US owns Greenland instead of Alaska, Carribeans instead of Hawaii

Just like the title said...
Is this possible? If yes, how? If no, why?
What would be the changes that caused by this to the US and the rest of the world? And more importantly, to the future?
Discuss please...

Gold is found in Alaksa earlier and the Russians keep it. Difficulties emerge due to the Russian revolution. Maybe the Whites remain in power in Alaska due to American/Canadian help? This may lead to an independent Alaska or, more likely, to Alaska joining either the US or Canada.

Another possibility is selling Alaska (earlier) to Britain/Canada.

Considering Hawaii, it should be rather easy to get it into the hands of some European colonial power. Most likely Britain, or Spain, but then much earlier.

The carribean in US hands could be done with money, as they tried IOTL. Maybe they annex Puerto Rico and Cuba and give them statehood, then US expansion into the carribean has natural supporters in the senate. Add in a different European war that ends with the US occupying French or Dutch colonies there. British colonies may either be conquered in an earlier war (unlikely) or baught or they join following their independence.

Greenland may be sold from Denmark as well. WWII could have been a good opportunity. Maybe it could be baught together with the Danish West indies.

The Caribbean is the only difficult one

1. Alaska could remain Russian; its not really costing them anything, it was just nice to sell it to make money. When the Klondike gold is discovered Russia won't want to be parting with it.

2. Hawaii could see a more assured succession leading to a longer view being taken. Britain could easily have taken it as a protectorate, and ironically if Russia retains Alaska it is going to be MORE in Britain's interests to intervene in Hawaii, since the Russians have big interests there to. So 1. actually pretty much leads to 2. here

3. Greenland, its not exactly vital to Danish interests or its economy, its getting over the issue of pride that would be the problem. Offer enough money at the right time and it seems possible. When the right time is, is the question. But a note would be that 1. and 2. above would lead to a USA taking a more EASTERN approach (ie its East)

4. "The Caribbean" is just not homogeneous and can't be treated as a whole. It consists of independent nations and the colonies of Spain, France, Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark and (until the 1870s) Sweden.

What the USA could do is build up formal protectorates on the basis of the European powers, whilst the long periods of civil war in Cuba could be the basis for intervention earlier, even war with Spain if the US had a navy capable of sustaining this.

Spain though is not an isolated country, and whilst before the 1890s the USA could, by building modern warships instead of crappy monitors, have mounted a challenge to it, it could not if Spain was supported by any other European power

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf said:

The Caribbean is the only difficult one

4. "The Caribbean" is just not homogeneous and can't be treated as a whole.

Click to expand...

That's the point exactly. Finding a casus belli against Spain should be doable. It happened OTL anyway. Danish, Dutch and Swedish possessions are small and could be bought - as happened IOTL. France should sooner or later be involved in a war on the continent. That could provide a chance to get the French colonies - either if the US join the war against France, or if they join France but demand outright concessions or a "fair" deal of buying the French islands.

What would be really difficult, though, are the British colonies. It is difficult to imagine a war between the US and Britain to happen in the late 19th century. It is even more difficult to imagine such a war in which the US have a decent chance of winning and invading the carribean, hence the US is a significant naval power. And I doubt if Britain would sell those islands voluntarily or would be forced to do so, which I think is the most likely chance for the US to get the French colonies.

I don't think the Dutch would sell their colonies, even if the US tried to browbeat them into it. France would certainly back the Netherlands here since a number of their colonies are intermingled (and one split down the middle) and France isn't going to want to see the USA as so intimate a neighbour.

Oh, and the US can't buy St Barts from Sweden either since France has rights to retrocession.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf said:

I don't think the Dutch would sell their colonies, even if the US tried to browbeat them into it. France would certainly back the Netherlands here since a number of their colonies are intermingled (and one split down the middle) and France isn't going to want to see the USA as so intimate a neighbour.

Oh, and the US can't buy St Barts from Sweden either since France has rights to retrocession.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Click to expand...

Okay, but then the US could buy some of the Dutch colonies and the French could buy some others or exchange with the US against some other islands. After all, it's not necessary that the US buys all in a single deal. The question is whether the French and Dutch would keep their islands in all situations no matter what the US offers them.

I still believe that if the US are really willing to get those islands, there'll be opportunities to buy them, maybe one after the other. The ultimate case would be some worldwar, in which the islands could be the payback on debt (why didn't this happen IOTL with the French colonies anyway?), payment for US involvement - or payment for non-involvement of the US - or payment for US supplies.

