting methods etc. One thing led to another and they ended up taking over the place. We don't really know if it was a violent take over, or if the Norse just slowly abandoned the place. I think it was probably a mixture of both. If you take the sagas as sources of the skrælinger the relationship was not very friendly.
@@reneblom2160 did you not read the comment? when the norse set up their colonies they literally were on land with no people on it, and the inuit infact came *after* the norse.
There area lot of problems with the presentation, but I will mention only two: - first, it was NOT the Norwegian government who made this occupation attempt, it was a group of private people. They had no authority from the Norwegian government, and the government was hesitant to support their initiative, - second, the decisive factor was that representatives of the Inuit population for both North and South Greenland wrote as their OFFICIAL OPINION that they wanted to stay with the Danes and under no circumstances wanted to become part of Norway. It deserves to be mentioned, that in the International Court in Haag it was an unanimous rule (except for Norway and Italy, who was neutral for technical reasons).
Well in comparison, Canada was simply a corporate outpost for the Hudson Bay Company operating on a charter from the British Crown to find the Northwest Passage, not an entity of the British government. Delaying finding the passage only gave them ample time to invest in infrastructure, industry, development and trade.
@@shoujahatsumetsu - there is nothing comparable between the two situations: first of all the time was completely different. Second, Greenland was at the time already accepted by other nations as part of Denmark, it had been undisputed for more than a hundred years. Third, these people belonged to the extreme fascist fringe of the population. They were as outdated as colonialism would be today. In fact, Norway was so reluctant to accept colonialism at the time that it was willing to give up even its supremacy over Svalbard.
@@NejTak-lq7uk there was a two-week war between Norway and Sweden, which resulted in a separate parliament and constitution. Not a colony by any definition of the word.
@@NejTak-lq7uk actually no we declared independence and created a constitution then Sweden invaded and we agreed to a personal union with the king of Sweden
And I don’t remember Norway as being a Danish colony either, Norwegians are often considered as part of Denmark in the old texts of literature, one of the most famous danish people within literature is from Norway, or he is considered danish in Denmark 😂 Ludvig Holberg was born in Bergen Norway
Weird part: At the time the position of minister of defense was held by the agrarian party ... specifically Vidkun Quisling. To this day his portait hangs on a wall in the defense-ministry, despite being a traitor.
Do all the people to have held that postion have their portraits there? If so, then it makes sense. Being a traitor doesn't erase the fact that he held that position.
Det var han aldri. Han kjempet mot det han kalte for britisk imperialisme. Britan skulle invadere oss. Men Tyskland gjorde det før det ble satt i gang. Han er ikke en forræder. Helt faktisk.@@bennyklabarpan7002
@@bennyklabarpan7002 He led the Norwegian fascist party, National Gathering, which collaborated with Nazi Germany when they invaded Norway on April 9, 1940. In Norway (and at least also in Sweden), his last name is has basically become a synonym for traitor, To be a quisling is to be traitor. Growing up in S3den in the 1970’s and 80’s, I knew what a quisling was before I knew who Vidkun Quisling (the man) was. He was shot by a firing squad after being charged and convicted on murder charges and various other offenses related to the german invasion and occupation, during which he had acted as the leader of the puppet government of Norway, eventually becoming the so-called Minister-President of Norway. He was one of the 37 Norwegians, 11 Germans, and 1 Dane executed in the legal purge of Norway following the end of occupation. The last traitor to be executed was Ragnar Skancke, who was executed by firing squad in August 1948. He was also the last person to be executed for anything in Norway, before the punishment was phased out, and eventually banned by Norway signing the European Convention on Human Rights in 1988, and later officially abolished by constitutional amendment in 2014.
@@timmccarthy9917 Norway was self-governed, sharing foreign policy and king with Sweden. Hardly an Algeria situation, which Norway was in with Denmark until 1814
I'm actually very impressed with your Norwegian pronounciation! Also, you're teaching me history about my homeland I never learnt in school, so top grades!
Norwegian vikings had a habit of abandoning the lands they found before anyone could even figure out what they would be good for, often because they were on the run from the crown of Norway.
4:25 You got the meaning of that part of Treaty of Kiel wrong. What it said is that Norway (excluding the parts mentioned) would be unified with Sweden. The parts mentioned - the Faroes, Iceland, and Greenland, would be removed from Norway and instead continue as part of Denmark, which the Faroes and Greenland are to this day, as well as Iceland until 1944.
You have some telepathic abilities, I was reading about history of Greenland few days ago and tried to understand the whole topic of Eric the Red's Land. Your video about it came to me like from the heaven, thanks!
7:34 "Grænlands-Saga" may also be a reference to the book of Greenlands Saga, from the Icelandig Sagas ... it is, as the name suggests, the story of how Greenland was found, named, and settled.
It was in a personal union with Sweden, meaning that the King of Sweden also was the King of Norway. This situation was forced onto the Norwegians, but still. The King held political power back then, but Sweden and Norway were different countries. Norway had its own laws, its own Parliament, its own state budget and its own military. As Sweden and Norway had the same King, they also needed to share the same foreign policy. This was to begin with handled by Sweden, but the Norwegian Ministers got the right to take part in foreign policy decisions in 1835.
@@JohanDanielsson8802 Well, they shared the same foreign policy with the victors of the napoleonic wars. Other countries negotiated with Norway directly, only the signatures of the peace accord had to keep up the pretense of Norway being Swedish.
@@Carewolf I do not try to make the case, that forcing Norway into the personal union was in any way justified. It was wrong. However, Norway was not a part of Sweden, and it was governed separately from Sweden, although with the same undemocratic King as Sweden.
@@PappaTom-ub3ht As I said, a personal union. Two countries with, and to some extent ruled by, the same monarch. The King spent more time in Sweden, and he spoke Swedish rather than Norwegian, except for Karl XIV Johan, who neither spoke Swedish or Norwegian, but French. The personal union was a lot more popular in Sweden than in Norway. The Norwegians rightfully wanted to break away, most Swedes not so much. However, the King was not elected, neither by the Swedish or by the Norwegian people. He inherited his position and held it for life.
No he was elected king of Denmark after his grandfather Valdemar Atterdag died in 1375. Then he became king of Norway in 1380, both places with Margrete I as regent. Norway and Denmark thus United in 1380, with Sweden joining in 1389 when Margrete defeated Swedish King Albrekt in the battle of Åsle. Kalmar Union was officially established in 1397 when Margrete's grandnephew and chosen heir, Erik of Pomerania was crowned king of all three kingdoms at once and there was written a formal declaration of the Union. And also Margrete was technically never Queen. It's a current regonition of her de facto power of the Kalmar Union. But at the time, she was officially known as "rightful ruler and sovereign", not Queen, because none of the kingdoms had had traditions with female rulers.
What the heck are you talking about dude, this is about Greenland 🇬🇱, Norway 🇳🇴, Denmark 🇩🇰 and USA 🇺🇸 and Germany 🇩🇪, but not about Pakistan 🇵🇰 at all dude my friend 😉😎😊😎😎😎🤜🏻🤛🏻👍🏻🤘🏻🍺🍺🍺🍺🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻
Norway had it's own written untill 1200. This was the Norwegian cultural peak. Norway also had monarchy, legislation, parlament and christianity. The Norwegians settled Iceland. The viking litterature was written in Icelandic-Norwegian. Danish civil servants were implemented in Norway. Ofcourse Danish was their language and the official Norwegian language. Except Danish civil servants Norwegians spoke Norwegian. Danish speech evolved to Danish-Norwegian speech among decendants of the Danes
Norway: Hey Greenland! Greenland: Oh hi neighbor Norway: It's pretty cold outside. Greenland: It's always cold outside. Norway: Won't you come in. It's so nice and warm. We have so much money, gas, oil and trees! Take a look at this old painting of Eirik Raude. Norway: Thats it. Step right in. Make yourself comfortable. Noregsveldet: Raaaaaah! Noregsveldet: Hey Iceland! Iceland:....
