Dominion of Southern America

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Falastur

Good luck on filibustering Iceland, too, since it is actually in Europe

Iceland does seem a bit of a stretch, though time will tell...

and along with Greenland was a major reason why Denmark kept the same levels of respect and prestige in Europe, after it got stripped of Norway. If Denmark was seen to be losing them then they would have to fight back furiously, and I have no doubts that they would call in alliances to win the war, and probably petition the UK to help too.

Yeah, but it's more a matter whether the US wants to invest in taking it during a time of chaos. The Danes may try to fight back...but they're too close to the Liberal War Northern Theatre to be able to project power far from home without risking a lot more than Greenland. Her allies are out of position to help that far to the Northwest. And British interests are not optimal for the Danes to count on their intervention.

Denmark's navy shouldn't be underrated, too - it was bigger than you might expect, and well-trained, and probably could slap the US Navy around if it avoided the one-on-one fights that the USN kept pulling in the War of 1812 - it certainly was capable of blockading any filibusterers to starvation.

You might be surprised....

It's one thing calling a filibuster of Alaska as questionable yet believable, but to try to argue the same case for Iceland particularly is just a little bit too far - especially as a filibuster, which was hardly something European states approved of. I think if the US tried to actually filibuster European soil, they would have hell to pay.

A real filibuster attempt at Iceland would probably fail, yes. Then again, so did the attempted filibusters of OTL.

I guess at the end of the day, the US if it were feeling a little too arrogant could try it...but they would surely lose, and they might invoke the wrath of one of the Great Powers while they were at it...

The only Great Power that the US really has to fear is Great Britain - other powers would have to go through the UK to get to the Americans. Without at least tacit permission from the UK, any Great Power would be looking at a war far from their supply lines and against both the US and the Royal Navy.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Plumber

I'm not even certain Iceland was considered part of Europe until the 20th century. Even if it was, it was considered a colony. A filibuster into Iceland or Greenland is implausible though when the US can simply buy them (it tried to buy Greenland IOTL but not enough to press when it was declined).

Ah, the power of the pocketbook....

[Glen]

The Liberal War tied up many of the British Army regular units. One way London decided to deal with the needed increase in manpower was to reduce the number of British regulars patroling the borders of the Dominion of Southern America. However, Britain did not want to unduly tempt the United States or Mexico, and perhaps especially the remnants of the defeated Slaver Uprising within the Dominion, and thus reactivated many of the Loyalist Companies which had gained fame in fighting in the American Revolutionary War and the Southern Civil War, both the guard the border and to keep the peace at home. With a smattering of veterans to serve as leadership and training cadres, a new generation of Southern could prove their patriotism at home by joining one of the companies, and became a viable option for service apart from joining a regular British Army unit.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Nugax

What? Iceland and Greenland are not strategic locations in the slightest prior to the development of airpower - the idea of projecting power across the labrador sea is just tremendously silly. The US didn't buy alaska to "control the arctic" which isn't even being considered at this time, they bought it to round out a border and the marginally viable bits on the pacific coast.

True enough.

They would not be able to persuade anyone to move to either of these places (iceland saw major emmigration and tiny growth over the 19th century till the development of electrification),

True.

and iceland would dislike being under american rule (never enough population to be a state, a thousand year old sense of nation, and being part of the American market would be ruinous for their economy).

As opposed to being part of Denmark?

Plus iceland is so much easier to reach from europe its more of a target than a potential base.

Reasonable thoughts.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Sovereign12

Why would the US want these two lands? One word: Whaling

Whaling was big business in OTL USA during the 18th and 19th century. In OTL the British competition pushed the US out of the North Atlantic, which had the US go into the South Atlantic and Pacific to hunt whales. The seas around these islands also have some of the best fishing grounds.

As a quick refence, here is the wiki article (I know it is Wikipedia, but at least it has Footnotes for sources)

Now I'm not saying the US of TTL would even attempt to get Greenland and Iceland, but the Whaling and/or Fishing industries may be interested in getting their politico friends to try.

Whaling as an interest in Greenland for the USA is an interesting thought. Thanks.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by thekingsguard

Don't I always?

You are a good man.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Earl_of_Somerset

any consideration to Antarctic Colonies?

Now that is an interesting idea - but one we're not ready to explore for at least a few more decades, I'd wager...

[Earl_of_Somerset]

Ok, do the British still have the Faklands? that could be a good base for Antarctica Colonization, although i bet only the Northern part of the Antartic Penninsula would ever come close to colonization.

This is bordline on ASB but is there a chance of a Dominion of southern american being the first to plant a flag on the South Pole?


also, will any other colonies soon become dominions? or have i missed that update?

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Earl_of_Somerset

Ok, do the British still have the Faklands? that could be a good base for Antarctica Colonization, although i bet only the Northern part of the Antartic Penninsula would ever come close to colonization.