Monty Burns said:

The question is whether the French and Dutch would keep their islands in all situations no matter what the US offers them.

Click to expand...

The Dutch would sell the island if the USA (or anyone else) would offer the right amount of money at the right time. The Dutch have sold various colonies before, like their Gold Coast colonies, their outposts in India, etc.

BTW are we talking about all the carribean (which is too large and diverse for the USA to get in my opinion)? If not, the USA could for example only buy the SSS-islands (Saba, st Eustatius and Dutch St Martin) from the Netherlands. They are close to the American virgin islands and the most likely islands the US would want (they even speak English on those islands), as opposed to the ABC-islands (Aruba, Bonaire and curacao), who are just above Venezuela and quite far from the rest of the carribean.

Some important parts of the Caribbean (Domincan Republic, Cuba) can be rather easily gained by the USA with minor PoDs.

- A treaty to annex the Dominican Republic was negotiated and signed in 1870. Change the political balance in the Senate (e.g. Sumner supports the idea) and it gets ratified.

- Kill the Teller Amendment on the eve of the Spanish-American War (e.g. anti-imperialists are somewhat less influential in the public opinion and the Congress), and Cuba is annexed after the war like Puerto Rico.

Gold is found in Alaksa earlier and the Russians keep it. Difficulties emerge due to the Russian revolution. Maybe the Whites remain in power in Alaska due to American/Canadian help? This may lead to an independent Alaska or, more likely, to Alaska joining either the US or Canada.

Click to expand...

If Russia found gold in Alaska, they'd certainly like to keep the territory. Gold could well allow Alexander II's reforms and modernization programs (costly, expansive, and in desperate need of funds) to get enough financial support to go along all well and good, which could well butterfly away Communist revolution.

Uh, I think of an ASBish sort of scenario:

- U.S. is generally more successful in purchasing/conquering former Spanish Caribbean-states during the collapse of the Spanish Empire.
- U.S. senate does not approve the sale of Alaska and Russia does not want to sell it with Britain, they hold out for awhile until there is the discovery of Gold there.
- Assume history goes similar enough to OTL (i.e. Franco-Prussian War of sorts, continued colonialism, etc.)
- Some analogue of WWI happens, only an Anglo-German alliance forms against a Franco-Russian bloc. The peace is somewhat like Versailles but against France. U.S. stays neutral.
- France devolves into far-right wing, Fascist-type state (perhaps with a puppet Monarchy that was restored after WWI? I don't know). Eventually invades Germany.
- France threatens neutral U.S. shipping and uses a newly built navy to attack U.S. ships. It's mostly pathetic, but let's say some over-excited saboteurs blow up a luxury liner in Caribbean waters that had a few U.S. senators going to gamble in Cuba or something. The U.S. demands the French allow U.S. ships under any flag free passage to Europe, they reject, etc. relations crumble and the U.S. launches a massive naval invasion of all French possessions in North America justified under the Monroe Doctrine (well not really but the U.S. gov't is more than likely to be outraged). Occupation continues after the war when the United States "pledges" to make each state an independent republic after the war, but the election of a new gov't in 1944 is far more 'gung-ho America' and pushes for the annexation of the islands.
- U.S. eventually joins in on the war, using Greenland as a base for forward shipping against Nazi France u-boat/some dangerous ship attacks. At the end of the war, the U.S. negotiates with Denmark to buy Greenland for several million dollars.

There. Fill in the details, but it's roughly a rip off of OTL history spiced with nice parts that get your job done. If anything at least it's mildly entertaining.

But in all honesty, it's much easier for the U.S. to simply influence the Caribbean states and own military bases on them, while owning Hawai'i because of its significant geopolitical and economical location. Owning Greenland however, makes sense and IOTL the U.S. did offer to purchase it at the end of WWII, but Denmark didn't take it.

What would make the US interested in Greenland? You'd need to really tweak North Atlantic relations to make a mostly-useless giant island into a strategic necessity. Maybe a Nazi empire that took out the British?

As always, the USA's best (loooooong) shot is in the Revolution for the British colonies.