This entire video relies on the false assumption of Norway being a former swedish colony (factually wrong) rather then a former kingdom who established colonies on Greenland, and a reference to the norwegian Hans Egede and his norwegian expedition crew financed mostly by the capital of Bergen as "they" in the early 18th century, when mentioning the discovery of the former norse colony beeing extinct centuries ago. Considering both the establishment on greenland being Norwegian and the rediscovery of the colony being a complete norwegian initiaitve based on the folktales in northern norway of these former colony, it would be a lot more interesting to dive into the expedition and the build up to that, and witnesses accounts, rather then looking into a not very well know land dispute that was really ratinal from the "former swedish colony".
We werent a colony either in Sweden-Norway or Denmark-Norway, and Sweden-Norway was legit a personal union where both countries were effectively their own.
@@thommyneter168 A subject of Sweden is what i would call it. Or a junior union member state. But a colony needs colonists... Sweden never colonized Norway.
@@thommyneter168 It's similar to the England/Scotland/Wales/UK situation. The Kalmar Union was like the "United Kingdom of great Britain and Northern Ireland" title. After the Kalmar Union fell apart, The Kingdom of Norway was in a Personal union with the title holder for first the Kingdom of Denmark, then the Kingdom of Sweden. Much like the situation in the UK before the UK title was created where the King of England would also hold the Scottish and Welsh Kingdom titles. But because the capital would be Copenhagen or Stockholm, Norway would in practicality be like a vassal state, just like Scotland and Wales have been for centuries.
@@PappaTom-ub3ht ah allright thanks. So like only the foreign affairs were by Sweden and all the domestic by Norway. Was the king of Norway a thing then? Or was it created when they got their independence?
Right off the bat a mistake; Norway wasn't a colony of Sweden, it was a union. Not one Norway really wanted, but it was far more equal than our time as part of Denmark, where we could be called a colony on some levels. But definitely not under Sweden. The Union with Sweden, of course, came about because Norway declared independence(albeit led by a Danish prince with the intention of unifying Norway and Denmark again) and Sweden went to war with Norway, briefly, resulting in the Convention of Moss and the creation of the Union. In other words, the treaty of Kiel was not enforced upon Norway, as Sweden accepted Norway's new constitution and the creation of a union rather than making Norway a province of Sweden, as the enforcing of the treathy of Kiel would have meant. It should also be mentioned that during the union with Sweden, Norway was independent in all but name really. Norway ran itself, sharing only the monarch and the foreign affairs with Sweden, the latter of which being one of the catalysts for the dissolution of the union in 1905. There wasn't even free trade between the two during a lot of the union.
an union is a nice euphemism to employ for a nation dominating and paternalizing another. Why couldn't Norway manage its foreign affairs? You yourself said "No one really wanted" ie, unconsensual, ie imperialism, ie someone at the top and it's not Norway. "It could have been worst and become a province of the other" is not an argument making anything ok. Unless you say Norwegian independance is bad or something, else why going so far to defend Sweden occupying the other after a military conquest?
@@Game_Hero Norway was in no position to fight the battle hardened Swedish Army with a bunch of volunteers in 1814. Accepting the union was the best option at the time, since Sweden could very much have just fought the entire way and forced Norway to be a province. Instead we got autonomy. So I am not defending Sweden, I am recognising that what we got was the lesser of two evils.
@@user-jf8oz2vh8d Yeah that is right and true my friend and if someone should have Crimea back that would be Ukraine 🇺🇦 my friend 😉😊😎🤜🏻🤛🏻👍🏻🤘🏻🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻
The Norwegian king and the government was in exil in London 1940-1945. Vidkun Quisling and his party made a coup d'etat following the Nazi's occupation of Norway. Norway officially never surrendered to the Nazis. Quisling was a traitor sentenced to death post WWII
What you missed is that after the court decision, Norway established a presence in Eric the Red Land as part of the 1932-1933 International Polar Year. Its also worth noting that the presence of Norway in that part of Greenland did not end until 1959.
Great video. In the end you touched on why there was an American presence on Greenland. You should do a video on Henrik Kauffmann, the Danish ambassador in USA who was heavily involved in the matter. Also, there is a great film about him "The Good Traitor"
The original natives of southern Greenland were definitely Icelandic. The settlements were split in 2: Eystribyggð og Vesturbyggð / eastern settlement and western settlement. The Icelandic names should be reintroduced on international maps alongside the ones already used. Iceland, Greenland, Norway and the Faroe Islands should also make a union across the North Atlantic based on shared heritage. Norway could lead hard issues like defence and security, while Iceland could take on the burden of conserving the culture of our ancestors which we have held on to so dearly.
That Union already exist. Norway and Iceland left the Union but are welcome to re-enter. Norway and Iceland will each get two seats in the Danish parliament on equal foorings to Greenland and the Faroes. I´m sure the transition will be pretty smooth soon after the abdication of the King of Norway.
The Scandinavian countries: That is only Denmark 🇩🇰, Norway 🇳🇴 and Sweden 🇸🇪. The Nordic countries: That is Denmark 🇩🇰, Norway 🇳🇴, Sweden 🇸🇪, Finland 🇫🇮, Iceland 🇮🇸, The Faroe Islands 🇫🇴, The Åland Islands 🇦🇽 and Greenland 🇬🇱 as well my friends 😉😊😊😎😎😎😎😎🤜🏻🤛🏻👍🏻🤘🏻🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻
I remember when the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, there was speculation about what to name the inelegantly named Commonwealth of Independent States (the 12 that were still willing to make some sort of confederation), and the Pakistan precedent was considered. Until a someone pointed out that no one wants to be a proud Turgutmakbak citizen....
The union of Norway and Denmark is often called the “Oldenburg state” because the kings were the dukes of Oldenburg. It also contained territories in what is now Germany.
To quote Kompani Linge (Norwegian Independent Company No. 1/SOE) war hero and War Cross w/ Sword ("Krigskorset med sverd". Highest decoration like VC and MoH) recipient Rubin Langmo, when asked how Norway should have responded to Denmark winning the case in The Hague: "We should have declared war!" From the book about him; "Operasjon Norge".
Hilbert for no reason at all: "Det som lenge framstod som norsk politikk, var å forhandle om garantier for norske økonomiske interesser på Øst-Grønland mot å godta dansk suverenitet. Denne linjen ble brutt da en ny og mer aktivistisk regjering kom til makten i Norge, og ishavrådet gikk inn for norsk okkupasjon i møte med et stadig sterkere dansk nærver" 🧐🧐 Great work saying that.
Well, Hilbert got fooled. When the queen of Norway became ruler og all Sweden(with Finland) and Denmark as well as Norway and its colonies, the danish born queen had the throne of Norway by marriage to the king of Norway, she never became queen av Denmark and Sweden, but became their ruler. She was 9 years old when she cam to Norway. So the Norwegian royal house ruled it all for 150 years..... well almost, because there were a lot of Germans, the kings of both Sweden and Denmark were basically Germans, Sweden ended this for roughly 100 years in 1523, but Denmark , and by union,; Norway was ruled by Germans. We in Norway had our own governement til 1537, and always had our own laws, courts and whatever. With Sweden as our partner we had a full government as well, so we were never a colony, a\sme British writers called us the freest country in Europe in the 1700s. Greenland and all of America is basically Norwegian property
@@GoBlueGirl78 The Scandinavian countries: That is only Denmark 🇩🇰, Norway 🇳🇴 and Sweden 🇸🇪. The Nordic countries: That is Denmark 🇩🇰, Norway 🇳🇴, Sweden 🇸🇪, Finland 🇫🇮, Iceland 🇮🇸, The Faroe Islands 🇫🇴, The Åland Islands 🇦🇽 and Greenland 🇬🇱 as well my friend And PS Greenland 🇬🇱 and The Faroe Islands 🇫🇴 is a part of The Kingdom of Denmark 🇩🇰 and The Commonwealth of Denmark 🇩🇰 as well and Greenland 🇬🇱 and The Faroe Islands 🇫🇴 was also been give to Denmark 🇩🇰 of Norway 🇳🇴 as well, by the way my friend 😉😊😊😎😎🤜🏻🤛🏻👍🏻🤘🏻🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻
If Norway gets to have Greenland and the Faroes back based on ancient claims, then I believe Denmark has some calls to make themselves. And Sweden can get Finland and Russia + Ukraine too while we're at it
There's another territory down south also claimed by Norway, called "Fridtjof Nansen Land" (named after another explorer who died 2 years before in honour of him)
Hilbert you showed that thumbnail of how cows doomed the Norse colony in Greenland. I KNEW that I needed to find and watch that video. … Dude, I spent the next hour scrolling down, I didn’t realize your channel was 7 years old! I spent 17 minutes watching you in lockdown talk about “the dream of the rood” And by the way I agree with your observation. So many people say Christianity is false because many of the traditions celebrated by us are pagan in origin. Well, of course?! That’s how you do things. I have never agreed with obliterating the past in favour of a better future. In Greece you will find people called Artemis or zeus, not just Yiannis (John) or Maria. Our pagan pasts are what make us unique and our Christianity is what brings us together. Different, but no less family. Europa!!
