Discussion:
Greenland and Iceland join Canada
(too old to reply)
DJensen
2007-08-17 13:28:54 UTC
Permalink
There has been a thread or two proposing that the US annex Greenland
and Iceland, but what about Greenland and Iceland joining Canada?

Iceland: Icelandic weather in the early 19th Century is somewhat worse
and emigration to Canada produces somewhat stronger ties between the
two; then Allied occupation of the island (1940) is either Canada's
responsibility from the start or the 1941 handover goes to Canada
instead of the US; the 1944 plebiscite supports joining Confederation
instead of becoming independent.

Greenland's POD isn't so clear. Sometime after 1940, perhaps part of
butterflied-in agreement with Iceland? A similar Allied occupation
setup with Canada taking point?

Perhaps the bigger question is, would ATL Greenland, Iceland, or
Canada be any different from OTL?


I'm ruling out the much earlier and much more obvious POD (Viking
colonies in Canada flourish), because the results of that probably
don't result in a Canada (or North America) as we know it.



--
DJensen
James Nicoll
2007-08-17 13:48:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by DJensen
I'm ruling out the much earlier and much more obvious POD (Viking
colonies in Canada flourish), because the results of that probably
don't result in a Canada (or North America) as we know it.
Well, I can think of one POD: The Norse establish a small
community that becomes isolated from the main stream of Norse society
while it is too small to preserve skills like blacksmithing. The
Norse are assimilated into native society, leaving linguistic evidence
but little else.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
n***@hotmail.com
2007-08-17 15:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by DJensen
There has been a thread or two proposing that the US annex Greenland
and Iceland, but what about Greenland and Iceland joining Canada?
Iceland: Icelandic weather in the early 19th Century is somewhat worse
and emigration to Canada produces somewhat stronger ties between the
two; then Allied occupation of the island (1940) is either Canada's
responsibility from the start or the 1941 handover goes to Canada
instead of the US; the 1944 plebiscite supports joining Confederation
instead of becoming independent.
Greenland's POD isn't so clear. Sometime after 1940, perhaps part of
butterflied-in agreement with Iceland? A similar Allied occupation
setup with Canada taking point?
Perhaps the bigger question is, would ATL Greenland, Iceland, or
Canada be any different from OTL?
You've probably got rid of OTL's Cod Wars. OTOH, an alt-Cod War
between Canadian Iceland and the UK could result in some skirmishes
between the Canadian and British navies, which could be interesting.

Cheers,
Nigel.
The Horny Goat
2007-08-18 01:27:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@hotmail.com
Post by DJensen
Perhaps the bigger question is, would ATL Greenland, Iceland, or
Canada be any different from OTL?
You've probably got rid of OTL's Cod Wars. OTOH, an alt-Cod War
between Canadian Iceland and the UK could result in some skirmishes
between the Canadian and British navies, which could be interesting.
An even more interesting Cod War would be if the POD is that the
French fishing community on the west coast of Newfoundland continued
to the present day rather than dying out in the 1905-10 era. It gets
even more interesting if this cod war involves the Crown Colony of
Newfoundland rather than the Dominion of Canada since that REALLY
involves Great Britain!
Jim McQuiggin
2007-08-17 16:29:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by DJensen
There has been a thread or two proposing that the US annex
Greenland and Iceland, but what about Greenland and Iceland
joining Canada?
Interesting idea, but don't forget that Newfoundland didn't join Canada
until after WW2. How might that factor into this TL?

Jim
Aaron Kuperman
2007-08-17 16:54:10 UTC
Permalink
DJensen (***@yahoo.ca) wrote:
: There has been a thread or two proposing that the US annex Greenland
: and Iceland, but what about Greenland and Iceland joining Canada?
[...]

How about if Germany occupied Iceland in either of the two wars, and
Canadian troops played a big role in liberating Iceland (and being
occupied would make the Icelanders a little less pacifistic, as it did for
the Danes). It certainly helps in Denmark doesn't survive one of the world
wars (ends up as part of Germany or under communist control). In these
timelines, Iceland probably ends up as the "frontier" in a North American
defense against a hostile Europe.

