AHC: The UK/Canada buys Greenland
- Thread starter SPJ
- Start date
katchen
Banned
I'm not sure why Denmark hung onto Greenland without doing much with it. Greenland does, after all have gold deposits. Yet the Danes preoferred to keep it in the hands of missionaries until about 1935 (lucky for the Innuit who live there). 1917, when the US acquires the Danish Virgin Islands would be a good time for Denmark to sell Greenland to the UK. Other than that, I could see the UK acquiring Greenland, Iceland and the Faeroe Islands if Denmark not only surrenders to the Nazis, but actively collaborates and no government in exile escapes to the UK.
Britain and Canada had originally planned to occupy Greenland during WWII, but the US objected. Suppose they don't object, and Greenland becomes a de facto Canadian territory. Greenland Kalaallit activists begin to correspond with Canadian Inuit, building local support for Greenlandic accession to Canada. This is presented as a way to unite the Inuit people and achieve a new level of development that far-off Denmark has failed to provide. After the war a plebiscite is held, and Greenland votes to become a province of Canada.
I'll quote from an old soc.history.what-if post of mine (prompted by a reading of John Logan's *No Transfer: An American Security Principle*):
"In 1920 the Danish government asked the UK to recognize its right to extend its political and economic interest in the whole of Greenland--a claim to sovereignty already acknowledged by the US as a condition of the cession of the Danish West Indies four years earlier. The British goverernment replied that it would agree to this proposition only if granted the right of pre-emptive purchase in case Denmark should consider disposing of Greenland. When word of the British demand reached Washington, Secretary of State Colby strongly objected, and in deference to the US objection, the UK softened its conditions.
"Even in 1940, when one might think after Hitler's occupation of Denmark, the US might welcome a British or Canadian occupation of Greenland, instead the US was anxious to prevent precisely this event, while not yet ready to dispatch troops itself. (Eventually it did, of course, but only after keeping the question in suspense for a year.) This was partly out of a desire to deny Japan an excuse for a 'protective' occupation of the Dutch East Indies should Hitler make his expected assault on Holland. But it was also a product of the US belief that Greenland was part of the Western Hemisphere, and that the Monroe Doctrine (including the no-transfer policy) applied. Hull specifically reminded Lord Lothian of Colby's 1920 note, which Hull called an 'express application of the Monroe Doctrine by the United States.'"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/-ZEiZ3ZLWL8/PYTAsp-4Bn4J
Of course to say that the US would object does not in itself mean the UK would never do it, but it does limit the times and situations where it would do it--roughly to those where it had both the power and the inclination to defy the US on such matters.
"In 1920 the Danish government asked the UK to recognize its right to extend its political and economic interest in the whole of Greenland--a claim to sovereignty already acknowledged by the US as a condition of the cession of the Danish West Indies four years earlier. The British goverernment replied that it would agree to this proposition only if granted the right of pre-emptive purchase in case Denmark should consider disposing of Greenland. When word of the British demand reached Washington, Secretary of State Colby strongly objected, and in deference to the US objection, the UK softened its conditions.
"Even in 1940, when one might think after Hitler's occupation of Denmark, the US might welcome a British or Canadian occupation of Greenland, instead the US was anxious to prevent precisely this event, while not yet ready to dispatch troops itself. (Eventually it did, of course, but only after keeping the question in suspense for a year.) This was partly out of a desire to deny Japan an excuse for a 'protective' occupation of the Dutch East Indies should Hitler make his expected assault on Holland. But it was also a product of the US belief that Greenland was part of the Western Hemisphere, and that the Monroe Doctrine (including the no-transfer policy) applied. Hull specifically reminded Lord Lothian of Colby's 1920 note, which Hull called an 'express application of the Monroe Doctrine by the United States.'"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/-ZEiZ3ZLWL8/PYTAsp-4Bn4J
Of course to say that the US would object does not in itself mean the UK would never do it, but it does limit the times and situations where it would do it--roughly to those where it had both the power and the inclination to defy the US on such matters.