it should be mentioned that the Norwegian king at the time, Håkon 7, objected to the annexation of Greenland. not a surprise, really, as his father were the king of Denmark. would have been an awkward family gathering at christmas.
@@svena.halstensen5699 Haakon was literally a Dane, half Swedish though, but born and raised in Denmark and was elected king of Norway in his mid 30's, why he also spoke norwegian with heavy Danish accent for the rest of his life.
There was a small contingents of German troops in Greenland in 1943. The US Army sent some troops to take them out. The US Army asked for volunteers and anybody who volunteered would get to return to the states early. How do I know this? My father was stationed in Greenland for about 18 months with the US Army.
They were not really troops. They were weather stations. The last of them wasn't shut down until November 1944. The other thing not usually discussed is that the US military also attacked the weather stations of Norway such as Jonsbu that were still operating in Greenland in the 1940s.
Very weird description of Norway... It is the second oldest today existing country in the Nordics. It was always its own nation, albeit run from Copenhagen from 1537 and up to 1814. From 1814 to 1905 Norway shared its king with Sweden until 1905 when the monarch couldn't perform his duties according to the constitution.
@@bennyklabarpan7002 - Kingdom of Norway was founded in the 870s. In 872 most of todays Norway was a part of the Kingdom of Norway. - Denmark was consolidated as a kingdom around the same time, 800s, though the first well documented kings are from the late 900s. - For Sweden, we don't know if any kings ruled over most of the core of Sweden before the late 900s.
@@Spacemongerr History itself is just word of mouth, all those numbers you posted are not any more verifiable than the older roman sources claiming suiones/swedes being a kingdom, which is also backed up by icelandic sources with dates predating both Denmark & Norway. None of these kingdoms were close to their modern borders at their foundations though.
I mean, you could always just call that post-swexit kalmar union a reduced Danish Empire. Sure, the king might not have claimed an imperial title, but in the post Napoleonic world, the term emperor doesn't mean "having to do with Rome" anymore, it means a multi-ethnic centralized authoritarian state where one particular ethnicity enjoys a privileged status as the core capital culture and the rest are 2nd class citizens. So, in that regard, a Danish Empire makes sense
@@Nictator42 Christoffer of Bavaria proclaimed himself "Arch King of Scandinavia" (the title is also used for the Kalmar Union in EU4) so you could argue that the Kalmar Union was a kind of Empire.
3 main Nordic kingdoms. Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. Denmark, and Sweden had empires. Norway was a subject of Denmark for most of modern history; with the exception of the Kalmar Union. Finland was a colony of Sweden. Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands were colonies of Norway. They became incorporated as apart of Denmark, because of Denmark absorbing Norway. That’s the basis for all of this. Norway’s claim is legitimate, and supersedes Denmark’s.
The two reasons why Sweden left the Kalmar Union: 1.) Increasingly being left out as Norway/Denmark dominated and 2.) Denmark killed 80+ Swedish nobles in their sleep when Sweden talked of leaving the union.
You could argue Norway was a "colony" under Denmark from 1537 to 1814, but not Sweden. Norway was not annexed by Sweden in 1814 and 1905 was just the year when the Swedish king essentially abollished the union by violating the Norwegian 1814 Constitution.
Well bernadottie, the then king of Sweden, only got Norway as a thank you for declaring war on his old boss napoleon. There was not a lot of love lost between the two of them so napoleon was glad to see him go. As a result the swedes condesencion to the Norwegians almost bordered on that of the English to the Irish and we know what happened there. Norwegian independence in 1905 was lot more peaceful. A lesson in what could have happened in Ireland if the British politicians and public had not been so racist and sectarian.
Norway was not a colony LMAO. The country was called Denmark-norway. It was a personal union that happened because when a King of Norway died the next heir happeend to be the person who was also king of Denmark due to royal marriages. Hence the King of Denmark became also the king of Norway.....
@@Fpsmedia1337 I am not talking about the death of Olav 4. in 1387. I am talking about the annexation of Norway by Denmark in 1536/37, and the Danish rule afterwards could be argued to a colonial one as the danes forced religious convertion and language onto Norwegian populace as well as exploiting the natural wealth for over 200 years. This never happened during the Swedish unions, which the video implies.
@@tomihodet354 Interesting how different the story is reproduced in Denmark and Norway respectively. Now there is no historical fact sheet where you can read the 'truth'. It is true that the Norwegian Catholic bishop Olav Engelbrektsson worked for an independent Norway under a Catholic king (Frederick of the Pfalz). But whether his real motives were religious, national or purely power politics can be difficult to determine. You have to be aware that national identity was significantly more fluid in the time before 1814. I actually doubt that you would be able to find a Danish or Norwegian national identity in 1536/37. People identified themselves to a much greater extent with their local area and as a citizen under a particular king. In Norway, there seem to be two different interpretations of Norwegian independence. One is the emphasis on external circumstances (which prevail in Denmark), where it is a great power game and the unprovoked English attack on Denmark in 1801/1807 and later the Russian/Swedish attack. The second (which is prevalent in Norway) that it is an inner Norwegian popular urge. The truth is probably somewhere between these two extremes. If you were a citizen of Norway in 1790, it was not quite so obvious that Norway should be independent. Danish and Norwegian were fused in a way that can be difficult to understand today. As described in the Great Norwegian Lexicon: "Selv om det kom frem en viss misnøye både blant bønder og borgere, kan man likevel ikke tale om noen større samlet opposisjon mot dansk styre i Norge. Men for visse kretser, særlig i trelastpatrisiatet på Sør- og Østlandet, var ikke tanken om en løsrivelse fra Danmark og nærmere samarbeid med Sverige helt fremmed." Having said that, today no one can doubt a strong independent Norwegian national identity. Unions are simply not the Norwegian people's cup of tea. The past scares ;-) Having said that, I have both Danish, Norwegian and Swedish ancestry. I really don't care much for all the national chauvinism you can sometimes see in the comment track.
*Opening this video with the intention of correcting the spelling error for the date in the title, only to realise that this is some history that I didn't know.* *Grabbing popcorn*
@2:40 I've been doing research for an article on the history of labor in my neighborhood for our neighborhood association newsletter. It seems Norwegian immigrants were very high on the racialized caste system just below Anglos. before the construction of large commercial foundries, everyone on the American frontier wanted Norwegians to build their tools
Ngl, as a Dane I really wish Norway and Denmark could've come to a different understanding regarding Greenland. Clearly Norwegians know more about living in the arctic and is closer to Greenland. Also, Danish stewardship hasn't been great for the inuit people. Eugenics etc.
GRICFADENOR, leaves out a lot though, firstly it smoshes all the various parts of modern Denmark and Norway into one, while other parts like the GRICFA gets their own, but it also leaves out the shetland islands, hebrides, estonia, finland, slesvig-holsten... well the list goes on. but GRICFADENOFISLÖSHOSHGOHODI doesn't exactly roll off the tongue...