In a timeline resembling OTL, why would Iceland and Greenland whose
economies ahve always been tied to Europe prefer to be part of Canada?
James Nicoll
2007-08-17 17:10:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aaron Kuperman
: There has been a thread or two proposing that the US annex Greenland
: and Iceland, but what about Greenland and Iceland joining Canada?
[...]
How about if Germany occupied Iceland in either of the two wars
I'd pay good money to watch Nazi Germany try to launch an invasion
of Iceland.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
James Nicoll
2007-08-17 17:11:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Aaron Kuperman
: There has been a thread or two proposing that the US annex Greenland
: and Iceland, but what about Greenland and Iceland joining Canada?
[...]
How about if Germany occupied Iceland in either of the two wars
I'd pay good money to watch Nazi Germany try to launch an invasion
of Iceland.
Not out of malice to the Icelanders, mind you, but because I
think this would make attempts at Sealion look like raging successes.
It could be up there with that idea of invading Canada from the North.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Dan
2007-08-17 18:07:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Aaron Kuperman
: There has been a thread or two proposing that the US annex Greenland
: and Iceland, but what about Greenland and Iceland joining Canada?
[...]
How about if Germany occupied Iceland in either of the two wars
I'd pay good money to watch Nazi Germany try to launch an invasion
of Iceland.
Not out of malice to the Icelanders, mind you, but because I
think this would make attempts at Sealion look like raging successes.
It could be up there with that idea of invading Canada from the North.
--http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicollhttp://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll(For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
No but a realistic POD is Soviet Union takes Denmark at the time of
liberation of Europe. So Battle of the Bulge goes better for Germany,
Montgomery's advance is delayed and rather than Zhukhov and Konev both
heading for Berlin one is told to hightail it for Copenhagen.

Combinded with the previously POD of Canadian troops being in
occupation of Iceland from 1940, it starts becoming realistic.
no.one
2007-08-17 18:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan
No but a realistic POD is Soviet Union takes Denmark at the time of
liberation of Europe. So Battle of the Bulge goes better for Germany,
Montgomery's advance is delayed and rather than Zhukhov and Konev both
heading for Berlin one is told to hightail it for Copenhagen.
But would that have mattered? Eisenhower's stated reason for not trying to
get as far east as possible as Churchill desired was that the post-war
occupations/spheres had already been decided. Assume the USSR does
'liberate' Denmark. It seems more likely to me the USSR would not try to
subvert it very hard. Stalin mostly acquiesced to Churchill's 'sphere'
proposal.
Jack Linthicum
2007-08-17 18:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by no.one
Post by Dan
No but a realistic POD is Soviet Union takes Denmark at the time of
liberation of Europe. So Battle of the Bulge goes better for Germany,
Montgomery's advance is delayed and rather than Zhukhov and Konev both
heading for Berlin one is told to hightail it for Copenhagen.
But would that have mattered? Eisenhower's stated reason for not trying to
get as far east as possible as Churchill desired was that the post-war
occupations/spheres had already been decided. Assume the USSR does
'liberate' Denmark. It seems more likely to me the USSR would not try to
subvert it very hard. Stalin mostly acquiesced to Churchill's 'sphere'
proposal.
He just "misunderstood" the percentages in the division of some
countries.
Soren Larsen
2007-08-17 19:22:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by no.one
Post by Dan
No but a realistic POD is Soviet Union takes Denmark at the time of
liberation of Europe. So Battle of the Bulge goes better for Germany,
Montgomery's advance is delayed and rather than Zhukhov and Konev
both heading for Berlin one is told to hightail it for Copenhagen.
But would that have mattered? Eisenhower's stated reason for not
trying to get as far east as possible as Churchill desired was that
the post-war occupations/spheres had already been decided. Assume the
USSR does 'liberate' Denmark. It seems more likely to me the USSR
would not try to subvert it very hard. Stalin mostly acquiesced to
Churchill's 'sphere' proposal.
The Russians did liberate the danish island Bornhoilm in the Baltic.

They shot a handfull of red army soldiers for rape and looting, so that
stopped quickly.

They paid compensation for damages on civilian property.