It's really roundabout, but you could have a worse crisis that sends even more Icelanders to Canada than OTL, to the point that roughly 3/4 Icelanders has settled in Canada. Canada, not wanting a tiny republic between it and the western provinces, starts to treat the Icelanders like semi-permanent residents.
However, the Icelanders prove to assimilate fairly well, even though there is a growing push for a return to Iceland when the crisis subsides. Eventually, Iceland is fairly habitable again but the Icelanders wish to remain Canadian and Atlantic Canadians start to eye Icelandic fishing grounds as being able to potentially become theirs.
Denmark, owning Iceland at this point, becomes very wary of Canadian intentions (this would be around the late 1800's, FYI). Danish citizens would not tolerate their leaders "handing over" Iceland to the young nation of Canada so readily, but neither could Denmark afford a war with the largest and most powerful Empire on Earth; the British Empire.
So develops the "Iceland Crisis" between Canada and Britain and Denmark. Eventually, it is agreed that all former Icelanders everywhere can return to Iceland to vote in a referendum on the future of Iceland. The result is a fairly clear view in favour of Canadian province hood, with the stipulations that Denmark can retain many of its holdings/properties in Iceland, and will continue to have unimpeded access. On top of that, Canada is to assume Iceland's debt to Denmark, as well as pay a substantial fee for Iceland's annexation. So ends the Iceland crisis.
However, if they lost Iceland, Greenland is less accessible for Denmark (as historically a lot of goods heading to Greenland came from/through Iceland). With less funds available, the Danes offer to sell Greenland to Canada at a fair bargain on top of the previous stipulations. For Greenland, Denmark wants assured sharing and access to Greenland's economy as it's developed.
This way, Denmark avoids war with Canada and the British Empire, while being able to save some face and make a fair bit of coin, as well as retaining economic and strategic interests in Greenland and Iceland.
Canada doesn't get much out of it except more territory, fishing grounds, and some mineral wealth.
----------
See, the greatest problem with Greenland becoming a part of Canada post 1860 but pre 1900 is to make Canada and/or the British Empire want Greenland. Such a need/desire doesn't arise until the World Wars.
Post 1860, Canada was trying to expand west to the pacific, and Britain was busy expanding its empire in Africa and Asia, where the real wealth and profit was.
I remember a long time ago, someone had a scenario where Britain bought Iceland and Greenland from Denmark, but I forget how it happened, but it was definitely around or before the 1860's.
However, the Icelanders prove to assimilate fairly well, even though there is a growing push for a return to Iceland when the crisis subsides. Eventually, Iceland is fairly habitable again but the Icelanders wish to remain Canadian and Atlantic Canadians start to eye Icelandic fishing grounds as being able to potentially become theirs.
Denmark, owning Iceland at this point, becomes very wary of Canadian intentions (this would be around the late 1800's, FYI). Danish citizens would not tolerate their leaders "handing over" Iceland to the young nation of Canada so readily, but neither could Denmark afford a war with the largest and most powerful Empire on Earth; the British Empire.
So develops the "Iceland Crisis" between Canada and Britain and Denmark. Eventually, it is agreed that all former Icelanders everywhere can return to Iceland to vote in a referendum on the future of Iceland. The result is a fairly clear view in favour of Canadian province hood, with the stipulations that Denmark can retain many of its holdings/properties in Iceland, and will continue to have unimpeded access. On top of that, Canada is to assume Iceland's debt to Denmark, as well as pay a substantial fee for Iceland's annexation. So ends the Iceland crisis.
However, if they lost Iceland, Greenland is less accessible for Denmark (as historically a lot of goods heading to Greenland came from/through Iceland). With less funds available, the Danes offer to sell Greenland to Canada at a fair bargain on top of the previous stipulations. For Greenland, Denmark wants assured sharing and access to Greenland's economy as it's developed.