They also claimed Bouvet island in Antarctica in 1928, as well as the Arctic islands of Jan Mayen and Svalbard in 1921 and 1920. For some reason they had an obsession with claiming remote inhospitable frozen wastelands.
They also rule over Peter I Island, and they used to claim the Sverdrup Islands in Canada. If they’d be offered a colony in the Caribbean they’d simply say no.
It was about fishing rights and the rights of coal mining in svalbard. It was also a great power move by UK, France, Germany and the US to limit russian westward expansion in the arctic, and norway just happened to be the closest country to the islands other than russia.
The Norwegians needed the territory to match their ego. They soon realized that there were no territory vast enough on this planet. They did not give up - they are regrouping. Next, the Moon and beyond!
It seemed like you started the centuries-long backstory when the countries were already distinct entities with distinct peoples, even if they were not all separate sovereign states.
Greenland... was the property of Eric the Red and his family. But... at some stage Norway took property as there was no Greenlanders left. At least according to the raiding party send by the King of Norway. The poor Greenlanders had all died of blood starvation... the word "blood" being cleverly omitted by the raiding party upon their return. Now it is with Denmark, but it really is stolen Icelandic property.
As the International Court ruled in favour of Denmark, it also demanded that Denmark assert its sovereignty over the area. Therefore they created the Sirius Dog Sled Patrol whose job it is to patrol 16.000 km of coastline.
Yeah. Applied for Sirius back in the day Army Sergent at the time. Went to Officers Academy instead but still wish I'd had the experience. (On the other hand I probably wouldn't have had the experience of 3 years as observer in Hindu Kush, Karakorum and Pamir Mountains had I gone there...)
No. Sirius was post war as a reaction to the German intrusions.
@@PalleRasmussen The International Court's ruling was in 1933, but you're right that the patrol wasn't established before after the war.
@@Defferleffer as a reaction to the German landing weather stations in Eastern Greenland. Local trappers and hunters had to deal with it then, but post-war a LRRP was established to avoid it happening again.
Nordøstgrønlands Slædepatrulje
Ved afgørelsen i den internationale domstol i Haag i 1933, der endeligt afgjorde, at Østgrønland tilhørte Danmark og ikke Norge, blev det understreget, at det var nødvendigt, at Danmark fremover på en synlig måde hævdede suveræniteten over dette område.
Det var baggrunden for oprettelsen i 1941 af Nordøstgrønlands Slædepatrulje, der imidlertid blev nedlagt efter 2. Verdenskrig.
Ny patrulje og nyt navn
Zoom indSirius
Daværende kronprins Frederik sætter i juni 2000 slædehundene i gang til den sidste tur med Sirius inden turen gik hjemad.
Sirius
Byline: Keld Navntoft/Ritzau Scanpix.
Licens: Begrænset anvendelse
Den 18. august 1950 blev tjenesten på ny etableret på Lauge Kochs station på Ella Ø i Kong Oscar Fjord som Slædepatrulje Resolut. I 1951 flyttede man til den nuværende station i Daneborg.
Pga. navnelighed med en canadisk vejrstation antog patruljen i 1953 det nuværende navn efter den klareste stjerne i stjernebilledet Store Hund, der nu indgår i slædepatruljens våbenskjold. Sirius hørte fra starten under Grønlands Kommando, fra 31. oktober 2012 Arktisk Kommando. Fra 1. september 2014 blev Slædepatruljen Sirius sammen med Frømandskorpset og Jægerkorpset sammenlagt i Forsvarets Specialoperationskommandoen (SOKOM), der har hovedkvarter på Flyvestation Aalborg.
As a result of the Norwegian challenges, to this day Denmark has a tiny special force trained in arctic survival, the Sirius Patrol, which continuously perform armed dog-sled patrols in Northern and Eastern Greenland to assert Danish sovereignty.
They take recruits from all branches of the Danish military, but most are from the other two special forces (Jæger - paratroopers, and Frømand - amphibious). The entire force is 14 men signing on to only see each other and sled dogs for 2 years, so 7 are replaced every year. They operate out of a base in Eastern Greenland called Daneborg, literally Dane-Castle, which despite its name is just a small collection of houses, sheds, a dock and a runway.
They've operated since the 30s, but wasn't officially made a unit until 1950. In 2000 they had a special 50th anniversary expedition where they brought along a cameraman to film it, and a young bored Frømand lieutenant called Frederik, who needed something to occupy his time while waiting to become king.
Sirius Patrol is not considered a special force by Norwegian standards. The main element of Norwegian army, Brigade Nord, is in the Arctic. I was through Arctic long range recon program, dog sledding in cold conditions, have little to do with being a special operator.
@@torrustmaybe not as well regarded as The Norwegian Standard, but here is the NATO definition; NATO has defined special operations as "military activities conducted by specially designated, organized, selected, trained and equipped forces using unconventional techniques and modes of employment".
@@user-sr5iv9pp6p in other countries it's a civilian function to supervise national parks and own territory, we use police, coast guard and rescue service. Norwegian principle is, we don't use military against civilians. In case of terrorism, the police can request assistance from special forces, but the police special unit "Delta" should solve most tasks and are educated policemen.
Sirus Patrol would been a civilian function in Norway, it's a Danish political decision to assign the patrol task to the military and it's rather odd to organize this patrol service as special force. I was in Brigade Nord and military base was at 70 degree north, maybe the northernmost military garrison in NATO. In my view, Sirus Patrol ain't a military combat unit, the rifle is what I would use on a civilian vacation to Svalbard, needed for polar bear protection.
@@torrustSirius also has been granted police authority, due to no regular police in the area. So they have both military and civilian authority. 🇩🇰🇬🇱
@@stigekalder that make sense, Sirus have less military capability than a regular recon team of an Arctic Brigade.
Would be neat if Eric the Red's Land became known as Redland so we could have both Greenland and Redland.
And iceland renamed to Blueland so we can have the RGBlands
Should be green on starboard and red on port...
Just look from the north pole, should fix the orientation nicely
Genious!
Greenland was fake advertisement, for people to move there back in the day. lol
As a norwegian I'm surprised how well you pronounced the norwegian here
As a Dane, I can't say the same 😁 But it is adequate and that is really the best you can hope for. I've never met a non-native Danish speaker who can pronounce "d" or "g" like we do. And we like it that way 😁 We appreciate when people try but we dont really want them to succeed. That's our thing😉
@@esbenm6544 I can speak danish, just put a potato down my throat.
@@esbenm6544 As a swede, yea keep that shit to yourselves please. Don't mind at all if you do.
@@benjamin6813 Swedish is simple, you just speak Norwegian very effeminately and with a slight lisp.
@@esbenm6544 Lisp?? I get the feminine part tho. However norwegian is written like a dane with tantrums changing a letter or word here and there. Spoken like a swedish child with learning disabilities. Xoxo
Fun vid. Small correction; It was the danish ambassador to US H. Kauffman who on his own made and signed the deal with US to 'safeguard' Greenland against German occupation when Denmark was occupied in 1940. There was no Greenlandish Government. It was administered from Copenhagen before 1979 when home-rule was established.
Theres actually a good movie about this called "The Good Traitor"...
Greenland wasn't colonized in the same way like the British & Spanish did elsewhere in North & South America. When the Norse arrived in Eiriksfjord it legitimately was in a period when it was empty land. There had been people living there before, but not when the Norse arrived. The Norse lived there until a people expanded down south from the north who the Norse called "skrælinger". They were much better equipped to live on Greenland due to hunting methods etc. One thing led to another and they ended up taking over the place. We don't really know if it was a violent take over, or if the Norse just slowly abandoned the place. I think it was probably a mixture of both. If you take the sagas as sources of the skrælinger the relationship was not very friendly.
