US buys Greenland

Redbeard

Banned
Personally I think the Danes would never sell because of the "where will we go if the Germans/Russians invade" concern.

The thought of 5,5 million Danes in Greenland not capable of providing food for 1% of that is a night mare.

During WWII Greenland in all but formalities was annexed by USA and probably only was handed back due to a very effective Danish Ambassador in Washington and Denmark after all ending up recognised as an allied nation - and of course Denmark being in the western camp during the Cold War.

USA was given rights to build and maintain a large base at Thule in Northern Greenland in the early warning radar chain vs. Soviet missile attack. B52 bombers also routinely used the base and it was constant challenge for various Danish governments to on one hand claim that Danish teritory held no nuclear weapons and OTOH keep eyes shut in Greenland. Especially when a B52 carrying nukes crashed at Thule in late 60s.

A Danish Government for some reason negating USA base rights or whatever USA thought it needed in Greenland would instantly mean USA taking full control of Greenland - call it annexation or not - too much was at stake in the cold war.

Concerning the Danes and Greenland I think most Danes at least then had a weak spot in their hearts towards Greenland and the Greenlanders (even when not sober) and perhaps also a degree of bad consciousness over the centuries of colonisation. In an ATL where perhaps Denmark is more devastated by the war and the political system is more unstable (seen from USA) I think an offer from USA to pay good money to take over the responsibility for Greenland could be accepted in Denmark.

If so I don't see why/how Greenland would be a fully fledged state in USA, give them the same status as the US Virgin Islands when purchased from Denmark in 1917.

Today I think the Greenlanders if asking, would not be half way through the word "Independence" before they got it. They have home rule, but their main problem is how to spare the 550 m $ Greenland recieve from Copenhagen each year (10.000 $ pr. Greenlander + expenses of fishery inspection etc.). They hope that eventually oil and other natural resources will make independence realistic and I think most Danes can't wait to be freed of the burden.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 

Redbeard

Banned
Personally I think the Danes would never sell because of the "where will we go if the Germans/Russians invade" concern.

The thought of 5,5 million Danes in Greenland not capable of providing food for 1% of that is a night mare.

During WWII Greenland in all but formalities was annexed by USA and probably only was handed back due to a very effective Danish Ambassador in Washington and Denmark after all ending up recognised as an allied nation - and of course Denmark being in the western camp during the Cold War.

USA was given rights to build and maintain a large base at Thule in Northern Greenland in the early warning radar chain vs. Soviet missile attack. B52 bombers also routinely used the base and it was constant challenge for various Danish governments to on one hand claim that Danish territory held no nuclear weapons and OTOH keep eyes shut in Greenland. Especially when a B52 carrying nukes crashed at Thule in late 60s.

A Danish Government for some reason negating USA base rights or whatever USA thought it needed in Greenland would instantly mean USA taking full control of Greenland - call it annexation or not - too much was at stake in the cold war.

Concerning the Danes and Greenland I think most Danes at least then had a weak spot in their hearts towards Greenland and the Greenlanders (even when not sober) and perhaps also a degree of bad consciousness over the centuries of colonisation. In an ATL where perhaps Denmark is more devastated by the war and the political system is more unstable (seen from USA) I think an offer from USA to pay good money to take over the responsibility for Greenland could be accepted in Denmark.

If so I don't see why/how Greenland would be a fully fledged state in USA, give them the same status as the US Virgin Islands when purchased from Denmark in 1917.

Today I think the Greenlanders if asking, would not be half way through the word "Independence" before they got it. They have home rule, but their main problem is how to spare the 550 m $ Greenland receive from Copenhagen each year (10.000 $ pr. Greenlander + expenses of fishery inspection etc.). They hope that eventually oil and other natural resources will make independence realistic and I think most Danes can't wait to be freed of the burden.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Like I posted earlier, it has Uranium. Uranium for bombs and power stations.

It also has allot of Rare Earth Elements.

My mistake overlooking that.

There's some disturbing parallels. There was quite a bit of uranium mining on the Navajo reservation. Today it's an environmental catastrophe, tailings left exposed, water supply contaminated, and a huge jump in the number of cancer deaths of Navajos, esp the miners who were often not given adequate protection.

Likely Cold War pressures to mine no matter what the cost to the locals could lead to the same things happening to Inuit.
 
During WWII Greenland in all but formalities was annexed by USA and probably only was handed back due to a very effective Danish Ambassador in Washington and Denmark after all ending up recognised as an allied nation - and of course Denmark being in the western camp during the Cold War.

USA was given rights to build and maintain a large base at Thule in Northern Greenland in the early warning radar chain vs. Soviet missile attack. B52 bombers also routinely used the base and it was constant challenge for various Danish governments to on one hand claim that Danish territory held no nuclear weapons and OTOH keep eyes shut in Greenland. Especially when a B52 carrying nukes crashed at Thule in late 60s.