This way, Denmark avoids war with Canada and the British Empire, while being able to save some face and make a fair bit of coin, as well as retaining economic and strategic interests in Greenland and Iceland.
Canada doesn't get much out of it except more territory, fishing grounds, and some mineral wealth.
----------
See, the greatest problem with Greenland becoming a part of Canada post 1860 but pre 1900 is to make Canada and/or the British Empire want Greenland. Such a need/desire doesn't arise until the World Wars.
Post 1860, Canada was trying to expand west to the pacific, and Britain was busy expanding its empire in Africa and Asia, where the real wealth and profit was.
I remember a long time ago, someone had a scenario where Britain bought Iceland and Greenland from Denmark, but I forget how it happened, but it was definitely around or before the 1860's.
For one, you're confusing Iceland with Greenland. For two, I'm not sure the UK would go along with this. It's all a bit dodgy, the fact that those Icelandic- (Greenlandic?)-Canadians have been brought up as citizens of the Empire and then sent back to seize control of another nation's territory. I know you're not suggesting that the UK is actually behind it, but it would be far too easy to paint it that way. You'd likely have half of Europe threatening the UK if they took control of Iceland/Greenland, possibly some offering to support Denmark in a war if the circumstances were right, and you would at least see all British citizens being expelled from the colonies of the rest of Europe as "pre-emptive action" to prevent Britain trying the same thing to seize control of more land in the Americas/Africa/Asia.
Besides, Britain never really did "go for" filibustering like this. A few times British citizens tried to seize control of places and hand over control to London, for example Hawaii in 1843. Parliament's general response was to reject the offer and punish the person who tried to engineer the deal.
Problem is, Iceland and Greenland are virtually worthless. The Caribbean islands, were extremely profitable. Denmark would have to offer far more than Greenland and Iceland to get land in exchange.
Cough Cod War cough. I'll bet that Edward Heath and Harold Wilson both wished that that deal had been done!
It was only a very small (and, as far as I know, uninhabited) island that they wanted...
I don't know what's worse; the offer to buy a giant glacier for 100min was made or that it was rejected.
Better yet: Spain actually disputed British claims on the island, and eventually, it was ceded to Spain... (The island in question was Crab Island, now called Vieques, just east of Puerto Rico.) Britain would have done well to unload that disputed little island on Denmark, and gain Iceland (or even Iceland and Greenland both!) in return.
I think you're confused, and I didn't elaborate enough.
I'm not confusing Greenland and Iceland. I had it so that they would be a "package" so to speak. First off, when the Icelanders first came to Canada, they set up a colony called "New Iceland". It was initially supposed to be a kind of "free state".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Iceland
Now, imagine if the crisis that hit Iceland in the late 1800's was worse, and far more of them came to Canada. They would (as they did OTL) feel like they were changing nations; they would merely be a nation in exile.
In other words, I'm talking about the advent of "Icelandic Zionism", where they wish to return "home" to Iceland. However, with a worse crisis that lasts longer, many of these Icelanders (again, like OTL) come to feel like Canadians, and so a weird balance between "reclaiming Iceland" and remaining loyal Canadians starts to emerge. In other words, Iceland would potentially become our second Quebec, with its own unique language, laws, and customs.
But we're not talking about the British, we're talking about Icelanders who feel Icelandic.
Couldn't Britain have demanded it at the Congress of Vienna, in the way Sweden got Norway?
Alternatively perhaps the Danes could have been "encouraged" to give it as a dowry for Alexandra of Denmark when she married the future Edward VII in 1863 on the basis that Britain would provide some degree of support during its impending conflict with Prussia as a thank you.
Recently released documents show that Alexandra's father Christian IX tried to negotiate with the Prussians in 1864 for Denmark to become part of the German League in order to keep Schleswig-Holstein, the Danes were clearly desperate.