The "skrælinger" probably viewed the Norse settlers as being illegal, unwanted immigrants, and dealt with them accordingly. 😉
inuits came almost right after greenland was abandoned
greenlanders suffered very badly from little ice age
@@reneblom2160 Probably not
@@reneblom2160 did you not read the comment? when the norse set up their colonies they literally were on land with no people on it, and the inuit infact came *after* the norse.
There area lot of problems with the presentation, but I will mention only two:
- first, it was NOT the Norwegian government who made this occupation attempt, it was a group of private people. They had no authority from the Norwegian government, and the government was hesitant to support their initiative,
- second, the decisive factor was that representatives of the Inuit population for both North and South Greenland wrote as their OFFICIAL OPINION that they wanted to stay with the Danes and under no circumstances wanted to become part of Norway.
It deserves to be mentioned, that in the International Court in Haag it was an unanimous rule (except for Norway and Italy, who was neutral for technical reasons).
Well in comparison, Canada was simply a corporate outpost for the Hudson Bay Company operating on a charter from the British Crown to find the Northwest Passage, not an entity of the British government. Delaying finding the passage only gave them ample time to invest in infrastructure, industry, development and trade.
@@shoujahatsumetsu - there is nothing comparable between the two situations: first of all the time was completely different. Second, Greenland was at the time already accepted by other nations as part of Denmark, it had been undisputed for more than a hundred years. Third, these people belonged to the extreme fascist fringe of the population. They were as outdated as colonialism would be today. In fact, Norway was so reluctant to accept colonialism at the time that it was willing to give up even its supremacy over Svalbard.
Seriously, dude, how many languages do you speak? That was some impressive Norwegian pronunciation!
Norway was never a colony of Sweden we were in personal union with the Swedish we had our own parliament and military
You were forcefully gifted to Sweden by England after Denmark-Norway lost by siding with Napoleon...
@@NejTak-lq7uk there was a two-week war between Norway and Sweden, which resulted in a separate parliament and constitution. Not a colony by any definition of the word.
@@NejTak-lq7uk actually no we declared independence and created a constitution then Sweden invaded and we agreed to a personal union with the king of Sweden
And I don’t remember Norway as being a Danish colony either, Norwegians are often considered as part of Denmark in the old texts of literature, one of the most famous danish people within literature is from Norway, or he is considered danish in Denmark 😂 Ludvig Holberg was born in Bergen Norway
@@kimmogensen4888 fair to say it was a backwater province of Denmark.
Weird part: At the time the position of minister of defense was held by the agrarian party ... specifically Vidkun Quisling. To this day his portait hangs on a wall in the defense-ministry, despite being a traitor.
Do all the people to have held that postion have their portraits there? If so, then it makes sense. Being a traitor doesn't erase the fact that he held that position.
how was he a traitor?
Det var han aldri. Han kjempet mot det han kalte for britisk imperialisme. Britan skulle invadere oss. Men Tyskland gjorde det før det ble satt i gang. Han er ikke en forræder. Helt faktisk.@@bennyklabarpan7002
@@bennyklabarpan7002 he sold Norway to the germans during ww2 and made a puppet state
@@bennyklabarpan7002 He led the Norwegian fascist party, National Gathering, which collaborated with Nazi Germany when they invaded Norway on April 9, 1940. In Norway (and at least also in Sweden), his last name is has basically become a synonym for traitor, To be a quisling is to be traitor. Growing up in S3den in the 1970’s and 80’s, I knew what a quisling was before I knew who Vidkun Quisling (the man) was. He was shot by a firing squad after being charged and convicted on murder charges and various other offenses related to the german invasion and occupation, during which he had acted as the leader of the puppet government of Norway, eventually becoming the so-called Minister-President of Norway. He was one of the 37 Norwegians, 11 Germans, and 1 Dane executed in the legal purge of Norway following the end of occupation. The last traitor to be executed was Ragnar Skancke, who was executed by firing squad in August 1948. He was also the last person to be executed for anything in Norway, before the punishment was phased out, and eventually banned by Norway signing the European Convention on Human Rights in 1988, and later officially abolished by constitutional amendment in 2014.
btw, norway wasnt a colony of sweden just like scotland wasnt a colony of england. They were in a union
Forced to be in the union instead of independent via a military invasion, but yes
Yes, and Algeria was in a "union" with metropolitan France.
@@timmccarthy9917 Norway was self-governed, sharing foreign policy and king with Sweden. Hardly an Algeria situation, which Norway was in with Denmark until 1814
@@timmccarthy9917 No, Norway and Sweden were two separate countries that shared the same monarch.
@@timmccarthy9917Algeria was considered as an integral part of France, it wasn’t in a union.
Goated for adding 0:43
I'm actually very impressed with your Norwegian pronounciation! Also, you're teaching me history about my homeland I never learnt in school, so top grades!
Norwegian vikings had a habit of abandoning the lands they found before anyone could even figure out what they would be good for, often because they were on the run from the crown of Norway.
4:25 You got the meaning of that part of Treaty of Kiel wrong. What it said is that Norway (excluding the parts mentioned) would be unified with Sweden. The parts mentioned - the Faroes, Iceland, and Greenland, would be removed from Norway and instead continue as part of Denmark, which the Faroes and Greenland are to this day, as well as Iceland until 1944.
Must be an AI
You have some telepathic abilities, I was reading about history of Greenland few days ago and tried to understand the whole topic of Eric the Red's Land. Your video about it came to me like from the heaven, thanks!
Can we stop getting being conquered and being colonised mixed up please? Norway was not colonised
7:34 "Grænlands-Saga" may also be a reference to the book of Greenlands Saga, from the Icelandig Sagas ... it is, as the name suggests, the story of how Greenland was found, named, and settled.
I wouldn't say Norwegia was a colony until 1905
It was in a personal union with Sweden, meaning that the King of Sweden also was the King of Norway. This situation was forced onto the Norwegians, but still. The King held political power back then, but Sweden and Norway were different countries. Norway had its own laws, its own Parliament, its own state budget and its own military.
As Sweden and Norway had the same King, they also needed to share the same foreign policy. This was to begin with handled by Sweden, but the Norwegian Ministers got the right to take part in foreign policy decisions in 1835.
@@JohanDanielsson8802 Well, they shared the same foreign policy with the victors of the napoleonic wars. Other countries negotiated with Norway directly, only the signatures of the peace accord had to keep up the pretense of Norway being Swedish.
@@Carewolf I do not try to make the case, that forcing Norway into the personal union was in any way justified. It was wrong.
However, Norway was not a part of Sweden, and it was governed separately from Sweden, although with the same undemocratic King as Sweden.
@@JohanDanielsson8802 So not a colony then
@@PappaTom-ub3ht As I said, a personal union. Two countries with, and to some extent ruled by, the same monarch.
The King spent more time in Sweden, and he spoke Swedish rather than Norwegian, except for Karl XIV Johan, who neither spoke Swedish or Norwegian, but French.
The personal union was a lot more popular in Sweden than in Norway. The Norwegians rightfully wanted to break away, most Swedes not so much.
However, the King was not elected, neither by the Swedish or by the Norwegian people. He inherited his position and held it for life.
Olaf Håkonsson was only king of Norway, after him the Kalmar Union was established and Margrethe the 1. was Queen of Kalmar Union, the first ruler
No he was elected king of Denmark after his grandfather Valdemar Atterdag died in 1375. Then he became king of Norway in 1380, both places with Margrete I as regent.
Norway and Denmark thus United in 1380, with Sweden joining in 1389 when Margrete defeated Swedish King Albrekt in the battle of Åsle. Kalmar Union was officially established in 1397 when Margrete's grandnephew and chosen heir, Erik of Pomerania was crowned king of all three kingdoms at once and there was written a formal declaration of the Union.
And also Margrete was technically never Queen. It's a current regonition of her de facto power of the Kalmar Union. But at the time, she was officially known as "rightful ruler and sovereign", not Queen, because none of the kingdoms had had traditions with female rulers.
Norway was not a colony of Sweden.
