During the 2013 annual reciprocal troop exchange between Norway’s Heimevernet Home Guard and the Minnesota National Guard at Camp Ripley, Minnesota, Norwegian General Kristin Lund addressed her fellow officers with the adage, “If you stop visiting your friends, they stop being your friends.” In Scandinavian culture, maintaining connections with friends is a premier value, especially when there is a national attitude towards a “culture of closing off those outside your circle of connections.”1Biehtar Ovlla Eira in email interview by the author, October 13, 2010. This Norwegian mindset is just as applicable for international relations as it is for neighborly greetings. Demonstrating a desire for mutual goodwill is extremely important when dealing with a cultural bias that has limited inclination to forge new relationships and views the length of a relationship as an important component of trust. The heritage shared by Minnesota and Norway as well as the bonds that the U.S. and Norwegian militaries have developed have forged and maintained professional regards and personal friendships that have lasted into the modern era.

Immediately after World War II, significant U.S. troop reductions took place throughout Europe; conversely, more U.S. troops were sent to Norway to help expel their German occupiers and rebuild the governance of a suppressed people and defense force. Those were the soldiers of the United States’ 99th Infantry Battalion.  Even today, during Norwegian Reciprocal Troop Exchange (NOREX) ceremonies, Norway’s Home Guard Command refer to the popularity of these soldiers stationed among the Norwegian people and the close friendships and bonds forged immediately after WWII. Upon completion of this mission in 1945, the subsequent American troop withdrawal from Norway resulted in a decline of the close military relationship that had developed between the two countries. Prompted by this decline, the Minnesota National Guard and Norwegian Home Guard attempted to revitalize military relations through the 1974 U.S.-Norway Troop Reciprocal Exchange Agreement. This was the start of an annual troop exchange program between the two militaries that renewed diplomatic and military relations between Norway and the U.S. and consequently served as a model for the State Partnership Program.

The 99th Infantry Battalion

The road to Norway for American troops started with the U.S. military’s presence in WWII Europe as part of the Allied Forces. One unit in particular, the 99th Infantry Battalion, was formed in 1942 as a response to an order issued by the American War Department to the Commanding General Ground Forces. The order opened with the statement, “It is desired that you take the necessary steps to organize at the earliest possible date a battalion of Norwegian national to serve as part of the U.S. Army [9 May, 1942].”2Howard R. Bergen, History of the 99th Infantry Battalion (Minneapolis: Emil Moestue, 1945), 45. Less than one month later, 1,001 Norwegian-American soldiers were transferred out of their previous units and into the 99th Infantry Battalion. The 99th Battalion then spent the next year training in Minnesota and Colorado for a specialized mission: invade and liberate Norway from its German occupiers.3Major Doug Bekke, The Military Historical Society of Minnesota. Norwegian-Americans and the 99th Infantry Battalion (Separate) (St. Paul: Minnesota Military Museum, 2004), 76. It would be the only battalion stationed in the formerly neutral country upon the end of the war. After one year of training, the men of the 99th Battalion departed for Europe. Upon arrival in England on June 22nd, 1944, the men expected to receive their long anticipated orders to Norway and to participate in Operation Plough – a campaign of advanced sabotage acts in Norway against German occupiers. Instead, they were rerouted to fight alongside fellow Americans in the Normandy and Rhine Campaigns as well as the Battle of the Bulge. As a Separate Battalion, the 99th was placed where support was most needed, which meant it was attached to various units during the course of the European Campaign.4Arno Lasoe, “Mud & Blood: History of the 99th Infantry Battalion (Separate)” (speech, Camp Ripley, Little Falls, MN, 2005).

