Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[Silver]

With Alaska in US hands, what about Greenland and Iceland?

The entry of the British into the Liberal War cut off any hope of Russia that the fighting in Europe would be short, cheap, or easy. While the Netherlands were neutral, the rates they would charge for funding the war through loans was prohibitive, and of course Britain could fund their side with ease. And so Russsia found itself in need for funds in a hurry.

The United States of America, feeling flush from the gold rushes of the West Coast and the prosperous trade of foodstuffs to the Dominion of Southern America, was in a good position to offer Russia funds. The problem was that the only thing to unite the Democrats and Federals was their support for the Entente in the Liberal War, so a chance at a favorable loan was fleeting. However, the United States was interested in continued expansion of her frontier, and the once powerful Northwest Company was still a political force in Congress, and had long been stung by being shut out of Russian Alaska. Therefore when the Russians broached the idea of selling Alaska, it received a favorable hearing in the halls of Congress. However, the Americans drove a hard bargain, and the land of Alaska went for cents on the dollar of what it might have in less desperate times for Russia. The deal became known as the Pickering Puchase (sometimes the Pickering Steal) after the Secretary of State who brokered the deal, Charles Pickering.

So now that Alaska has come into US hands, will the USA turn their sights in acquiring Danish-controlled Greenland, and perhaps even Iceland (through the use of filibusters in Greenland's case) so as to ensure that all of the artic North is in US control, especially since considering that Denmark is Russia's ally (somewhat) in the Liberal War? If so, will the US annex Greenland while turning Iceland into a US protectorate where the US Navy is allowed exclusive basing rights - thereby causing a lot of discomfort for the Royal Navy with the soon to be heavy US naval presence in that area? Also, will Denmark be force to sell the Danish Virgin Islands (aka US Virgin Islands) to the USA - or will the Dominion of South America acquire it from the Danes? Please let me know. Thank you.

 

[stevep]

Silver

Why would the US want to conquer those two islands, especially since it would take the US nearer a Europe that it wishes to keep distant? Also since Greenland is a frozen wasteland even worse than Alaska, which at least has a connection to the US and some fur trade. Don't forget the 'Pickering Steal' phrase is only likely to come into use once gold is discovered and Alaska is seen to be of some value. Before that it's likely to be more commonly referred to as Pickering's Folly.

Also good luck on getting a filibuster in Greenland. You would probably have something like a 90% fatality rate from the weather conditions.

Steve

So now that Alaska has come into US hands, will the USA turn their sights in acquiring Danish-controlled Greenland, and perhaps even Iceland (through the use of filibusters in Greenland's case) so as to ensure that all of the artic North is in US control, especially since considering that Denmark is Russia's ally (somewhat) in the Liberal War? If so, will the US annex Greenland while turning Iceland into a US protectorate where the US Navy is allowed exclusive basing rights - thereby causing a lot of discomfort for the Royal Navy with the soon to be heavy US naval presence in that area? Also, will Denmark be force to sell the Danish Virgin Islands (aka US Virgin Islands) to the USA - or will the Dominion of South America acquire it from the Danes? Please let me know. Thank you.

 

[Falastur]

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

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. 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...

 

[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).

 

[Nugax]

So now that Alaska has come into US hands, will the USA turn their sights in acquiring Danish-controlled Greenland, and perhaps even Iceland (through the use of filibusters in Greenland's case) so as to ensure that all of the artic North is in US control, especially since considering that Denmark is Russia's ally (somewhat) in the Liberal War? If so, will the US annex Greenland while turning Iceland into a US protectorate where the US Navy is allowed exclusive basing rights - thereby causing a lot of discomfort for the Royal Navy with the soon to be heavy US naval presence in that area? Also, will Denmark be force to sell the Danish Virgin Islands (aka US Virgin Islands) to the USA - or will the Dominion of South America acquire it from the Danes? Please let me know. Thank you.

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.

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

 

[Sovereign12]

So now that Alaska has come into US hands, will the USA turn their sights in acquiring Danish-controlled Greenland, and perhaps even Iceland (through the use of filibusters in Greenland's case) so as to ensure that all of the artic North is in US control, especially since considering that Denmark is Russia's ally (somewhat) in the Liberal War? If so, will the US annex Greenland while turning Iceland into a US protectorate where the US Navy is allowed exclusive basing rights - thereby causing a lot of discomfort for the Royal Navy with the soon to be heavy US naval presence in that area? Also, will Denmark be force to sell the Danish Virgin Islands (aka US Virgin Islands) to the USA - or will the Dominion of South America acquire it from the Danes? Please let me know. Thank you.