A Danish Government for some reason negating USA base rights or whatever USA thought it needed in Greenland would instantly mean USA taking full control of Greenland - call it annexation or not - too much was at stake in the cold war.

The WWII treaty negotiated by minister Kauffmann handed USA Greenland on a platter - the USA was allowed to anything to counter any threat to it in/or across Greenland.

It was not a question of Denmark allowing the USA bases - Kauffmann had literally sold Greenland and Danish surpremacy on it and the Foreign Office were pissed at his actions.
Treaty wise the USA had any right to establish what bases in Greenland they wanted!!!

Concerning the Danes and Greenland I think most Danes at least then had a weak spot in their hearts towards Greenland and the Greenlanders (even when not sober) and perhaps also a degree of bad consciousness over the centuries of colonisation. In an ATL where perhaps Denmark is more devastated by the war and the political system is more unstable (seen from USA) I think an offer from USA to pay good money to take over the responsibility for Greenland could be accepted in Denmark.

Today I think the Greenlanders if asking, would not be half way through the word "Independence" before they got it. They have home rule, but their main problem is how to spare the 550 m $ Greenland receive from Copenhagen each year (10.000 $ pr. Greenlander + expenses of fishery inspection etc.). They hope that eventually oil and other natural resources will make independence realistic

Quite but the Iceland independence were a very sore spot at the time.
It would take serious damage to Denmark to consider selling.
 
I'd think this would be treat a whole lot different to Iceland.
With Iceland it was the people there deciding of their own accord to be free and independant. Very well.
Here though they're just selling their people into colonialism under someone else.
 
My mistake overlooking that.

There's some disturbing parallels. There was quite a bit of uranium mining on the Navajo reservation. Today it's an environmental catastrophe, tailings left exposed, water supply contaminated, and a huge jump in the number of cancer deaths of Navajos, esp the miners who were often not given adequate protection.

Likely Cold War pressures to mine no matter what the cost to the locals could lead to the same things happening to Inuit.

I can believe that.

My friend does cleanup supervision for the Federal Government and has gone to Africa on two occassions for talks. He says that in some places they didn't care what happened, but after it was revealed that Iran owned part of a uranium mine in Nambia, things started to improve there just from outrage by the US and some European countries.

Get it out and sell it quick was the way things were for awhile.
 
I'd think this would be treat a whole lot different to Iceland.
With Iceland it was the people there deciding of their own accord to be free and independant. Very well.
Here though they're just selling their people into colonialism under someone else.

You simply don't read whats written!

The Danish Government was very upset by the Icelanders "running off" at a time when it was barred from doing anything against it!
I've used two post's to say this. :rolleyes:
Even if everybody knew that the Icelanders were going to demand independence soon it was expected to find a settlement that would satisfy both parties.

At this time a Greenland sale under OTL conditions were not in the cards!!!
 
You simply don't read whats written!

The Danish Government was very upset by the Icelanders "running off" at a time when it was barred from doing anything against it!
I've used two post's to say this. :rolleyes:
Even if everybody knew that the Icelanders were going to demand independence soon it was expected to find a settlement that would satisfy both parties.

At this time a Greenland sale under OTL conditions were not in the cards!!!

Exactly.
.,.,.,.,.,
 
I can't imagine Greenland being a state, certainly not before Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Marianas and American Samoa.
 
I can't imagine Greenland being a state, certainly not before Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Marianas and American Samoa.

Actually, with the mention of Puerto Rico, it might be possible for the US to allow Greenland, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico into the union as the state of Atlantica(?). We might (an even bigger strecht) get Pacifica with Guam, American Samoa, Northern Marianas, and the smaller US owned Islands.

Now if either of these things happened it would still need to be after Hawaii and Alaska are admitted into the union.
 
Actually, with the mention of Puerto Rico, it might be possible for the US to allow Greenland, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico into the union as the state of Atlantica(?). We might (an even bigger strecht) get Pacifica with Guam, American Samoa, Northern Marianas, and the smaller US owned Islands.

Now if either of these things happened it would still need to be after Hawaii and Alaska are admitted into the union.

I wonder if the United States had gotten Greenland through a treaty or other means during WWII if it wouldn't have renewed a second wave of expansion in the country. Moving towards an economic and political union expansion of North America.

Moving away from Greenland. It would be easier to conceive a Pacifica styled state in the union if the outcome with the Philippines had been different. If the Philippines had stayed as a territory and progressed to state-hood, the smaller US islands (Guam, American Samoa and Northern Marianas included) could easily have been combined into a single state.
 
Top