So i just read that in 1946 the United States attempted to purchase Greenland from Denmark. If the Danes had agreed, would this have had any significant effect on the course of American history? Would Greenland have become a state (if they could somehow get populated enough), or would it remain a territory?
US buys Greenland
- Thread starter HistIdiot
- Start date
Sry here they are
^ "Deepfreeze Defense". Time Magazine. 1947-01-27. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,778870,00.html. Miller, John J. (2001-05-07). "Let's Buy Greenland! -- A complete missile-defense plan". National Review's National Political Reporter (National Review). http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment050701b.shtml.
^ "Deepfreeze Defense". Time Magazine. 1947-01-27. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,778870,00.html. Miller, John J. (2001-05-07). "Let's Buy Greenland! -- A complete missile-defense plan". National Review's National Political Reporter (National Review). http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment050701b.shtml.
Well, it would've given the US a few more remote missile bases, and a definite claim to "2nd largest country". Due to the small population and recent POD, though, I can't see a whole lot happening, though. I mean, I'm always game for an increase in the size of the US, but I can't see this one meaning that much. We'd have a bit more oil, and we'd exploit their minerals a bit more quickly than the Danes have, I think. But even as a state it'd end up like Alaska: Cold, Sparsely Populated, and Utterly Unloved by 48ers.
Remote places are usually more conservative, but judging the amount of European immigrants that might pass through, it may be more liberal than Alaska.
Has no one thought of the affects of a US Greenland in the Cold War?
Anti-Missile launchers in Greenland, if those exist.
Short-range and medium range ballistic missiles based there, like America's Cuba.
I'm doubtful it would have become a state. I mean, there are territories with more people , and didn't you have to have at least 60,000 before you could even apply for statehood? (That might be a relic of post-Revolution period) I would say just a territory ... shame it didn't happen.
Probably far more militarized than IOTL. early generation missiles and later IRBMs will probably be deployed. SAC may have a few bomber bases up there, putting bombers much closer to the USSR. Probably a few long-ranged fighter squadrons and maritime patrol aircraft, to interdict soviet bomber forces and patrol te GIUK gap. more early warning radars. Possibly plays home port to warships patrolling the gap for soviet submarines.
I think you know those rules much better than I do. Personally, I would suspect that if the area showed a very strong bias for either party, said party might see itself served well by the area gaining statehood. One more bedrock strate is never bad.
Now, I really have very litte idea what the conditions were like there in 1946.
Based on the situation of today, though, I suspect the area is far closer to the democrats than the republicans.
But it would really be a unique situation. I can't think of any time a state or territory has been created from a post-WWII european democracy. The people of today would be used to a social security net and a functioning state sector that would have no paralell in todays US. They would probably end up voting in their own party.
The people of 1946 I am less sure of.
Its worth noticing that they would come from a different democratic tradition, with more of a history for smaller parties that negotiate for advantage. Which would be fairly new in the US.
In a contested election such as the OTL 2000 one, I could see the electors immediatly start negotiating.
AmIndHistoryAuthor
Banned
But Inuit in Alaska tend to vote Democratic, just like most Indians across the US. (The big exceptions being Mormon and evangelical Christian converts.)
I found a source on Inuit voting in Greenland. They're even more to the left.
http://www.stratfor.com/sitrep/20090603_greenland_inuit_party_wins_parliamentary_election
Orville_third
Banned
Well, the US has Thule in Greenland still. (Hmmm...wonder why it has that name? 
)
)
I can't imagine a territory with such a microscopic population, which isn't going to grow, ending up as a state. A less implausible scenario is for the US government to get Maine to add the place to its state responsibilities, purely for the Cold War symbolism of giving the locals full US citizenship.
In all likelihood it remains a territory.
Now, what can Washington do to this territory? Nuclear testing?
A very interesting WI is advancing the late forties plan to before WWII, as an element of FDR's arsenal of democracy build-up. Now that would be a political powder keg.
In all likelihood it remains a territory.
Now, what can Washington do to this territory? Nuclear testing?
A very interesting WI is advancing the late forties plan to before WWII, as an element of FDR's arsenal of democracy build-up. Now that would be a political powder keg.
No.
First off, without a serious degree of new settlement, Greenland would not become a state. Congress simply would not admit it; the days of states with such small populations are long gone. Before Alaska became a state it had a population of a little over 200,000, and it was the smallest state in population after it was admitted. Beyond that, this talking of a Greenland state with fifty-thousand people wouldn't even make sense in the days of such small states, as the minimum population is sixty-thousand.
Also, the House of Representatives is set at 435 members. It doesn't just happen to sum to that number, it is where it is set legally.