I didn’t think I’d be learning about Pakistan in this video, not gonna lie…
What the heck are you talking about dude, this is about Greenland 🇬🇱, Norway 🇳🇴, Denmark 🇩🇰 and USA 🇺🇸 and Germany 🇩🇪, but not about Pakistan 🇵🇰 at all dude my friend 😉😎😊😎😎😎🤜🏻🤛🏻👍🏻🤘🏻🍺🍺🍺🍺🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻
just visit the eastern side of Oslo and you will learn alot about Pakistan
@@jonathanthomsen3111 he literally explains the etymology of the word Pakistan.
@@columbo301 Nope dude 😊😊😊
@@PearceR_ So please read this person’s comment again okay my friend 😉😊😎🤜🏻🤛🏻👍🏻🤘🏻🍺🍺🍺🍺🍻🍻🍻
Norway had it's own written untill 1200. This was the Norwegian cultural peak. Norway also had monarchy, legislation, parlament and christianity. The Norwegians settled Iceland. The viking litterature was written in Icelandic-Norwegian.
Danish civil servants were implemented in Norway. Ofcourse Danish was their language and the official Norwegian language. Except Danish civil servants Norwegians spoke Norwegian. Danish speech evolved to Danish-Norwegian speech among decendants of the Danes
Norway: Hey Greenland!
Greenland: Oh hi neighbor
Norway: It's pretty cold outside.
Greenland: It's always cold outside.
Norway: Won't you come in. It's so nice and warm. We have so much money, gas, oil and trees! Take a look at this old painting of Eirik Raude.
Norway: Thats it. Step right in. Make yourself comfortable.
Noregsveldet: Raaaaaah!
Noregsveldet: Hey Iceland!
Iceland:....
Nei takk!
**Looks at current Prime Minister**
Actually, on second thought ...
This entire video relies on the false assumption of Norway being a former swedish colony (factually wrong) rather then a former kingdom who established colonies on Greenland, and a reference to the norwegian Hans Egede and his norwegian expedition crew financed mostly by the capital of Bergen as "they" in the early 18th century, when mentioning the discovery of the former norse colony beeing extinct centuries ago.
Considering both the establishment on greenland being Norwegian and the rediscovery of the colony being a complete norwegian initiaitve based on the folktales in northern norway of these former colony, it would be a lot more interesting to dive into the expedition and the build up to that, and witnesses accounts, rather then looking into a not very well know land dispute that was really ratinal from the "former swedish colony".
This video is way funnier than your usual videos, lol!
We werent a colony either in Sweden-Norway or Denmark-Norway, and Sweden-Norway was legit a personal union where both countries were effectively their own.
I wonder how the ferry man at 2:15 sound for non-scandinavian speakers:)
like someone fed up of everything
Super weird and underrated history. Love it
Norway was never a colony of sweden. This shows a too deep misunderstanding of history.
Occupied by Sweden and forced to join them at gunpoint, yup, no imperialism in sight here.
How would you call it? Just a joint country or just provinces of Sweden?
@@thommyneter168 A subject of Sweden is what i would call it.
Or a junior union member state.
But a colony needs colonists... Sweden never colonized Norway.
@@thommyneter168 It's similar to the England/Scotland/Wales/UK situation. The Kalmar Union was like the "United Kingdom of great Britain and Northern Ireland" title. After the Kalmar Union fell apart, The Kingdom of Norway was in a Personal union with the title holder for first the Kingdom of Denmark, then the Kingdom of Sweden. Much like the situation in the UK before the UK title was created where the King of England would also hold the Scottish and Welsh Kingdom titles. But because the capital would be Copenhagen or Stockholm, Norway would in practicality be like a vassal state, just like Scotland and Wales have been for centuries.
@@PappaTom-ub3ht ah allright thanks. So like only the foreign affairs were by Sweden and all the domestic by Norway.
Was the king of Norway a thing then? Or was it created when they got their independence?
Right off the bat a mistake; Norway wasn't a colony of Sweden, it was a union. Not one Norway really wanted, but it was far more equal than our time as part of Denmark, where we could be called a colony on some levels. But definitely not under Sweden.
The Union with Sweden, of course, came about because Norway declared independence(albeit led by a Danish prince with the intention of unifying Norway and Denmark again) and Sweden went to war with Norway, briefly, resulting in the Convention of Moss and the creation of the Union. In other words, the treaty of Kiel was not enforced upon Norway, as Sweden accepted Norway's new constitution and the creation of a union rather than making Norway a province of Sweden, as the enforcing of the treathy of Kiel would have meant.
It should also be mentioned that during the union with Sweden, Norway was independent in all but name really. Norway ran itself, sharing only the monarch and the foreign affairs with Sweden, the latter of which being one of the catalysts for the dissolution of the union in 1905. There wasn't even free trade between the two during a lot of the union.
an union is a nice euphemism to employ for a nation dominating and paternalizing another. Why couldn't Norway manage its foreign affairs? You yourself said "No one really wanted" ie, unconsensual, ie imperialism, ie someone at the top and it's not Norway. "It could have been worst and become a province of the other" is not an argument making anything ok. Unless you say Norwegian independance is bad or something, else why going so far to defend Sweden occupying the other after a military conquest?
@@Game_Hero Norway was in no position to fight the battle hardened Swedish Army with a bunch of volunteers in 1814. Accepting the union was the best option at the time, since Sweden could very much have just fought the entire way and forced Norway to be a province. Instead we got autonomy.
So I am not defending Sweden, I am recognising that what we got was the lesser of two evils.
@@ShiftySqvirrel ok then
Norway was not a coloni under Sweden or Denmark!!
Norway should also get Crimea back too
Crimea?
What are you talking about dude??? 😉😊😊😎😎🤜🏻🤛🏻👍🏻🤘🏻🍺🍺🍺🍺🍻🍻🍻🍺🍻
Can't get "back" something which they never owned.
@@user-jf8oz2vh8d Yeah that is right and true my friend and if someone should have Crimea back that would be Ukraine 🇺🇦 my friend 😉😊😎🤜🏻🤛🏻👍🏻🤘🏻🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻
@@user-jf8oz2vh8dNorwegian vikings has the best claim to Crimea. We were there before Russians even existed
The Norwegian king and the government was in exil in London 1940-1945. Vidkun Quisling and his party made a coup d'etat following the Nazi's occupation of Norway. Norway officially never surrendered to the Nazis. Quisling was a traitor sentenced to death post WWII
What you missed is that after the court decision, Norway established a presence in Eric the Red Land as part of the 1932-1933 International Polar Year. Its also worth noting that the presence of Norway in that part of Greenland did not end until 1959.
Great video. In the end you touched on why there was an American presence on Greenland. You should do a video on Henrik Kauffmann, the Danish ambassador in USA who was heavily involved in the matter. Also, there is a great film about him "The Good Traitor"
Great to hear you reading Norwegian like a Norwegian.
It's good, but not perfect
Legends say someone must try to take Greenland every once in a while to spice things up.
Many have tried, they all failed.
The original natives of southern Greenland were definitely Icelandic. The settlements were split in 2: Eystribyggð og Vesturbyggð / eastern settlement and western settlement.
The Icelandic names should be reintroduced on international maps alongside the ones already used.
Iceland, Greenland, Norway and the Faroe Islands should also make a union across the North Atlantic based on shared heritage.
Norway could lead hard issues like defence and security, while Iceland could take on the burden of conserving the culture of our ancestors which we have held on to so dearly.
As a person from Norway I like that idea
That Union already exist. Norway and Iceland left the Union but are welcome to re-enter. Norway and Iceland will each get two seats in the Danish parliament on equal foorings to Greenland and the Faroes. I´m sure the transition will be pretty smooth soon after the abdication of the King of Norway.