When combat operations ended in 1945, the 99th Infantry Battalion was dispatched to assist the Norwegian military in expelling the nearly 400,000 German soldiers from Norway.5Terje Myklebust, “Reunion of the Viking Battalion,” News of Norway, Winter 2006–07, 8. The 99th Battalion landed at Drammen, Norway on June 4, 1945, and continued to Oslo on the way to the mission.6Howard R. Bergen, History of the 99th Infantry Battalion, 102–140. The Battalion’s main job was to assist in disarming and expelling the German Wehrmacht from Norway. This included working with the British to apprehend war criminals and participating in joint interrogations and raids. Additionally, the 99th Infantry Battalion was tasked with retrieving Norwegian Resistance Fighters who had fled to northern Norway and Sweden to escape the occupying German forces. These joint missions with Norway’s military fostered a deep professional relationship between the Norwegian military and the members of the 99th Infantry Battalion, but there was a significant cultural benefit to the Americans’ presence. The common ancestry between the two groups also forged close personal relationships between the U.S. soldiers and the citizens of Norway. During an address to the Minnesota National Guard, Major General Larry Shellito elaborated on the purpose of the 99th Battalion’s placement in Norway and how the effects of its presence in Norway has carried into the current era of both militaries.

The Battalion’s purpose was to provide military assistance to a country occupied by the Nazi forces, but it was also a way for the United States to show the Norwegians the close cooperation and cultural and historical bonds that held [the] two nations together. Because so many of the soldiers in the 99th [Battalion] had direct relatives in Norway, it was not that hard to re-connect. If we were to attempt such a connection today, even with the social networks that exist among Scandinavian-Americans, it would be significantly harder, because we would have a ‘gap generation’ that never saw or searched for those connections between their homeland and heritage.7Major General Larry Shellito, “Retirement Address.” (address, Sheraton Hotel, Bloomington, MN, October 23, 2010).

Shellito details an exercise that deliberately took what existed – family ties that often were linked by a single generation – and built upon these ties to ultimately create a relationship that intersected personal, military, marital, and wartime realms.

In October 1945, the mission in Norway was complete, and the 99th Infantry Battalion prepared to return to the United States. Prior to leaving, many U.S. soldiers were granted furloughs to visit relatives and tour the country. Additionally, numerous celebrations were hosted by the Norwegians, who held the U.S. soldiers in high regard and were impressed by their model conduct.8Bjørn Jervås, “Army of the United States of America with Collaboration from Norwegian Home Guard,” 99th Battalion (Separate), last modified 2005, http://www.nuav.net/usa.html. The level of esteem the Norwegians held for the 99th Battalion was so high that two days into their mission the unit had its first non-combat, security assignment of significant diplomatic value. These Americans served as the Honor Guard for the return of exiled King Haakon VII of Norway who had narrowly escaped German capture in 1940 and, while exiled in England with the Norwegian Royal Family, had been operating the Norwegian government from London until the day of his return – exactly five years after evacuation.  

On October 16, 1945, the American troops departed, and the period of significant U.S. military and diplomatic efforts in Norway ended. Over time and distance, the relationships and memories between the American and Norwegian troops grew stale, and contact between their militaries was limited.9Harald W. Støren (Defense and Security Policy Counselor) in interview by the author, July 26, 2013. Those who had married Norwegian women during their stay in Norway returned home with their new spouses and set up households. For many of the soldiers, their obligation to the military had ended. 