They guranteed funds for the upbringing and education of children fathered
by russian soldiers

And last but surely not least did they leáve after a year in agreement with
the danish government.

Soren Larsen
--
History is not what it used to be.
Dan
2007-08-18 07:06:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by no.one
Post by Dan
No but a realistic POD is Soviet Union takes Denmark at the time of
liberation of Europe. So Battle of the Bulge goes better for Germany,
Montgomery's advance is delayed and rather than Zhukhov and Konev both
heading for Berlin one is told to hightail it for Copenhagen.
But would that have mattered? Eisenhower's stated reason for not trying to
get as far east as possible as Churchill desired was that the post-war
occupations/spheres had already been decided. Assume the USSR does
'liberate' Denmark. It seems more likely to me the USSR would not try to
subvert it very hard. Stalin mostly acquiesced to Churchill's 'sphere'
proposal.
You have a point, Churchill certainly had a fear of Soviet occupation
and pushed Montgomerry as far along the German Baltic coast as
possible to prevent the possibility.

But there were several examples of the Soviets withdrawing from
occupied territory.
Bornholm is mentioned by annother poster but Austria, Manchuria, bases
agreed in the peace with Finland were all voluntarily withdrawn from.

However they are all partial occupations if they had occupied all of
Denmark would we have seen the Socialist Republic of Denmark and if so
the idea of Greenland as Warsaw Pact territory seems unlikely
Greenland becomes part of an independent Iceland, or accedes to Canada
or independent in it's own right but whatever the inhabitants thought
the US, UK and Canada would have found a way to break the link with
Denmark.
Soren Larsen
2007-08-17 19:14:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan
Post by James Nicoll
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Aaron Kuperman
Post by DJensen
There has been a thread or two proposing that the US annex
Greenland and Iceland, but what about Greenland and Iceland
joining Canada?
[...]
How about if Germany occupied Iceland in either of the two wars
I'd pay good money to watch Nazi Germany try to launch an
invasion
of Iceland.
Not out of malice to the Icelanders, mind you, but because I
think this would make attempts at Sealion look like raging successes.
It could be up there with that idea of invading Canada from the North.
--http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicollhttp://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll(For
all your "The problem with defending the English language [...]"
T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
No but a realistic POD is Soviet Union takes Denmark at the time of
liberation of Europe. So Battle of the Bulge goes better for Germany,
Montgomery's advance is delayed and rather than Zhukhov and Konev both
heading for Berlin one is told to hightail it for Copenhagen.
Only Iceland already is fully independent.
Post by Dan
Combinded with the previously POD of Canadian troops being in
occupation of Iceland from 1940, it starts becoming realistic.
Only Iceland already is fully independent.
--
History is not what it used to be.
Gene Wirchenko
2007-08-17 22:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Aaron Kuperman
: There has been a thread or two proposing that the US annex Greenland
: and Iceland, but what about Greenland and Iceland joining Canada?
[...]
How about if Germany occupied Iceland in either of the two wars
I'd pay good money to watch Nazi Germany try to launch an invasion
of Iceland.
Not out of malice to the Icelanders, mind you, but because I
think this would make attempts at Sealion look like raging successes.
It could be up there with that idea of invading Canada from the North.
Russia is working on that right now in OTL, sort of.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
The Old Man
2007-08-17 19:38:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Aaron Kuperman
: There has been a thread or two proposing that the US annex Greenland
: and Iceland, but what about Greenland and Iceland joining Canada?
[...]
How about if Germany occupied Iceland in either of the two wars
I'd pay good money to watch Nazi Germany try to launch an invasion
of Iceland.
You had Operation Sealion; now for the follow-up, Operation Polar
Bear!
James Nicoll
2007-08-17 19:49:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Old Man
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Aaron Kuperman
: There has been a thread or two proposing that the US annex Greenland
: and Iceland, but what about Greenland and Iceland joining Canada?
[...]
How about if Germany occupied Iceland in either of the two wars
I'd pay good money to watch Nazi Germany try to launch an invasion
of Iceland.
You had Operation Sealion; now for the follow-up, Operation Polar
Bear!
Except Sealion can't work, so they'd be trying OPB with the British
Navy between them and Germany. Lots of laughs all round, I think.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
The Horny Goat
2007-08-18 01:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by DJensen
Iceland: Icelandic weather in the early 19th Century is somewhat worse
and emigration to Canada produces somewhat stronger ties between the
two; then Allied occupation of the island (1940) is either Canada's
responsibility from the start or the 1941 handover goes to Canada
instead of the US; the 1944 plebiscite supports joining Confederation
instead of becoming independent.
Greenland's POD isn't so clear. Sometime after 1940, perhaps part of
butterflied-in agreement with Iceland? A similar Allied occupation
setup with Canada taking point?
Perhaps the bigger question is, would ATL Greenland, Iceland, or
Canada be any different from OTL?
I'm ruling out the much earlier and much more obvious POD (Viking
colonies in Canada flourish), because the results of that probably
don't result in a Canada (or North America) as we know it.
I would think any such move would have to be done while Germany was
still winning the war. By 1944 everyone knew D-Day was coming and the
Danes were expecting to get their colonies back.