Silver

Why would the US want to conquer those two islands, especially since it would take the US nearer a Europe that it wishes to keep distant? Also since Greenland is a frozen wasteland even worse than Alaska, which at least has a connection to the US and some fur trade. Don't forget the 'Pickering Steal' phrase is only likely to come into use once gold is discovered and Alaska is seen to be of some value. Before that it's likely to be more commonly referred to as Pickering's Folly.

Also good luck on getting a filibuster in Greenland. You would probably have something like a 90% fatality rate from the weather conditions.

Steve

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.

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

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.

 

[Glen]

Thanks to you, dear readers. We are now the eighth viewed timeline in Discussion Before 1900!

 

[Glen]

And with that, Manifest Destiny has had it's fill...

Unless the USA goes into colinization elsewhere of course.

Jest please tell me this TL isn't going to quickly turn into a Dane-screw...

I don't think it will. Keep tuned!

 

[thekingsguard]

I don't think it will. Keep tuned!

Don't I always?

 

[Glen]

Fair enough. What are the odds of the Pan-Scandinavian movement around this time succeeding in uniting Scandinavia?

It's an interesting idea...

 

[Earl_of_Somerset]

any consideration to Antarctic Colonies?

 

[Glen]

Pickering Steal... I love it! and with that the issue of Alaska is finally settled...

I am glad you approve.

 

[Glen]

So now that Alaska has come into US hands, will the USA turn their sights in acquiring Danish-controlled Greenland, and perhaps even Iceland (through the use of filibusters in Greenland's case) so as to ensure that all of the artic North is in US control, especially since considering that Denmark is Russia's ally (somewhat) in the Liberal War? If so, will the US annex Greenland while turning Iceland into a US protectorate where the US Navy is allowed exclusive basing rights - thereby causing a lot of discomfort for the Royal Navy with the soon to be heavy US naval presence in that area? Also, will Denmark be force to sell the Danish Virgin Islands (aka US Virgin Islands) to the USA - or will the Dominion of South America acquire it from the Danes? Please let me know. Thank you.

It's a possibility....but there are no Danish Virgin Islands - those went to Britain in the Treaty of Kiel.

 

[thekingsguard]

It's an interesting idea...

Hooray! It would make a nice addition to the various other liberal revolutions going on.

 

[Glen]

Silver

Why would the US want to conquer those two islands, especially since it would take the US nearer a Europe that it wishes to keep distant?

As an advanced outpost to head off any European navies attacking the US coast?

Also since Greenland is a frozen wasteland even worse than Alaska, which at least has a connection to the US and some fur trade. Don't forget the 'Pickering Steal' phrase is only likely to come into use once gold is discovered and Alaska is seen to be of some value. Before that it's likely to be more commonly referred to as Pickering's Folly.

Not really - Pickering drove such a hard bargain that it looked like a good deal even for frozen wasteland, and it got the Russians off their doorstep.

Also good luck on getting a filibuster in Greenland. You would probably have something like a 90% fatality rate from the weather conditions.

Steve

Well, this is a more winterized USA, but yeah, the campaign season would be rather short...

 

[Silver]

Why this ATL USA must acquire Greenland and Iceland.

OK, some of you nay sayers are forgetting that this ATL USA has all of Canada under its control, which would mean that many an American politician, particularly those whose home state/territory is near to the island of Greenland (and who may be Manifest Destiny types themselves) are going to ask themselves and to those in charge in Washington DC questions as to why the US government hasn't done anything to acquire Greenland in the name of security (at least for those US states/territories in question) and in the name of acquiring the resources of those lands (i.e. whaling and rich fishing grounds as one poster has put forth)?

Moreover, the Danes (particularly their navy) are going to be busy fending off the British Royal Nay during the Liberal War, especially if the Royal Navy decides to do a repeat or mostly likely to do a more successful version of the previous Battle of Copenhagen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Copenhagen) where this time the Royal Navy might very well send a very powerful fleet in an effort to sink most or all of the Danish fleet in Copenhagen harbor as way of knocking Denmark quickly out of the war. Thus, no Danish ships equals Denmark sending little to no ships to Greenland, which would enable the US to occupy Greenland and possibly Iceland, especially if the USA decides to join the war on the side of the Liberals.
Besides, if this ATL USA doesn't get Greenland (and a protectorateship over Iceland) then you could see this ATL USA having territorial disputes with Denmark in the future like the OTL dispute over Hans Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Island) & (http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/hansisland/).

BY the way Glen, what's the status of the French-controlled islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Pierre_and_Miquelon) in this ATL? Are the politicos in the ATL US state/territory of Newfoundland asking the US government to acquire those islands for their home state/territory? Please kindly let me know.