The Decline of a Military Partnership

In the decades following WWII, the U.S. military focused on new issues: the Cold War, the Korean Conflict, and the Vietnam War. During these crises, the U.S. maintained close ties with Great Britain, France, and other NATO allies and built U.S. military bases throughout West Germany (Trauschweizer). Additionally, European nations threatened by the propaganda and intimidation of the Eastern Bloc received military and diplomatic assistance from the United States government. Norway, however, was largely left alone to defend its northern border from a possible Soviet invasion. These threats were particularly precarious, as the Norwegian economy of post-World War II was still struggling. Prior to discovering offshore oil in 1969, the Norwegian Real GDP was $58,380 million. This is slightly less than the 2012 Real GDPs for the Dominican Republic or Sudan, illustrating Norway’s position as a developing country in relative poverty compared to major world and European powers ($667 million and $389 million less, respectively, the latter excluding South Sudan. All values converted to U.S. dollars using 2012 PPPs [in millions of 2012 U.S. dollars]).10United States. Dept. of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Division of International Labor Comparisons. International Comparisons of GDP per Capita and per Hour, 1960–2011. November 7, 2012. Accessed December 27, 2013. http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_gdp_capita_gdp_hour.pdf. The Norwegian post-WWII economy depended heavily on fishing, timber, and agriculture, and the country was arguably not in a position to act as a military partner providing a significant or sizable defense budget. The Norwegian economy was more directed toward internal survival than international establishment. In addition to Norway’s economic challenges, the difference in American and Norwegian military priorities contributed to the lack of interest in pursuing any joint military training exclusively or via NATO channels between the two countries during the first half of the Cold War era; hence, the close relationship the U.S. military once had with Norway continued to deteriorate.

Despite the lack of cooperative military missions between the United States and Norway, cultural connections continued to link the two nations. Historically, the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Washington have had strong relationships with Norway due to the large number of Norwegian immigrants who had settled in these states. Connections between Norwegian-Americans and Norwegian nationals were also strengthened by the many Norwegian fraternal organizations in the United States, including Norske Torske and Sons of Norway. These organizations continued amicable relationships with Norway through social, educational, and travel opportunities (‘Norwegian’). Additionally, diplomatic courtesies continued through periodic delegate trips between Norway and the Norwegian Consulate in Minneapolis, Minnesota and the Norwegian Embassy in Washington, D.C. Despite the fostering of cultural and diplomatic ties, the military relationship between the two countries continued to wane.

The Revival

In the early 1970s, U.S. Force High Command changed its military philosophy. Rather than dispatching only active duty forces for defense missions and priorities, policy was changed to involve U.S. military reservists for future conflicts.11Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. Department of Defense of the United States of America. Managing the Reserve Components as an Operational Force. October 2008, 8. This gave Minnesota’s National Guard leaders the opportunity to form international relationships as part of their now expanded role in national defense. In 1973, the opportunity arose when Norwegian officers came to Minnesota as part of a military delegation escorting Norwegian diplomats. During this trip, the National Guard’s leadership met with the Norwegian military officers, eventually traveling to the Camp Ripley military base in Minnesota for meetings as well as down time.

During one meeting at Camp Ripley, Norwegian Major General Herluf Nygaard and Minnesota National Guard Brigadier General Francis Greenlief informally discussed the possibility of an exchange between Minnesota and Norwegian troops. At one point during the ‘after hours’ meeting, the tone turned serious. In the words of Major General Shellito:

The men realized they didn’t have to just talk about the benefits of such an exchange between their states. Somewhere between downing a couple of drinks between colleagues and discussing the future of their defense forces, it dawned on the generals that they could make it happen. With this common goal in mind, a single handshake became the diplomatic agreement marking the beginning of the longest lasting military exchange between two nations.12Shellito, “Retirement Address.”

A troop exchange seemed like an excellent way for the Minnesota National Guard to extend itself internationally and reestablish a military connection. The close bonds the American and Norwegian soldiers had built immediately after World War II could act as the foundation for the troop exchange.13Andrew L. Lluberes, “28 Norwegian Guardsmen at ‘Ripley’ for Training,” Little Falls Daily Transcript (Little Falls, MN), February 11, 1974. Shortly after the return of the diplomats to Norway, leaders of the Minnesota National Guard and Norway’s Home Guard negotiated the training and transportation terms of this new agreement. It was further decided to conduct this exchange during the winter due to the common cold weather training performed by both militaries and to familiarize one another with the equipment used by the partner.14Colonel Terry J. Dorenbush, Minnesota Army and Air National Guard. Memorandum of Agreement… Concerning The U.S. and Norwegian Armies. St. Paul, MN: Adjutant General Office, 1994. Norway was renowned for its winter survival training, which complimented the United States’ strength in weapons training and tactics.15Sergeant Gary Heil, “Little Falls woman trains with Guard in Norway,” Morrison County Record (Morrison, MN), March 30, 1987. More than 25 years after the initial military ties of WWII, Norway and the U.S. had re-forged a connection of military cooperation and training.

