AHC: American Territory in Europe

d32123

Banned
Your challenge is, with a PoD no earlier than 1850, to have the United States of America control territory within the boundaries of modern-day Europe. Military bases do not count. The territory must be held all the way up until the present day. Bonus points if said territory becomes a state.
 
Your challenge is, with a PoD no earlier than 1850, to have the United States of America control territory within the boundaries of modern-day Europe. Military bases do not count. The territory must be held all the way up until the present day. Bonus points if said territory becomes a state.

Does Iceland count as Europe for the purposes of this discussion?
 
What about the idea of the United States considering the Philippines to not be possible to take* and instead sending a fleet West to capture the Canary Islands in the Spanish-American War.

The Canary Islands today would probably be Spanish language majority with a large Anglo minority and may or may not be a state, since they were at the time White European and thus racism would'nt play into it as it would elsewhere.


*They were considered to be to difficult to realistically take IOTL, and America really just got really lucky in taking them as it was.
 
Sure, why not.


Alright.

Suppose that American presence in Iceland becomes more firmly entrenched during World War 2, either due to a longer war, or more Americans getting stationed there. After the war, the US decides that Iceland is too strategic of a location in the coming cold war to risk the communists getting their hands on in, so they keep control of it. The Icelanders might object, but since they're relatively small in number, they wouldn't be able to do much about it.


Alternatively, the US simply purchases Iceland from Denmark during World War 2. By now, it's in a situation similar to Puerto Rico, but with a larger minority favoring independence.
 
i toyed with the idea of the continental congress going with the idea of a elected monarchy (first life term, then probaly going "dynastically" though the same families...which they did alot with presidents...then succumbing to hereditary) that gets a union with one of the other european powers (most likly prussia/minor german state)
 

Devvy

Donor
Alright.

Suppose that American presence in Iceland becomes more firmly entrenched during World War 2, either due to a longer war, or more Americans getting stationed there. After the war, the US decides that Iceland is too strategic of a location in the coming cold war to risk the communists getting their hands on in, so they keep control of it. The Icelanders might object, but since they're relatively small in number, they wouldn't be able to do much about it.


Alternatively, the US simply purchases Iceland from Denmark during World War 2. By now, it's in a situation similar to Puerto Rico, but with a larger minority favoring independence.

Iceland wasn't a Danish possession in World War 2. It was an entirely sovereign nation in personal union with Denmark, and had also asked Denmark to represent Iceland on the international stage and cover defence.

This is why Iceland could easily unilaterally cut ties with Denmark during WW2 - they just elected to replace their head of state, the King of Iceland Christian X with their own President of Iceland.

Judging by the Icelandic reaction to the US air base at Keflavik in Iceland, I can't see any US overlords being particularly welcomed in Iceland.
 
Iceland wasn't a Danish possession in World War 2. It was an entirely sovereign nation in personal union with Denmark, and had also asked Denmark to represent Iceland on the international stage and cover defence.

This is why Iceland could easily unilaterally cut ties with Denmark during WW2 - they just elected to replace their head of state, the King of Iceland Christian X with their own President of Iceland.

Judging by the Icelandic reaction to the US air base at Keflavik in Iceland, I can't see any US overlords being particularly welcomed in Iceland.
Errr... that's an ... interesting interpretation. It's not the view of any Icelander I ever heard of. They celebrate Independence as of 1944, not 'new head of state'.

It is true that Iceland had gradually gained greater and greater autonomy up to 1944, and that, in some ways, the change was more symbolic than actual - especially since Denmark had been under Nazi occupation for a few years. But all the maps showed Iceland as Danish until 1944.
 

Devvy

Donor
Well 1944 was the eventual elimination of all Danish ties and doing everything themselves. I don't deny that the Independence Day celebrated is the commemoration of 1944 events, and that's what Icelanders celebrate.

But all my sources say that Iceland was a sovereign nation in personal union with Denmark from 1918-1944, therefore whatever we think the status of Iceland is practically speaking, hopefully we can agree that at the least Iceland can't just be sold by Denmark.

Edit:

from the Icelandic Wikipedia article on the history of Iceland said:
Sovereignty

A group of people celebrating the sovereignty first December 1918 the Government offices. On first December in 1918 , Iceland became the sovereign state with its own flag , but remained in allegiance to Denmark. Parliament had absolute legislative and Danes went on with foreign affairs and the Coast Guard.

Republic was established at Thingvellir 17th June 1944 and was then contacted Bank of Denmark entirely repealed. Sveinn Björnsson was elected the first president .
 