Kalaallit Nunaat is luckily gonna be independent in like less than a decade. Euros out
@@magnusgeirkjartansson5972 Greenland 🇬🇱 is not Icelandic at all my friend 😉😊😎🤜🏻🤛🏻👍🏻🤘🏻🍺🍺🍺🍻🍻🍻
The Scandinavian countries: That is only Denmark 🇩🇰, Norway 🇳🇴 and Sweden 🇸🇪.
The Nordic countries: That is Denmark 🇩🇰, Norway 🇳🇴, Sweden 🇸🇪, Finland 🇫🇮, Iceland 🇮🇸, The Faroe Islands 🇫🇴, The Åland Islands 🇦🇽 and Greenland 🇬🇱 as well my friends 😉😊😊😎😎😎😎😎🤜🏻🤛🏻👍🏻🤘🏻🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻
That was a lot of good info. Thank you😊
Meget fin sammenfatning :-) Hilsen fra Danmark ❤
Very nice video man
I remember when the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, there was speculation about what to name the inelegantly named Commonwealth of Independent States (the 12 that were still willing to make some sort of confederation), and the Pakistan precedent was considered. Until a someone pointed out that no one wants to be a proud Turgutmakbak citizen....
A story I'd never heard before. Thank you.
Impressive Norwegian there Hilbert! 😄😄😄
The union of Norway and Denmark is often called the “Oldenburg state” because the kings were the dukes of Oldenburg. It also contained territories in what is now Germany.
To quote Kompani Linge (Norwegian Independent Company No. 1/SOE) war hero and War Cross w/ Sword ("Krigskorset med sverd". Highest decoration like VC and MoH) recipient Rubin Langmo, when asked how Norway should have responded to Denmark winning the case in The Hague: "We should have declared war!"
From the book about him; "Operasjon Norge".
Hilbert for no reason at all: "Det som lenge framstod som norsk politikk, var å forhandle om garantier for norske økonomiske interesser på Øst-Grønland mot å godta dansk suverenitet. Denne linjen ble brutt da en ny og mer aktivistisk regjering kom til makten i Norge, og ishavrådet gikk inn for norsk okkupasjon i møte med et stadig sterkere dansk nærver" 🧐🧐
Great work saying that.
0:16 that use of the norm Macdonald meme makes me happy and I still miss him
This is the most a YT video has made me giggle in a while 😂
7:45 good old M&B Warband Sea Raider threats fits with this interesting Scandinavian affair! Instant like!
Anybody using the "Kamelåså" skit, is gonna get have a good time in Scandinavia.
@@Foffer1337 not in Denmark
Well, Hilbert got fooled. When the queen of Norway became ruler og all Sweden(with Finland) and Denmark as well as Norway and its colonies, the danish born queen had the throne of Norway by marriage to the king of Norway, she never became queen av Denmark and Sweden, but became their ruler. She was 9 years old when she cam to Norway.
So the Norwegian royal house ruled it all for 150 years..... well almost, because there were a lot of Germans, the kings of both Sweden and Denmark were basically Germans, Sweden ended this for roughly 100 years in 1523, but Denmark , and by union,; Norway was ruled by Germans. We in Norway had our own governement til 1537, and always had our own laws, courts and whatever. With Sweden as our partner we had a full government as well, so we were never a colony, a\sme British writers called us the freest country in Europe in the 1700s.
Greenland and all of America is basically Norwegian property
Canada almost got into a border war with Norway instead of Denmark. Who knew?
@@GoBlueGirl78 The Scandinavian countries: That is only Denmark 🇩🇰, Norway 🇳🇴 and Sweden 🇸🇪.
The Nordic countries: That is Denmark 🇩🇰, Norway 🇳🇴, Sweden 🇸🇪, Finland 🇫🇮, Iceland 🇮🇸, The Faroe Islands 🇫🇴, The Åland Islands 🇦🇽 and Greenland 🇬🇱 as well my friend And PS Greenland 🇬🇱 and The Faroe Islands 🇫🇴 is a part of The Kingdom of Denmark 🇩🇰 and The Commonwealth of Denmark 🇩🇰 as well and Greenland 🇬🇱 and The Faroe Islands 🇫🇴 was also been give to Denmark 🇩🇰 of Norway 🇳🇴 as well, by the way my friend 😉😊😊😎😎🤜🏻🤛🏻👍🏻🤘🏻🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻
@@jonathanthomsen3111Not sure what your point is?
@@GoBlueGirl78 mistake answer
@@GoBlueGirl78 My point is very clearly those two countries given to Denmark 🇩🇰 from Norway 🇳🇴 my friend 😊😊😊😊😊
@@jonathanthomsen3111 Again, useless, and got nothing to do with his post about Canada...
The wall section behind Quislings portrait is the last remaining area of Axis occupation.
The Nordic folks are very polite in general as they go about violently despising one another
Great video and damn, you're Norwegian is really good :D Cheers
If Norway gets to have Greenland and the Faroes back based on ancient claims, then I believe Denmark has some calls to make themselves.
And Sweden can get Finland and Russia + Ukraine too while we're at it
Very interesting. Thank you.
One thing, Norway was never a colony. It was in union, sort of like UK....
@Lassisvulgaris Thank you for letting me know. Brilliant example, too, since I'm a British citizen 🇬🇧 👍🏾
There's another territory down south also claimed by Norway, called "Fridtjof Nansen Land" (named after another explorer who died 2 years before in honour of him)
Greenland rightfully belongs to Norway
Hilbert you showed that thumbnail of how cows doomed the Norse colony in Greenland.
I KNEW that I needed to find and watch that video.
…
Dude, I spent the next hour scrolling down, I didn’t realize your channel was 7 years old! I spent 17 minutes watching you in lockdown talk about “the dream of the rood”
And by the way I agree with your observation. So many people say Christianity is false because many of the traditions celebrated by us are pagan in origin. Well, of course?! That’s how you do things. I have never agreed with obliterating the past in favour of a better future. In Greece you will find people called Artemis or zeus, not just Yiannis (John) or Maria.
Our pagan pasts are what make us unique and our Christianity is what brings us together.
Different, but no less family.
Europa!!
GRICFADENNOR almost sounds like glorfindel from LotR lol
I love the use of memes!
Denmark did *not* own Norway. The Danish king was king of both.
2:02
This flag was once used to represent Svalbard.
it should be mentioned that the Norwegian king at the time, Håkon 7, objected to the annexation of Greenland. not a surprise, really, as his father were the king of Denmark. would have been an awkward family gathering at christmas.
@@svena.halstensen5699 Haakon was literally a Dane, half Swedish though, but born and raised in Denmark and was elected king of Norway in his mid 30's, why he also spoke norwegian with heavy Danish accent for the rest of his life.
@@Togangehver14dag jeg veit jo alt det der da.
You chose well when it came to music in this video with “Ride of the Valkyries”…
There was a small contingents of German troops in Greenland in 1943. The US Army sent some troops to take them out. The US Army asked for volunteers and anybody who volunteered would get to return to the states early. How do I know this? My father was stationed in Greenland for about 18 months with the US Army.
They were not really troops. They were weather stations. The last of them wasn't shut down until November 1944.
The other thing not usually discussed is that the US military also attacked the weather stations of Norway such as Jonsbu that were still operating in Greenland in the 1940s.
Very weird description of Norway... It is the second oldest today existing country in the Nordics. It was always its own nation, albeit run from Copenhagen from 1537 and up to 1814. From 1814 to 1905 Norway shared its king with Sweden until 1905 when the monarch couldn't perform his duties according to the constitution.
it's the third oldest by a long shot. sweden & denmark had states a thousand years before norway
@@bennyklabarpan7002 - Kingdom of Norway was founded in the 870s. In 872 most of todays Norway was a part of the Kingdom of Norway.
- Denmark was consolidated as a kingdom around the same time, 800s, though the first well documented kings are from the late 900s.
- For Sweden, we don't know if any kings ruled over most of the core of Sweden before the late 900s.
@@Spacemongerr History itself is just word of mouth, all those numbers you posted are not any more verifiable than the older roman sources claiming suiones/swedes being a kingdom, which is also backed up by icelandic sources with dates predating both Denmark & Norway. None of these kingdoms were close to their modern borders at their foundations though.