Although there was no written agreement, the Norwegian-Minnesota troop exchange operated successfully for nineteen years.16Norma Hudson, “Norwegians and Little Falls Residents Develop Friendships on Both Sides of the Ocean,” Morrison County Record (Morrison, MN), March 2, 1987. There were years, however, when the exchange was almost cancelled due to unwillingness of the U.S. to federally fund the program. It took determined effort by the senior leadership of the Minnesota National Guard, and occasionally from members of Minnesota’s congressional delegation, to ensure the exchange continued.17Joyce Moran, “Visiting With the Norwegians,” Morrison County Record (Morrison, MN), February 27, 1989, 3. The key component of the funding required was the cost to transport troops between the two countries. Minnesotan Guardsmen travel to Norway on an annual basis each February, with the aircraft returning to the U.S. with the Norwegian soldiers. Approximately two weeks later, the two contingents return to their respective countries. 

Formation of the State Partnership Program

Colonel Walter Renfro, senior manager for the National Guard Bureau’s international program in Washington, D.C., noted that the troop exchange could serve as a model for a new program which would partner states with other countries.18Colonel Eric D. Ahlness, Minnesota Army National Guard. Strategic Security Implications of the National Guard State Partnership Program (Pennsylvania : U.S. Army War College, 2008), 23. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and the emergence of free countries from the former Soviet bloc, a partnership training program was deemed the right strategic effort to build favor with these new nations. Colonel Renfro suggested forming a ‘State/Nation Partnership Program,’ modeled after Minnesota’s and Norway’s military training exchange, in which American states would exchange military personnel with partner nations to promote international cooperation. Within these partnerships, military troops travelled to each other’s country to train in joint development programs as well as to experience working under the guidance of foreign officers. This latter skill became extremely important as Norwegian and other NATO troops generated a greater presence in Afghanistan.19Harald W. Støren in interview by the author, July 26, 2013. The exchange of troops provided mutual training benefits and increased cultural and fraternal ties.20Lieutenant Colonel Greg Scofield in interview by the author, October 1, 2010.

While the U.S. fostered new relationships with former Soviet bloc countries, it strived to not provoke the Russian Federation and therefore excluded U.S. active military forces from partnerships. Military liaison teams were comprised of only National Guard members, supporting the military intelligence community’s contention that the use of reserve troops for a military exchange lowered the perceived threat of the program by the Russians. The Department of Defense directed National Guard Bureau to develop a training program, and National Guard liaison teams were sent to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, limiting the threat to Russians while signaling support of the U.S. to fledgling nation-states.21Hilde Henriksen Waage, “The Minnow and the Whale: Norway and the United States in the Peace Process in the Middle East,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 34, no. 2 (2007): 157. These programs were formalized within the newly created State Partnership Program. The Norwegian-Minnesota troop exchange had become a model for diplomatic discussions to develop these new partnerships at a national level.

Establishing the State Partnership Program also led to a review of the Norwegian-Minnesota troop exchange agreement by the federal government. To the surprise of many federal officials, it was discovered that there was no written agreement establishing the exchange between the Minnesota National Guard and the Norwegian Home Guard.22Colonel Terry J. Dorenbush, Minnesota Army and Air National Guard. The administrative and logistical coordination that came with the handshake nineteen years prior was now being questioned. In response to this, government lawyers reviewed the legalities for the program, and drafted an acceptable memorandum of agreement. The exchange almost ended at this point, as a new generation of policy makers questioned the strategic need for this partnership. There was concern that the objections to the memorandum would bring an end to the Minnesota-Norwegian exchange. Intervention by the Norwegian government at the highest levels prompted U.S. officials to move forward with the document. Additionally, the Minnesota congressional delegation encouraged the Pentagon to support the exchange agreement. As a result, the U.S.-Norway Troop Reciprocal Exchange became a formal program under the “Memorandum of Agreement between the United States Army and the Norwegian Home Guard Regarding the Reciprocal Exchange of Units” in 1994.23Lieutenant General Bernt Brovold and Lieutenant General James J. Lovelace, Memorandum ofAgreement Between the United States Army and the Norwegian Home Guard. Oslo, Norway and Washington, D.C.: 2006, 7.