Even if a 1941-42 referendum passed there would be ENORMOUS pressure
on Canada to return them as part of the North Atlantic Treaty and who
knows whether a referendum in 1949-50 would restore the status quo
ante bellum.

To retain Greenland would require a level of Inuit awareness of
'brotherhood with our Greenland brothers' not really seen until the
early 1990s. If you have a good POD for that to happen about 50 years
early you're more than welcome to share it.

The bottom line is that Canadians DON'T make good imperialists, Steve
Stirling notwithstanding. (Bear in mind that Stirling wrote several
books which transformed the founding fathers of Canada into the
world-conquering Draka!)
sigvaldi
2007-08-19 11:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by DJensen
Iceland: Icelandic weather in the early 19th Century is somewhat worse
and emigration to Canada produces somewhat stronger ties between the
two; then Allied occupation of the island (1940) is either Canada's
responsibility from the start or the 1941 handover goes to Canada
instead of the US; the 1944 plebiscite supports joining Confederation
instead of becoming independent.
Greenland's POD isn't so clear. Sometime after 1940, perhaps part of
butterflied-in agreement with Iceland? A similar Allied occupation
setup with Canada taking point?
Perhaps the bigger question is, would ATL Greenland, Iceland, or
Canada be any different from OTL?
I'm ruling out the much earlier and much more obvious POD (Viking
colonies in Canada flourish), because the results of that probably
don't result in a Canada (or North America) as we know it.
I would think any such move would have to be done while Germany was
still winning the war. By 1944 everyone knew D-Day was coming and the
Danes were expecting to get their colonies back.
Only Iceland (independant since 1918) was not a Danish colony.
It had a status similar to Canada, an independant state sharing a head
of state with another country.
Post by The Horny Goat
Even if a 1941-42 referendum passed there would be ENORMOUS pressure
on Canada to return them as part of the North Atlantic Treaty and who
knows whether a referendum in 1949-50 would restore the status quo
ante bellum.
To retain Greenland would require a level of Inuit awareness of
'brotherhood with our Greenland brothers' not really seen until the
early 1990s. If you have a good POD for that to happen about 50 years
early you're more than welcome to share it.
The bottom line is that Canadians DON'T make good imperialists, Steve
Stirling notwithstanding. (Bear in mind that Stirling wrote several
books which transformed the founding fathers of Canada into the
world-conquering Draka!)
David Tenner
2007-08-18 06:21:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by DJensen
There has been a thread or two proposing that the US annex Greenland
and Iceland, but what about Greenland and Iceland joining Canada?
Iceland: Icelandic weather in the early 19th Century is somewhat worse
and emigration to Canada produces somewhat stronger ties between the
two; then Allied occupation of the island (1940) is either Canada's
responsibility from the start or the 1941 handover goes to Canada
instead of the US; the 1944 plebiscite supports joining Confederation
instead of becoming independent.
Greenland's POD isn't so clear. Sometime after 1940, perhaps part of
butterflied-in agreement with Iceland? A similar Allied occupation
setup with Canada taking point?
As I note at
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/32b98d0fc196bd2a