Alternatively perhaps the Danes could have been "encouraged" to give it as a dowry for Alexandra of Denmark when she married the future Edward VII in 1863 on the basis that Britain would provide some degree of support during its impending conflict with Prussia as a thank you.
Recently released documents show that Alexandra's father Christian IX tried to negotiate with the Prussians in 1864 for Denmark to become part of the German League in order to keep Schleswig-Holstein, the Danes were clearly desperate.
Last edited:
Fair enough then, I take the point.
But you're talking about Icelanders who want to be Canadian, especially at a time when Canada hasn't formed much of an identity and most Canadians would identify themselves as "British". Either way, you're talking about Icelanders who have become naturalised Imperial citizens and want to join the British Empire. That, to the global game of politics, makes them British. The Government of Denmark isn't going to care that these used to be Danish citizens, they are going to care that they have become indoctrinated by the British and now they want to take a chunk of Denmark with them. Aside from being doubly-disappointed, they wouldn't consider it much different from if it had been natural British citizens in the first place.
No, no, and no.
It's more complicated than that (like most things are).
First off, I was and currently am talking about Icelanders as they initially arrived in Canada; they did not see emigration as a change in country.
Now, within the context of my hypothetical scenario, let's imagine that it's a MUCH worse natural disaster/crisis than OTL, and so the OTL discussion of moving the entire population is discussed more seriously and actually happens.
This would mean that there are far more Icelanders settling "New Iceland" in present-day Manitoba; the vast majority of whom feel that they haven't exactly changed countries. Again, I'm going to ask that you keep in mind that Lord Dufferin offered the Icelanders what amounted to a "free state" if they could make a go of it.
Now, he probably meant the definition of free state as: "Sometimes it asserts autonomy within a larger nation-state."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_state_(government)#List_of_.27free_states.27
So, we have a much worse and longer lasting disaster/crisis, that results in more Icelanders coming to Canada (as well as going to other places as they did OTL), ultimately resulting in the "free state of New Iceland" within the body that is Canada. New, even with this, there is something OTL to keep in mind.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Iceland#Other_information
All of this would ultimately result (in Canada at least) with Icelanders developing a kind of "Icelandic zionism" that seeks to return them to their traditional and ancient homeland.
However, with a longer-lasting crisis, there could be a slight shift where the people of "New Iceland" would want the Quebec treatment; a part of the country but allowed to keep its laws, language, culture, and customs.
Now, combine this with the ever-present feeling among Icelanders that they should be free from Danish hegemony (this was popular among many Icelandic Mormons and other religious figures and groups) and suddenly you have a large group of Icelanders that come over a generation or two to feel and want three things: being a part of Canada, reclaiming their ancient home where they can free to have their language, laws, customs, and culture, and to be free from "Danish hegemony".
Thus would unfold the Icelandic Crisis where Canada has a bunch of people wanting the protection of the Crown, but the autonomy promised them by Lord Dufferin, and the desire to reclaim and re-inhabit their ancient homeland.
It's not that crazy when you lay it out and look at what happened historically.
I like what you have hear CK. Thank you. But I want to ask you a few things.
- Instead of altering the magnitude of the 1875 eruption of Mt. Askja itself can you think or a way to increase the public distress created by its fallout so that a larger portion of the Icelandic population finds remaining in Iceland unsafe than in OTL?
- Could we find a way to increase the speed at which people left Icleand? According to Wikipedia "20,000 Icelanders left their homeland between 1870 and 1915". Could we hav that number instead make its leave between 1870-1880?
- Could a change be made that directs more Icelanders to settle in Canada than in other locations as in OTL? A more appealing offer by Lord Dufferin than OTL's perhaps?
- Does the settlment of the areas around Lake Winnipeg greatly effect the outcome of your scenario? Couldn't the Icelanders settle in different areas that may increase the likelyhood of your scenario's outcome?
- Could Canada annex Greenland minus Iceland? I'm not sure how well Canada could govern Iceland due to the long distances between the two.