Since the 1994 formalization of the troop exchange, a new chapter in the exchange began. The U.S. Department of Defense believed the Norwegian Home Guard youth did not meet the needs of the exchange, as they were more like junior military cadets, fulfilling their mandatory two-year service for Norway. One Norwegian youth noted, “It is something we do in return for living in our country, like going to school for a little longer.”24Norma Hudson. “Norwegians and Little Falls Residents…” Morrison County Record, March 2, 1987. United States policy advisors advocated for elements of the active duty Norwegian Home Guard to participate in the exchange. To prevent another exchange termination threat, it was agreed that Norway would select its soldiers from specific districts to participate on an annual basis, as well as elements from their Rapid Reaction Force, while the Minnesota National Guard elected to send soldiers from across the state.

The itinerary for the Norwegian visit included the cultural experience of a Washington, D.C. visit. In Washington, D.C., Norwegian and Minnesotan military leaders participate in meetings and receive briefs in the Norwegian Embassy, at the National Guard Bureau, and with congressional officials. An important concern brought up at these meetings has been the emerging issue of the ‘Far North,’ or the Arctic polar region.25Brigadier General Timothy Cossalter, in personal interview by the author, November 10, 2010. The relationship between Minnesota and Norway and the focus on winter operations has been a link and the impetus for both countries to lead a dialogue regarding the growing importance of the Arctic region for transportation, fishing, and oil exploration. 

The State Partnership Program continues to expand globally, while the troop exchange program between Minnesota and Norway has completed its fortieth year and remains the world’s longest military exchange. The exchange is an essential component between Norway’s and Minnesota’s past connection, and is a strategic link to the future of the Far North. 

Minnesota’s Major General Larry Shellito has acknowledged that “in reality, we have Minnesotans in Afghanistan, working in an area that’s monitored by the Germans, while working alongside Norwegians and Croatians. We’re all NATO members who have found ways to work together.”26Shellito, “Retirement Address.” Since the formation of the Norwegian Exchange, not only have training objectives been met with Norway, but National Guard soldiers have connected with international personnel and have a stronger global perspective. Further, both Minnesota and Norway are able to identify, implement, and follow through on shared goals, such as peacekeeping missions, resulting in greater security for both nations.27Specialist Alicia Phillips, “Minnesota Guard Provides Local Training with A Global Impact,” Camp Ripley Reporter (Camp Ripley, MN), September 25, 2010, 3. By partnering with Norway, a country that has no colonial past and enjoys a positive global reputation, the United States obtains another avenue for international influence. The U.S.-Norway Troop Reciprocal Exchange had potential and pathways to grow, and the partners were able to act on that possibility. It allowed the U.S. to advance its interests and encourage peace in international affairs and also advance diplomacy by creating bonds and impressions that last lifetimes. 

Norwegian Lieutenant Colonel Jakob Bragstad, a participant of the Troop Exchange, understood the purpose of the exchange when he addressed American, Norwegian, and Danish troops who had gathered for the farewell dinner following the 16th annual exchange:  

You [Americans] have been excellent ambassadors for the United States. I have travelled to many different countries… but I’ve never met any other people who love their country so much. America is a country which Norway can be proud to call a friend.28Corporal Annette Wuertz, “National Guard troops train in Norway,” Morrison County Record (Morrison, MN), March 27, 1989, 6.