"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 government 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.'"
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Dan
2007-08-18 07:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by DJensen
There has been a thread or two proposing that the US annex Greenland
and Iceland, but what about Greenland and Iceland joining Canada?
Iceland: Icelandic weather in the early 19th Century is somewhat worse
and emigration to Canada produces somewhat stronger ties between the
two; then Allied occupation of the island (1940) is either Canada's
responsibility from the start or the 1941 handover goes to Canada
instead of the US; the 1944 plebiscite supports joining Confederation
instead of becoming independent.
Greenland's POD isn't so clear. Sometime after 1940, perhaps part of
butterflied-in agreement with Iceland? A similar Allied occupation
setup with Canada taking point?
As I note athttp://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/32b98d0fc196bd2a
"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 government 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.'"
--
David Tenner
Interesting not heard of this before but not surprising in the
context.
would US by 1940 have recognised transfer to an Independent Canada as
legitimate within the Monroe Doctrine or was Canada still seen as
British Empire at that point.
David Tenner
2007-08-18 23:29:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan
Post by David Tenner
Post by DJensen
There has been a thread or two proposing that the US annex Greenland
and Iceland, but what about Greenland and Iceland joining Canada?
Iceland: Icelandic weather in the early 19th Century is somewhat
worse and emigration to Canada produces somewhat stronger ties
between the two; then Allied occupation of the island (1940) is
either Canada's responsibility from the start or the 1941 handover
goes to Canada instead of the US; the 1944 plebiscite supports
joining Confederation instead of becoming independent.
Greenland's POD isn't so clear. Sometime after 1940, perhaps part of
butterflied-in agreement with Iceland? A similar Allied occupation
setup with Canada taking point?
As I note
athttp://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-
if/msg/32b98d0fc196bd2
Post by Dan
Post by David Tenner
a
"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
government 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.'"
--
David Tenner
Interesting not heard of this before but not surprising in the
context.
would US by 1940 have recognised transfer to an Independent Canada as
legitimate within the Monroe Doctrine or was Canada still seen as
British Empire at that point.
"In wartime especially, events rarely happen as planned, and the Canadian
strategy to occupy Greenland was no exception. The initial rationale for
'Force X' was the mistaken belief that a small Canadian occupation force
would be more acceptable to the neutral United States than British
intervention, which would have clearly violated the principles of the
Monroe Doctrine (Skelton, 1940b). This opinion could not have been further
from the truth.

"At a meeting between Prime Minister King and President Roosevelt on 2 May
1940, Roosevelt made it clear that the United States wished no occupying
force on Greenland, but admitted that if there were a German attack, then
'it would be necessary for Allied Naval Forces to take action.' Secretary
of State Hull seemed to be of a different mind, referring to
considerations of the Monroe Doctrine (Skelton, 1940~). That same day, the
acting minister of National Defence abruptly ordered the demobilization of
'Force X' and 'all action in connection with it suspended' (Department of
National Defence, 194Of). Supplies already in storage were dispersed and
mobilization orders cancelled.

"As explained in confidential memos and minutes, the US Secretary of State
was 'insistently anxious' that any plans to occupy Greenland be dropped
(Reid, 1940b). The ensuing discussions and debates clarified the State
Department's contention that the current interpretation of the Monroe
Doctrine rejected the right of *any* third party to interfere in the
political or military affairs of Greenland. As an alternative, the State
Department believed the mine could be defended by local residents with
armaments supplied by the United States. Pressured by British officials
to take action, yet unwilling to oppose the firm wishes of the United
States, Canadian officials were caught in a dilemma (Eden, 1940;
Department of External Affairs, 1940b,c)."
http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic46-1-82.pdf

See also Warren F. Kimball, *The Juggler: Franklin Roosevelt as Wartime
Statesman*, pp. 113-14:

"...But when the Canadians proposed that their forces occupy Greenland,
Berle--and Roosevelt--drew back. Berle was far more prickly about the
Western Hemisphere than Roosevelt, but they both agreed that Iceland was
so much 'a part of the European system' that occupation by Britain was
acceptable, even if the island fell within their expansive definition of
the Western Hemisphere. But Greenland was a different kettle of fish.