I mean, you could always just call that post-swexit kalmar union a reduced Danish Empire. Sure, the king might not have claimed an imperial title, but in the post Napoleonic world, the term emperor doesn't mean "having to do with Rome" anymore, it means a multi-ethnic centralized authoritarian state where one particular ethnicity enjoys a privileged status as the core capital culture and the rest are 2nd class citizens. So, in that regard, a Danish Empire makes sense
@@Nictator42 Christoffer of Bavaria proclaimed himself "Arch King of Scandinavia" (the title is also used for the Kalmar Union in EU4) so you could argue that the Kalmar Union was a kind of Empire.
3 main Nordic kingdoms. Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. Denmark, and Sweden had empires. Norway was a subject of Denmark for most of modern history; with the exception of the Kalmar Union. Finland was a colony of Sweden. Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands were colonies of Norway. They became incorporated as apart of Denmark, because of Denmark absorbing Norway. That’s the basis for all of this. Norway’s claim is legitimate, and supersedes Denmark’s.
I don't know if historians will like GRICFADENNOR,
but my next dnd character is now named.
2:31 Of course it’s Napoleon! I’ve had just enough of this dude!
The two reasons why Sweden left the Kalmar Union: 1.) Increasingly being left out as Norway/Denmark dominated and 2.) Denmark killed 80+ Swedish nobles in their sleep when Sweden talked of leaving the union.
10:34 Flag of Greenland as a colony of Lichtenstein? 😜
Fed og oplysende video.
You could argue Norway was a "colony" under Denmark from 1537 to 1814, but not Sweden. Norway was not annexed by Sweden in 1814 and 1905 was just the year when the Swedish king essentially abollished the union by violating the Norwegian 1814 Constitution.
Well bernadottie, the then king of Sweden, only got Norway as a thank you for declaring war on his old boss napoleon. There was not a lot of love lost between the two of them so napoleon was glad to see him go. As a result the swedes condesencion to the Norwegians almost bordered on that of the English to the Irish and we know what happened there. Norwegian independence in 1905 was lot more peaceful. A lesson in what could have happened in Ireland if the British politicians and public had not been so racist and sectarian.
Norway was not a colony LMAO. The country was called Denmark-norway. It was a personal union that happened because when a King of Norway died the next heir happeend to be the person who was also king of Denmark due to royal marriages. Hence the King of Denmark became also the king of Norway.....
@@Fpsmedia1337 I am not talking about the death of Olav 4. in 1387. I am talking about the annexation of Norway by Denmark in 1536/37, and the Danish rule afterwards could be argued to a colonial one as the danes forced religious convertion and language onto Norwegian populace as well as exploiting the natural wealth for over 200 years. This never happened during the Swedish unions, which the video implies.
@@tomihodet354 Interesting how different the story is reproduced in Denmark and Norway respectively. Now there is no historical fact sheet where you can read the 'truth'.
It is true that the Norwegian Catholic bishop Olav Engelbrektsson worked for an independent Norway under a Catholic king (Frederick of the Pfalz). But whether his real motives were religious, national or purely power politics can be difficult to determine.
You have to be aware that national identity was significantly more fluid in the time before 1814. I actually doubt that you would be able to find a Danish or Norwegian national identity in 1536/37. People identified themselves to a much greater extent with their local area and as a citizen under a particular king.
In Norway, there seem to be two different interpretations of Norwegian independence. One is the emphasis on external circumstances (which prevail in Denmark), where it is a great power game and the unprovoked English attack on Denmark in 1801/1807 and later the Russian/Swedish attack. The second (which is prevalent in Norway) that it is an inner Norwegian popular urge. The truth is probably somewhere between these two extremes.
If you were a citizen of Norway in 1790, it was not quite so obvious that Norway should be independent. Danish and Norwegian were fused in a way that can be difficult to understand today. As described in the Great Norwegian Lexicon:
"Selv om det kom frem en viss misnøye både blant bønder og borgere, kan man likevel ikke tale om noen større samlet opposisjon mot dansk styre i Norge. Men for visse kretser, særlig i trelastpatrisiatet på Sør- og Østlandet, var ikke tanken om en løsrivelse fra Danmark og nærmere samarbeid med Sverige helt fremmed."
Having said that, today no one can doubt a strong independent Norwegian national identity. Unions are simply not the Norwegian people's cup of tea. The past scares ;-) Having said that, I have both Danish, Norwegian and Swedish ancestry. I really don't care much for all the national chauvinism you can sometimes see in the comment track.
@@tomihodet354 "I am talking about the annexation of Norway by Denmark "
an annexation does not make a colony
Gricfadenor would be ignoring the colonies the danish had in the Caribbeans Africa and India
*Opening this video with the intention of correcting the spelling error for the date in the title, only to realise that this is some history that I didn't know.*
*Grabbing popcorn*
Are incorrect dates really considered "spelling" errors?
1:16 - IM DYING WHY YOU GOTTA DO MY LANGUAGE LIKE THAT😭
@2:40 I've been doing research for an article on the history of labor in my neighborhood for our neighborhood association newsletter. It seems Norwegian immigrants were very high on the racialized caste system just below Anglos. before the construction of large commercial foundries, everyone on the American frontier wanted Norwegians to build their tools
9:55 On brand for Americans
Brilliant
Denmark Norway is occasionally referred to as the Oldenburg kingdoms after the royal family
Denmark and norway was an personal union
Ngl, as a Dane I really wish Norway and Denmark could've come to a different understanding regarding Greenland. Clearly Norwegians know more about living in the arctic and is closer to Greenland. Also, Danish stewardship hasn't been great for the inuit people. Eugenics etc.
Faeroe, Shetland, Iceland, Greenland, belong to Great Norge !
1:58 GRønland, ISland, FÆrøyene, DANmark, NORge. So, it would be GRISFÆDANOR locally.
8:36 How do you pronounce Buskø like Buskå?
Because it's to pronounce æ, ø and å.....
GRICFADENOR, leaves out a lot though, firstly it smoshes all the various parts of modern Denmark and Norway into one, while other parts like the GRICFA gets their own, but it also leaves out the shetland islands, hebrides, estonia, finland, slesvig-holsten... well the list goes on. but GRICFADENOFISLÖSHOSHGOHODI doesn't exactly roll off the tongue...
Gricfadenor is very Tolkienesque, I love it
They also claimed Bouvet island in Antarctica in 1928, as well as the Arctic islands of Jan Mayen and Svalbard in 1921 and 1920. For some reason they had an obsession with claiming remote inhospitable frozen wastelands.
They also rule over Peter I Island, and they used to claim the Sverdrup Islands in Canada.
If they’d be offered a colony in the Caribbean they’d simply say no.
Perhaps something to do with polar bear skins, whales and seals?
It was about fishing rights and the rights of coal mining in svalbard. It was also a great power move by UK, France, Germany and the US to limit russian westward expansion in the arctic, and norway just happened to be the closest country to the islands other than russia.
They just like places that remind them of home.
The Norwegians needed the territory to match their ego. They soon realized that there were no territory vast enough on this planet. They did not give up - they are regrouping. Next, the Moon and beyond!
So Good
TLDR; Because it is our island!
Because it is the island of the Greenlandic people
Haha… 😂 Gricfadennor❤
Thit name can even make a Dane tongue tied! 😅
I didn’t know any of this 20th century maneuvering but always thought the Norwegians should have a claim. Danes know how to grab
It seemed like you started the centuries-long backstory when the countries were already distinct entities with distinct peoples, even if they were not all separate sovereign states.
Du snakker bra Norsk 😊
Greenland... was the property of Eric the Red and his family. But... at some stage Norway took property as there was no Greenlanders left. At least according to the raiding party send by the King of Norway. The poor Greenlanders had all died of blood starvation... the word "blood" being cleverly omitted by the raiding party upon their return. Now it is with Denmark, but it really is stolen Icelandic property.