The Norwegian-Minnesotan Troop Exchange demonstrates a successful partnership between two military forces and continues to make a positive impact by influencing world events, including Middle East involvement and global economic aid distribution. It also demonstrates the power of sustained relationships in creating strong diplomatic ties and global impact. The original delegates could not have anticipated the wide-ranging policy impact of the partnership, such as the emergence of the Far North as a policy issue. The U.S.-Norway Troop Reciprocal Exchange legacy is that of a model for a successful international partnership program and of an effective and enduring relationship that advances the mutual interests of the United States and Norway.

Bibliography

Ahlness, Eric D., Colonel. Minnesota Army National Guard. Strategic Security Implications of the National Guard State Partnership Program. Pennsylvania: U.S. Army War College, 2008.

Bekke, Doug, Major. The Military Historical Society of Minnesota. Norwegian-Americans and the 99th Infantry Battalion (Separate). St. Paul: Minnesota Military Museum, 2004.

Bergen, Howard R. History of the 99th Infantry Battalion. Minneapolis: Emil Moestue, 1945.

Brovold, Bernt, Lieutenant General, and Lovelace, James J., Lieutenant General. Memorandum of Agreement between the United States Army and the Norwegian Home Guard. Oslo, Norway and Washington, D.C.: 2006.

Cossalter, Timothy, Brigadier General. Personal interview by author. November 10, 2010.

Dorenbush, Terry J., Colonel. Minnesota Army and Air National Guard. Memorandum of Agreement Between The Department of Defense of the United States of America and The Ministry of Defense of Norway Concerning Reciprocal Exchange Procedures Concerning The U.S. and Norwegian Armies. St. Paul, MN: Adjutant General Office, 1994.

Eira, Biehtar Ovlla. E-mail interview by author. October 13, 2010.

Heil, Gary, Sergeant. “Little Falls Woman Trains with Guard in Norway.” Morrison County Record (Morrison, MN), Mar. 30, 1987.

Hudson, Norma. “Norwegians and Little Falls Residents Develop Friendships on Both Sides of the Ocean.” Morrison County Record (Morrison, MN), Mar. 2, 1987.

Jervås, Bjørn. “Army of the United States of America with Collaboration from Norwegian Home Guard.” 99th Battalion (Separate). 2005. http://www.nuav.net/usa.html.

Lasoe, Arno. “Mud & Blood: History of the 99th Infantry Battalion (Separate).” Speech at Camp Ripley, Little Falls, MN, 2005.

Lluberes, Andrew L. “28 Norwegian Guardsmen at ‘Ripley’ for Training.” Little Falls Daily Transcript (Little Falls, MN), Feb. 11, 1974.

Moran, Joyce. “Visiting With the Norwegians.” Morrison County Record (Morrison, MN), Feb. 27, 1989.

Myklebust, Terje. “Reunion of the Viking Battalion.” News of Norway, Winter 2006–07. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. Department of Defense of the United States of America. Managing the Reserve Components as an Operational Force. Oct. 2008.

Phillips, Alicia, Specialist. “Minnesota Guard Provides Local Training With A Global Impact.” Camp Ripley Reporter (Camp Ripley, MN), Sept. 25, 2010.

Scofield, Greg, Lieutenant Colonel. Personal interview by author. October 1, 2010.

Shellito, Larry, Major General. “Retirement Address.” Address at the Sheraton Hotel, Bloomington, MN, October 23, 2010.

Støren, Harald W, Defense and Security Policy Counselor. Interview by author. July 26, 2013.

United States. Dept. of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Division of International Labor Comparisons. International Comparisons of GDP per Capita and per Hour, 1960-2011. November 7, 2012. Web. Accessed December 27, 2013.

Waage, Hilde Henriksen. “The Minnow and the Whale: Norway and the United States in the Peace Process in the Middle East.” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 34, no. 2 (2007): 157-176.

Wuertz, Annette, Corporal. “National Guard troops train in Norway.” Morrison County Record (Morrison, MN), Mar. 27, 1989.