Last edited:
But all my sources say that Iceland was a sovereign nation in personal union with Denmark from 1918-1944, therefore whatever we think the status of Iceland is practically speaking, hopefully we can agree that at the least Iceland can't just be sold by Denmark.

Good point that. And, for the purposes of the thread, that's what counts.
 

Flubber

Banned
...hopefully we can agree that at the least Iceland can't just be sold by Denmark.


Can't be sold by Denmark after 1918.

Prior to the sovereign nation/personal union dodge, Iceland held the same legal status as the Danish West Indies and they were sold to the US in 1916.
 
This is a very tough assignment. The problem is that not only would the US need to radically change their foreign policy on Europe, but there has to be strategic value of the territory in Europe and a link to the USA. Sure we could have an Ottoman-American war where the US ends up with Abania, but how do they keep it?

With that being said, the only scenario I can think of is:

Spain regain Gibraltar in 1940 when Franco foolishly decides to declare war against the UK. The move comes as the British have their hands full with Germany and Italy, and like Finland, the Spanish limit their operation to only the disputed territory of Gibraltar and do not join the Axis.

In short order Franco realizes he made a tremendous mistake as it becomes increasingly clear that Germany is not going to win the war.

Franco also realizes that to simply pull out of Gibraltar would be fatal to his regime and to the Spanish psyche. He then agrees to "lease" Gibraltar as a military base to the Americans In 1942, with an agreement that a referendum to be held at a later date. This is satisfactory to the Brits since they still have a edge in population on Gibraltar and since Gibraltar is key for the upcoming operation torch.

Gibraltar soon emerges as one of the Americans most important military bases during the Cold War, and the population swells as Americans flood into the territory.

Referendum in 1957. But, like Hawaii, American soldiers are allowed to vote. Optins are:

Remain part of Spain.
Return to UK
Independence
Become a territory of US

In 1980, Gibraltar admitted to the US as 51st state, much to the anger of both Spain and Britian. But many pundits see it as a direct response to the loss of the Canal Zone.

All that is highly unlikely, and I can see any little thing throwing that highy unlikely scenario from happening. But it seems the only plausible situation with a POD after 1850 that gives the US territory in Europe.
 

Devvy

Donor
Can't be sold by Denmark after 1918.

Prior to the sovereign nation/personal union dodge, Iceland held the same legal status as the Danish West Indies and they were sold to the US in 1916.

That's a fair point - before 1918, Iceland could be sold to Denmark, technically speaking at least.

Considering the independence movement had been in swing since the 1850s, the probability of it happening is small. Iceland got home rule in 1904 at which point any chance of grabbing Iceland is fading fast.

I'm struggling to come up with any real possibilities....although I don't know anything about Sicily which I think has been mentioned.

The Azores held some air bases for the UK/US. Could they have been turned into a US territory following Estado Novo coming to power or something?
 

Flubber

Banned
That's a fair point - before 1918, Iceland could be sold to Denmark, technically speaking at least.

Technically, smechnically. Denmark could have sold Iceland without Iceland's consent before 1918.

Considering the independence movement had been in swing since the 1850s...

And the Danish West Indies didn't have an independence movement?

Iceland got home rule in 1904...

With a governor-general, something the Danish West Indies had too.

I'm struggling to come up with any real possibilities...

So am I, especially considering the post-1900 POD requirement.

Part of the reason behind the West Indies sale was the perception by both Denmark and the US that Germany posed some sort of vague threat. It's a mighty huge stretch to include Iceland in the same package though.

I was thinking maybe if the US and Germany got into a tussle over the Philippines so the US is much more wary of Germany, but that's a pre-1900 POD. Of course the linked POD to that would be a Denmark much more threatened by Germany and eager to "buy" some allies.
 
One other possibility is somehow you have a American pocket of troops behind Russian lines after the Germans surrender in WW2. This scenario is borderline Sea Mammal, but IF it could happen, then it could result in US territory in Europe. One scenario would be:

Otto Lasch, military commander of Königsberg, which is under seige by the Soviets, makes a secret deal to surrender to the Americans in April of 1945 (yeah, I know, I know, let's just for the sake of argument say it happens). The Americans secretly send a small detachment of a few hundred troops and Lasch surrenders the city to the Americans.

For whatever reason the Russians don't move in, assuming the Americans will turn it over after the war.

Upon the surrender of Germany the new military commander of Königsberg, General Patton, refuses to surrender the city.

It votes in a referendum in 1950 to remain under US control as opposed to being turned over to East Germany or the USSR.

At some point the Russians decide they simply cannot live with a US city-state right on its border, and World War III is triggereed.
 
Top