This is bordline on ASB but is there a chance of a Dominion of southern american being the first to plant a flag on the South Pole?


also, will any other colonies soon become dominions? or have i missed that update?

Yes, in fact they have Patagonia.
Don't think DSA would plant the flag per se.
What dp you think the next Dominion would be?

[Falastur]

Originally Posted by Glen

Yes, in fact they have Patagonia.
Don't think DSA would plant the flag per se.
What dp you think the next Dominion would be?

Well, logically Australia. I wonder if Western Australia will join the Federation in this TL. Also the Indian Mutiny is coming up soon.

[Glen]

Schleswig-Holstein was a source of contention for many in the region. German nationalists wanted it for the new German state being forged in the fires of the Liberal War. Danish nationalists, while less concerned about Holstein, were adamant upon keeping Schleswig for Denmark, especially after losing Norway to Sweden's King Carl August after the Treaty of Kiel. The British and French were focused on the Great Powers of the East; Prussia, Russia, and Austria, and thus provided little support to the German irregulars operating in Schleswig-Holstein. The Danes were able to push out the Germans with little difficulty, but not before the Crown Prince of Denmark died in an attack while visiting the front. The grief-stricken King Christian VIII of Denmark pressed for recognition of a semi-Salic solution to the loss of his heir, by naming his eldest daughter's son by King Carl August II, Christian, Crown Prince of Sweden, his heir. However, this goal was complicated by two issues; the first being that Sweden had joined the West in fighting against Prussia and Russia, in hopes of regaining territories previously lost, and that the elder branch of the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg family argued that this semi-Salic solution negated any claim of Denmark to Schleswig-Holstein and that it would be solely under the Dukes of Austenborg (or Schleswig-Holstein as they would call themselves).

In the end, Christian of Sweden was named heir to both Sweden and Denmark in a deal brokered by the British (some said with a silent threat of unleashing the Royal Navy on the Danish Navy). Holstein would be allowed to enter the new Germany, but Schleswig would stay in Denmark. The Dukes of Austenborg would have duel standing in Denmark and Germany. The Danes would come over to the Liberals side in the Liberal War, putting further pressure on the Eastern Powers.

[Earl_of_Somerset]

Originally Posted by Glen

Yes, in fact they have Patagonia.
Don't think DSA would plant the flag per se.
What dp you think the next Dominion would be?

Australia and New Zealand (as one dominion i always hate the fact some little place like that gets equal status)

South Africa?

[thekingsguard]

A Union of Crowns in Scandinavia?

<weeps with joy>

[Earl_of_Somerset]

A Union of Crowns in Scandinavia?

<weeps with joy>

Unless the country Units themselves are disbanded. (No being king of denmark, sweden and norway, Just scandanvia) this thing will fall apart in a few generations

[thekingsguard]

Originally Posted by Earl_of_Somerset

Unless the country Units themselves are disbanded. (No being king of denmark, sweden and norway, Just scandanvia) this thing will fall apart in a few generations

Its off to a good start though.

[Earl_of_Somerset]

Its off to a good start.

as are most new nations

[Nugax]

Originally Posted by Glen

As opposed to being part of Denmark?

Even more so, Iceland did okay with Norway as they had stuff northern Norway really needed in any amount (fish and wool) so there was always a marginal market. Denmark didn't need those things, and America needs them even less. Being part of america means being behind the american tariff wall which makes goods from europe very expensive, whilst goods from the US have a long and costly journey.

[Julius Vogel]

Originally Posted by Earl_of_Somerset

Australia and New Zealand (as one dominion i always hate the fact some little place like that gets equal status)

South Africa?

NZ is bigger than the UK in terms of land area and is also roughly 2000km from Australia. I don't think it too likely, or indeed necessarily a good idea that the two be run closely together. Maybe some sort of loose confederation might work though

[Earl_of_Somerset]

Maybe throw in British Paupa new Guiena and make a Pacific Dominion. Then we got the French in the western part of Austrailia. A loose Dominion? self autonomus states in the dominion?

[Julius Vogel]

Originally Posted by Earl_of_Somerset

Maybe throw in British Paupa new Guiena and make a Pacific Dominion. Then we got the French in the western part of Austrailia. A loose Dominion? self autonomus states in the dominion?

I've long liked the idea of a loose confederation of British states in the Pacific, where the State or Province governments are a bit more effective and the Confederation government runs things like Defence, Foreign Affairs, some policing, a central bank etc. Something that remains quite loose even in modern times, despite centralising tendencies.

I think you'd need to focus just on the including the Australian states and making the North & South Island of NZ though, at least until post war. I don't see it likely that a settler colony/province/electorate would allow any large area with a substantial non White majority to become a state/province until post WW2. They tended to be pretty fiercely Anglo Saxon up till about that point.