References   [ + ]

1. Biehtar Ovlla Eira in email interview by the author, October 13, 2010.
2. Howard R. Bergen, History of the 99th Infantry Battalion (Minneapolis: Emil Moestue, 1945), 45.
3. Major Doug Bekke, The Military Historical Society of Minnesota. Norwegian-Americans and the 99th Infantry Battalion (Separate) (St. Paul: Minnesota Military Museum, 2004), 76.
4. Arno Lasoe, “Mud & Blood: History of the 99th Infantry Battalion (Separate)” (speech, Camp Ripley, Little Falls, MN, 2005).
5. Terje Myklebust, “Reunion of the Viking Battalion,” News of Norway, Winter 2006–07, 8.
6. Howard R. Bergen, History of the 99th Infantry Battalion, 102–140.
7. Major General Larry Shellito, “Retirement Address.” (address, Sheraton Hotel, Bloomington, MN, October 23, 2010).
8. Bjørn Jervås, “Army of the United States of America with Collaboration from Norwegian Home Guard,” 99th Battalion (Separate), last modified 2005, http://www.nuav.net/usa.html.
9. Harald W. Støren (Defense and Security Policy Counselor) in interview by the author, July 26, 2013.
10. United States. Dept. of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Division of International Labor Comparisons. International Comparisons of GDP per Capita and per Hour, 1960–2011. November 7, 2012. Accessed December 27, 2013. http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_gdp_capita_gdp_hour.pdf.
11. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. Department of Defense of the United States of America. Managing the Reserve Components as an Operational Force. October 2008, 8.
12. Shellito, “Retirement Address.”
13. Andrew L. Lluberes, “28 Norwegian Guardsmen at ‘Ripley’ for Training,” Little Falls Daily Transcript (Little Falls, MN), February 11, 1974.
14. Colonel Terry J. Dorenbush, Minnesota Army and Air National Guard. Memorandum of Agreement… Concerning The U.S. and Norwegian Armies. St. Paul, MN: Adjutant General Office, 1994.
15. Sergeant Gary Heil, “Little Falls woman trains with Guard in Norway,” Morrison County Record (Morrison, MN), March 30, 1987.
16. Norma Hudson, “Norwegians and Little Falls Residents Develop Friendships on Both Sides of the Ocean,” Morrison County Record (Morrison, MN), March 2, 1987.
17. Joyce Moran, “Visiting With the Norwegians,” Morrison County Record (Morrison, MN), February 27, 1989, 3.
18. Colonel Eric D. Ahlness, Minnesota Army National Guard. Strategic Security Implications of the National Guard State Partnership Program (Pennsylvania : U.S. Army War College, 2008), 23.
19. Harald W. Støren in interview by the author, July 26, 2013.
20. Lieutenant Colonel Greg Scofield in interview by the author, October 1, 2010.
21. Hilde Henriksen Waage, “The Minnow and the Whale: Norway and the United States in the Peace Process in the Middle East,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 34, no. 2 (2007): 157.
22. Colonel Terry J. Dorenbush, Minnesota Army and Air National Guard.
23. Lieutenant General Bernt Brovold and Lieutenant General James J. Lovelace, Memorandum ofAgreement Between the United States Army and the Norwegian Home Guard. Oslo, Norway and Washington, D.C.: 2006, 7.
24. Norma Hudson. “Norwegians and Little Falls Residents…” Morrison County Record, March 2, 1987.
25. Brigadier General Timothy Cossalter, in personal interview by the author, November 10, 2010.
26. Shellito, “Retirement Address.”
27. Specialist Alicia Phillips, “Minnesota Guard Provides Local Training with A Global Impact,” Camp Ripley Reporter (Camp Ripley, MN), September 25, 2010, 3.
28. Corporal Annette Wuertz, “National Guard troops train in Norway,” Morrison County Record (Morrison, MN), March 27, 1989, 6.