De Gaulle's 1941 Stand: A Lesson for Trump on Greenland

In late 1941, the strategic location of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon became the focal point of a diplomatic dispute. The islands, a French archipelago off the coast of Newfoundland, were under the control of the Free France forces. This move was viewed with suspicion by the United States, which was navigating its own complex diplomatic path at the time.

President Roosevelt and his administration were wary of actions that might provoke a wider conflict or complicate relations with the Vichy regime. Consequently, the US government opposed the Free French takeover of the islands. However, Charles de Gaulle refused to yield to this pressure. He asserted the right of the French resistance to reclaim sovereign territory, regardless of American objections.

This moment is described by historians as a rare instance where the Free France movement acted entirely independently of Allied consensus. It demonstrated de Gaulle's unwavering commitment to French sovereignty, even when it meant friction with powerful friends like the United States. The successful retention of the islands marked a turning point in the legitimacy of the Free French as a governing entity.

Essayist Raphaël Llorca draws a direct line from the 1941 events to the political landscape of the 21st century. In his analysis, he highlights the 'gaullian moment' as a template for understanding current geopolitical tensions. Specifically, he applies these historical lessons to the ambitions of Donald Trump concerning Greenland.

During his presidency, Trump expressed a keen interest in acquiring Greenland from Denmark. This proposal was met with immediate rejection by Danish officials. Llorca suggests that the dynamic between Trump, Denmark, and Greenland echoes the friction between Roosevelt and de Gaulle. The historical precedent suggests that smaller nations or territories must vigilantly protect their autonomy against the expansionist or strategic desires of larger powers.

The comparison serves as a cautionary tale and a strategic guide. It illustrates that historical diplomatic standoffs often recur in different forms. The defiance shown by de Gaulle in Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon underscores the importance of maintaining independent agency in foreign policy, a lesson that remains relevant for nations facing pressure from superpowers today.

The events of December 1941 are often overshadowed by the larger narrative of World War II, yet Raphaël Llorca argues they are essential for understanding the psychology of Charles de Gaulle. By standing firm against Roosevelt, de Gaulle established a legacy of national independence that would define French foreign policy for decades. This specific incident reinforced the idea that France must act in its own interest, irrespective of external pressure.

Llorca's article in Le Grand Continent brings this obscure moment to light, framing it as a critical study in power dynamics. The ability of the Free France to secure Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon without American approval proved that smaller actors could successfully navigate the treacherous waters of global politics.

Ultimately, the narrative connects the past to the present by highlighting the enduring nature of geopolitical ambition. Whether it was the United States looking at the Atlantic in 1941 or Donald Trump looking at the Arctic in 2019, the desire for strategic territory remains constant. The lesson from Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon is clear: sovereignty is often won by those willing to say 'no' to their most powerful allies.