 

[Falastur]

OK, some of you nay sayers are forgetting that this ATL USA has all of Canada under its control, which would mean that many an American politician, particularly those whose home state/territory is near to the island of Greenland (and who may be Manifest Destiny types themselves) are going to ask themselves and to those in charge in Washington DC questions as to why the US government hasn't done anything to acquire Greenland in the name of security (at least for those US states/territories in question)

I have to ask, why exactly does the USA need to take Greenland and Iceland for security purposes? I really can't see that either of them pose the slightest threat to the USA in any way whatever, especially as Denmark is hardly an expansionist power which is likely to attack without provocation, nor is Denmark capable of winning an offensive war (defensive is another matter, as stated). The UK never felt the need to take Greenland and Iceland IOTL for security purposes, so I can't imagine that that excuse transfers here? Well, I'll give you that they were taken in WW2, but that was explicitly because they were needed as stopping-off points for the air convoys, and TTL does not yet have any planes (and certainly no aerial convoys) which might necessitate this move.

The USA taking Greenland and Iceland wouldn't even be explainable as "border clean-up" as there is no real border to clean up (and any mention of the closeness of the islands should be met by an argument that that mindset should theoretically necessitate a purchase or filibuster of the smaller island chains from Iceland to the British Isles, and then you're playing with fire). In addition, I simply couldn't warrant seeing Denmark offer to sell the islands - as previously stated, they were a key part of why Denmark kept prestige in a century when they were beaten constantly in wars, and they would go down fighting over Greenland and Iceland. If the USA makes a move for Greenland and Iceland in TTL it will be nothing more than blatant land-grab for greed's sake and should result in the US being brought into a war against European powers... :\

 

[Falkenburg]

Wow!

New Member. Novice, dabbling my toes in the waters of Alternative History. I've just spent the last few days reading this Thread from the start and just had to express my admiration for the work being done here.

Incredibly engaging, plausible and compelling.

More, please. Thank you, Glen.

 

[Sovereign12]

The USA taking Greenland and Iceland wouldn't even be explainable as "border clean-up" as there is no real border to clean up (and any mention of the closeness of the islands should be met by an argument that that mindset should theoretically necessitate a purchase or filibuster of the smaller island chains from Iceland to the British Isles, and then you're playing with fire). In addition, I simply couldn't warrant seeing Denmark offer to sell the islands - as previously stated, they were a key part of why Denmark kept prestige in a century when they were beaten constantly in wars, and they would go down fighting over Greenland and Iceland. If the USA makes a move for Greenland and Iceland in TTL it will be nothing more than blatant land-grab for greed's sake and should result in the US being brought into a war against European powers... :\

In my previous post I said I could see the US wanting Greenland or Iceland, but if they did it would have been because of the desires of the Whaling industry at the time. I agree with you on just having them for security reasons doesn't make sense at this point in TTL. Since the only possible enemy that could potentially threaten the US is the UK, and they basically have the whole US/CSA border to invade along. Greenland and Iceland are not going to help as ports for the US Navy.

 

[Falastur]

In my previous post I said I could see the US wanting Greenland or Iceland, but if they did it would have been because of the desires of the Whaling industry at the time. I agree with you on just having them for security reasons doesn't make sense at this point in TTL. Since the only possible enemy that could potentially threaten the US is the UK, and they basically have the whole US/CSA border to invade along. Greenland and Iceland are not going to help as ports for the US Navy.

I'm not convinced that they would be useful as whaling ports either, to be honest. Before the Americas were technically discovered in 1492, fishermen still travelled yearly to Newfoundland to fish, from England, Portugal, the Basque countries, so clearly those distances were travellable even with a lower naval technology level...whaling wasn't much different. Anywhere that you can whale from based in Greenland and Iceland, you can whale from based in Newfoundland, and no-one in their right mind would choose to live in Iceland or Greenland for the whaling trade when Newfoundland offered exactly the same opportunities, plus a much higher standard of life. On top of it, Iceland and Greenland were actually quite a drain on resources and finances to run, as they were eminently non-profitable colonies, so I can see any extra income gained by filibustering the islands being offset by administration costs and the price of having to constantly ship food in the region. I just think talk of bringing Greenland and Iceland into the US is one big pink elephant.

There is also to consider the extreme independent spirit of the Icelandic and Greenlandic peoples, which I forgot about before. The natives of those islands grossly resented Danish involvement (interference, as they saw it) in their governance, and they are going to react badly to any transfer of power, since I can't see the US Senate agreeing to grant them as much autonomy as they wanted (which was virtually total: they wanted the benefits of being part of a larger nation to keep them supplied and safe, yet essentially wanted to make their own rules, pay no taxes, speak the language they wanted to, and pay no attention to any laws put upon them. I can't see the US giving them enough leniency, and the result would likely be sporadic violence against Americans, and possibly rebellion in the major cities. Sure, it's hardly something the US wouldn't be able to put down, but it could turn into a mighty big resource drain in that way too.