Barbados, Jamaica, Leeward Islands, and the newly-aquired Lesser Antilles all officially proclaimed themselves in support of American complaints up to the ARW, but the Royal Navy and fear of slave revolts kept them in line. Bahamas and Bermuda were quite sympathetic to American traders and raiders (yes), with Bermuda being exempt from American privateering and being the only British colony to trade with the thirteen colonies during the war, Bahamians actually encouraging the Americans to come in '76 and '78. Had America possessed a stronger Continental Navy those two areas probably would've joined for sure.

I had a different idea about Carribean US states.

WI the British establishment had unsuccessfully tried to intervene on behalf of the treasonous rebellion in the Southern United States.

(I can see such actions by the British state causing lots of problems and lots or resistence within Britain)

Certain former UK colonies end up being transferred as part of the deal. It also suits radical anti racist Republicans to have some majority black and therefore safe Republican states.

Mikey said:

What would make the US interested in Greenland? You'd need to really tweak North Atlantic relations to make a mostly-useless giant island into a strategic necessity. Maybe a Nazi empire that took out the British?

Click to expand...

They offered to buy it for $100,000,000 but Denmark refused. They own Thule Airbase, the most northern U.S. airbase and it was considered highly important during the Cold War. Greenland has a nice view point for ICBM's coming from the north. More importantly for Cold War strategists, it's also a big piece in the GIUK gap between Iceland and Greenland.

It's still mostly just a big chunk of ice but it was important to the U.S. for some time in the modern world.

But yeah, retrospectively thinking a U.S. that sticks together as British colonies and rebels later on is probably the best bet for owning more of the Caribbean than OTL.

If Napoleon win and consolidate French hegemony over the European continent it will sooner or later come to a great showdown with GB. The French allying with USA and in that promising the Caribean to USA would seem plausible. I think the French could live without Haiti and their European allies/vassals without their Caribean/American possesions too, if it would mean US aid in throwing the British out of America. I guess the French would reserve India for themselves and through the Dutch they already have East India (although they will need naval superiority to utilise it).

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Alright guys, all of you had given a very good idea about the possible causes for this...
Now, why we don't discuss about the effect...?

Rex Romanum said:

Alright guys, all of you had given a very good idea about the possible causes for this...
Now, why we don't discuss about the effect...?

Click to expand...

Doesn't the effect depend on which cause you go with?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

There's a possible way America could get hold of Greenland, but it requires a pretty dramatic change to US history. If the American Civil war either never happened, or finished earlier, the US could be free of other entanglements and therefore be able to take advantage of the Prusso-Danish War of 1864.

There are two options America could follow. One is buying Greenland from Denmark after the war. Denmark would have needed the money, although would have been very sensitive about losing yet more territory. The other option would be to offer Prussia naval support in exchange for Greenland. The Prusso-Austrian forces did well on land despite strong Danish resistance, but had no effective answer to the Danish navy, so could have welcomed American help on that front. The only problem with this latter scenario is to ask whether the US wanted a barren place like Greenland THAT badly !

As for the Carribean, I can only see one easy option, but it's a bit ASB and needs an early POD. Quite simply; the American revolution either never happened, or was rapidly lost. The British Empire thus has both America and Carribean possessions. With no American Revolution, although it would give the French Revolution a very different course (or maybe it wouldn't happen at all), Angle-French and Anglo-Spanish wars come along as regularly as number 65 buses. It would only be a matter of time before a stronger British Empire with all the forests of America & Canada for shipbuilding took the French & Spanish Carribean possessions. Voila; America owns the Caribbean, even if it isn't an America we recognise in our world.

Monty Burns said:

Considering Hawaii, it should be rather easy to get it into the hands of some European colonial power. Most likely Britain, or Spain, but then much earlier.

Click to expand...

Funny no-one mentions the nation that was a serious concern for the “Whites” in Hawaii at the time; Japan.

Cook said:

Funny no-one mentions the nation that was a serious concern for the “Whites” in Hawaii at the time; Japan.

Click to expand...

I don't see it.

Prince Komatsu Akihito, who was suppose to marry Princess Kaʻiulani, is a long Shot. It might cement the Alliance, but it's not going to make the Dual Kingdom of Japan-Hawaii, unless the entire Main line to the Japanese throne die off.

as for someone else taking Hawaii there's several options.

Either the French Incident of 1839 or French Invasion of 1849 Go bad, and the French and Hawaii go to war.

Hawaii was part of the British Empire for about 5 months due to the Paulet Affair. This one's a bit harder, but possible.