This is a really good article about why it didn't happen: http://www.gwern.net/Greenland
Reasons of State: Why Didn't Denmark Sell Greenland?
- Thread starter Strategos' Risk
- Start date
- Status
jahenders
Banned
Nor the last. Denmark is a country with somewhat faded glory from some points in the past. Hanging on to Greenland (which is about 40-50 times the size of Denmark), hearkens back to a more ambitious past.
Fearless Leader
Donor
One wonders what kind of POD would be necessary for this to occur?
Perhaps if the Icelandic and Faroese referendums been delayed and had Southern Schleswig become a part of Denmark after WWII, the cost/benefit analysis would have been different?
Perhaps if the Icelandic and Faroese referendums been delayed and had Southern Schleswig become a part of Denmark after WWII, the cost/benefit analysis would have been different?
They did get rather upset when someone else came by and tried to settle in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_the_Red's_Land
Helge Ingstad, the governor of Erik the Red's Land, had a very long career after that. Among other things, he discovered and excavated the site of L'Anse aux Meadows. And he lived to be 101 years old, spanning three centuries.
Interestingly--and perhaps a concern about this fact in the US was one reason for considering an attempted purchase--in the 1945 Folketing election, the previously negligible Danish Communist Party (DKP) got 12.5 percent of the vote and eighteen seats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Folketing_election,_1945 (Though that seems modest enough compared to the Communist showings in France and Italy. Anyway, it was just a temporary spike in the DKP's popularity; it represented not so much a radicalization of the Danish working class as resentment of the "collaborationist" role of the Social Democrats under the German occupation, as compared to the DKP's role in organizing resistance--at least after June 22, 1941...)
Anyway, before the 1947 election, any open US offer to purchase (as distinguihsed from the suggestion Byrnes privately made to the Danish Foreign Minister) would just give the DKP a campaign issue with which to appeal to Danish national pride. After the election, in which the DKP lost half its seats and the SD gained at its expense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Folketing_election,_1947 Denmark had a government that was committed to allowing the US to keep the bases (and later to admitting Denmark into NATO) so no purchase was necessary.
See my post at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/njge9xCMzpg/johVK_rY2xQJ
Anyway, before the 1947 election, any open US offer to purchase (as distinguihsed from the suggestion Byrnes privately made to the Danish Foreign Minister) would just give the DKP a campaign issue with which to appeal to Danish national pride. After the election, in which the DKP lost half its seats and the SD gained at its expense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Folketing_election,_1947 Denmark had a government that was committed to allowing the US to keep the bases (and later to admitting Denmark into NATO) so no purchase was necessary.
See my post at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/njge9xCMzpg/johVK_rY2xQJ
The idea is a cool in a "the U.S. could have owned more exotic lands" sense, but if it actually happened it'd be less interesting except maybe in a military distribution sense. Alaska is pretty far and exotic if you think about it, but how many continental Americans visit it? And most Americans aren't even aware of our Pacific possessions west of Hawaii.
Aren't the OPs allowed to restart their own threads, even if they haven't uses them in a while?
I think that there still should be more than just bumbing and telling this being relevant. For example OP could tell why this is relevant again.
Yeah, that's a point there. I'm interested in how this rule works as I have some old threads regarding fanfiction I'm making, but I may not touch then for months, until I have the time/will/skill to really work on them.
I am the OP. I have bump power.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/so-donald-trump-wants-to-buy-greenland.473226/
Fossil ressources are expected to show of with warming. Several great powers are interested.
I feel that the original posted article is by far one-sided. I see the potential in Greenland and pure numbers are not enough.
Fishery for example may not generate alot of profit but it will secure jobs and „tradition“. Denmarl has a such a tradition.
Furthermore, ecological reasons are an issue. Selling off Greenland may push species living there towards extinction. This is a sound argument for wanting to keep it and protecting it.
Fishery for example may not generate alot of profit but it will secure jobs and „tradition“. Denmarl has a such a tradition.
Furthermore, ecological reasons are an issue. Selling off Greenland may push species living there towards extinction. This is a sound argument for wanting to keep it and protecting it.
- Status