I did a thread about
more maritime Fuegians. In short, island hopping Fuegians (likely of Yaghan extract) would settle the Falklands and then South Georgia, where they'd migrate south to the South Sandwich Islands and cross the Antarctic sea ice in search of food--seabirds, seals, and whales. Eventually they'd get to the Antarctic peninsula and settle down there and eke out a living. I don't see them settling the other parts of Antarctica, since the climate is even more extreme, and anything inland would be likewise impossible since there's absolutely nothing there.
Polynesians could not colonise Antarctica. It is too far and too different from their lifestyle. Their settlements in the sub-Antarctic islands of New Zealand failed IOTL, and those places are bountiful paradises compared to Antarctica.
Their population would be no more than a few hundred due to the general lack of food. When whalers and sealers arrive to the Antarctic Peninsula by the 19th century, they will rapidly drive the Antarcticans into extinction, repeating the same trends which would destroy the native South Georgians and Falklanders. Their main food sources will be depleted, other food will be outright stolen, their women will be abducted and raped, their men will be murdered, alcoholism will become common, and the "best" case scenario for them at that point would be the few survivors being moved to a mission somewhere in the Falklands, South Georgia, or Tierra del Fuego, where they will likely die out by the mid-late 20th century. Some mixed-race individuals will likely exist afterwards.
Legally this might have some ramifications in international law. If someone on behalf of, say, the British Empire signs a treaty with these Antarcticans, then what does this mean for national claims on Antarctica? What are the legal rights of descendents of these Antarcticans? Do they legally own the land? What about sea resources harvested in the area? How much of Antarctica do they legally own even though they were only limited to the Antarctic Peninsula? If they are citizens of, say, Argentina or Chile, does this mean Argentina or Chile legally owns a part of Antarctica?
But Antarctica is a horrible, horrible place to live. The only place that comes close to Antarctica's hellishly cold environment is the interior of Greenland. Even the High Arctic like northern Greenland or Ellesmere Island are nicer, since they have a much larger diversity in plants (some of which are edible) and animals (like the muskox).
Could a European state(Britain, Norway, Germany, Spain, other) have colonised Antartica? If so when, and on what conditions?
Not until the late 20th century would it become remotely viable, and that's only if South Africa and the Southern Cone have collapsed into civil wars which constrain the exports of their mineral resources would it be economic to mine Antarctica.
Could a venture of independant settlers(similar to the norse settlement of North Atlantic islands like Iceland) from Europe have colonised Antarctica? If so when, and on what conditions?
No, they would die. Iceland is a paradise compared to Antarctica, a literal ice land.
Consequences of Antarctic Settlement
Would any permanent settled population in antarctica be considered indiginous? When would a Antartic people be considered indiginous? How long in years? Why would a population be considered indiginous?
How would Antarctic population impact the "conquest" of Antarctica? OTL Norway annexed Dronning Maud Land in 1939.
See above, and it wouldn't be pretty for the natives.
Could Antarctica become a independant country?
How would an independant Antarcticas economy be like?
What would an independant Antarcticas military and defense strategy look like?
The population is too low, and the economy would be too dependent on other nations. Indigenous Antarcticans are not likely to have any more than a few hundred descendents. The world will not want Antarctica to fall under the control of one nation. Likely only the Antarctic Peninsula would be allowed to be colonised.
Any Antarctican economy would be based on tourism, fishing, and mining. It would be akin to Greenland in many ways, including the heavy dependence on being subsidised by the mother country. If Antarctica were independent, such subsidies would end. It's like asking if Svalbard could become independent--it would be totally against the interests of the people living there.
The other scenario for independent Antarctica would be in a severe global warming situation, no earlier than the 22nd century, when the icecaps start to melt and sea level rises. Combined with resource depletion elsewhere, settling and mining Antarctica will start to appear very attractive. We'd also have to not have the space infrastructure by then to make asteroid mining more profitable. Although only gold and platinum group metals are viable to retrieve from space, those metals are common in Antarctica and would make up a huge part of the economy there. IOTL they are not profitable to mine since the entire infrastructure needs to built from scratch in a horrible, horrible environment for construction and shipped out in a horrible environment for shipping (pack ice, severe wind, stormy seas, etc.). We don't even know where they are (we just know they're probably there, given the geologic history of Antarctica), and exploratory geology costs money.
Critique my scenarios and suggest improvements.
Scenario 1: A ship with European settlers get's stranded in Antarctica. Somehow they survive. Overtime they expand too the entire continent(mostly the coast). Maybe some Greenlandic Norse, Sami, Icelanders can be potential colonists? Or someone else, does anyone has a good suggestion?
1. How long would it likely take for this new population to inhabit most or all of Antarctica, if they arrived in the 1500s?
2. How could they manage to keep contact with each other?
Completely implausible. They would all die out within months. They wouldn't even reach Antarctica due to the sea ice. It's too expensive and dangerous to ship things that far south. The climate and lifestyle of these people would need to be changed almost entirely. Even the Inuit couldn't survive (not without a
lot of help from Europeans bringing food) if you transplanted them to Antarctica--even in the much kinder High Arctic, the Inuit suffered miserably and needed help from the Canadian government to survive (at first) when the government forcibly moved them to the area in the 1950s.
Greenlandic Norse (who couldn't survive in the far nicer southern Greenland) and Icelanders are an agricultural people who rely on their animals for survival. Agriculture is impossible in Antarctica. Trees can't grow in Antarctica. The result is a lot of dead Norse and dead livestock. The Sami rely on their reindeer. Reindeer can't survive in Antarctica because there's no food for them to eat. The Sami have no experience with a hunter-gatherer lifestyle in such a different region. The result is a lot of dead Sami and reindeer.
Politically the ramifications would be that some people back home in Europe will be losing their jobs, if not their heads, for such an idiotic scheme. Better and actually plausible to relocate some Sami to Iceland or use the same resources to recolonise Greenland.
Why would anyone want to colonize Antarctica?
Whales, seals, and fish. Which you can get elsewhere in much bigger numbers until you've driven them into extinction. The only group which can't would be native Antarcticans.
Honestly, it's a slightly fucked idea,
Hitler wins, utterly, but the "final solution" and Ost Plan prove to be economically unviable, destroying cultures prove to be far too much
Thus, he sends thousands upon millions of his victims to the Antarctic peninsula, establishing them as a puppet state on the grounds of Slovakia or the Vichy Regime
How is that any more economically viable than the well-practiced Nazi method of extermination through labour or just outright extermination? It costs a lot of money to ship people to a barren land where nothing can grow (I don't even think cold weather crops like potatoes can grow in the Antarctic Peninsula), and then it costs money to keep them alive and ship out whatever resources they're mining. Don't forget building the necessary port infrastructure from scratch.
Maybe some refugees migrate their to avioid persecution?
How many refugees seriously have the skills to survive in such a brutal environment? How many would even want to try it? They can't move to Antarctic bases, since those have limited food and only accept a limited amount of non-scientists, who are expected to pay for their stay there. Who will even take them to Antarctica? Why even go to Antarctica when it's literally the worst place on Earth to go to?
If they got stranded in Antarctica, then they will die. If they survive, they will seek rescue, and hopefully get it and be on their way to somewhere else.