"Even before the fall of France to the Germans, the threat of a transfer
of New World colonies between European powers made Roosevelt unhappy. An
Anglo-French occupation of Dutch islands in the Caribbean in May 1940,
before the fall of France to the Germans, annoyed the President and
prompted a State Department protest. When the British occupied Iceland,
Roosevelt told Berle to tell British Ambassador Lord Lothian 'that he
[Roosevelt] had no particular objection to that; but if he tried the same
trick with Greenland he would be very angry'--a statement that echoed
American protests against a possible British purchase of Greenland back in
1920.

"By August, Berle was worried that a Canadian airbase in Greenland could
bring the war to the United States. If the Germans tried to attack the
facility, that would bring 'in the Monroe Doctrine with a vengeance...It
is a step eastward which means a step into the furnace which is raging
there.' His conclusion? Any Greenland base should be operated by the
United States. Shortly after Roosevelt emphasized that it was permanent
changes in the ownership of places like Greenland and Iceland that he
objected to, Berle wrote of using the 'Greenland techinque' to extend
American neutrality protection to places like West Africa. Whatever the
President's intentions, for subordinates like Berle the fear of war seemed
to produce endless expansion of the Monroe Doctrine."
http://books.google.com/books?id=LPfwANTbzi0C&pg=PA114&sig=7vya9ZbzoveeLcmh16z21XZd36Q#PPA113,M1

It's clear from the above sources that in 1940 the US objected--at least
in part on Monroe Doctrine grounds--to Canadian as well as British
occupation of Greenland. This may have been due to a belief that despite
the Statute of Westminster, Canada was still part of the British Empire,
but I think what was at least as important was the idea that since Greenland
was considered to be covered by the Monroe Doctrine, a Canadian military
presence there should be avoided because if it were attacked by the
Germans, then the US would have to go to war to vindicate the Doctrine.
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
The Horny Goat
2007-08-19 03:09:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:29:56 -0500, "David Tenner"
Post by David Tenner
It's clear from the above sources that in 1940 the US objected--at least
in part on Monroe Doctrine grounds--to Canadian as well as British
occupation of Greenland. This may have been due to a belief that despite
the Statute of Westminster, Canada was still part of the British Empire,
but I think what was at least as important was the idea that since Greenland
was considered to be covered by the Monroe Doctrine, a Canadian military
presence there should be avoided because if it were attacked by the
Germans, then the US would have to go to war to vindicate the Doctrine.
Thank you for an extraordinarily interesting article.

I can't really pretend any of it surprises me since unlike Jean
Chretien, Mackenzie King never went out of his way to annoy the United
States and that last sentence is the most credible explanation of US
policy I've heard yet.

I am NOT a fan of WLMK though the evidence seems clear he went out of
his way to cooperate with FDR and WSC sometimes against the direct
interests of Canada most particularly on the domestic front. The
thanks he got in the form of being completely ignored by both at
Quebec 1943 (and also at the early Argentia conference) contrasts
mightily with how people like Chaing Kai-Shek and John Curtin were
treated since with the greatest of respect to our Aussie posters,
Canada's war effort was the most important of the Allies outside the
Big 3.
pyotr filipivich
2007-08-20 05:22:22 UTC
Permalink
After a Computer crash and the demise of civilization, it was learned
Post by DJensen
There has been a thread or two proposing that the US annex Greenland
and Iceland, but what about Greenland and Iceland joining Canada?
Iceland: Icelandic weather in the early 19th Century is somewhat worse
and emigration to Canada produces somewhat stronger ties between the
two; then Allied occupation of the island (1940) is either Canada's
responsibility from the start or the 1941 handover goes to Canada
instead of the US; the 1944 plebiscite supports joining Confederation
instead of becoming independent.
Greenland's POD isn't so clear. Sometime after 1940, perhaps part of
butterflied-in agreement with Iceland? A similar Allied occupation
setup with Canada taking point?
Perhaps the bigger question is, would ATL Greenland, Iceland, or
Canada be any different from OTL?
I'm ruling out the much earlier and much more obvious POD (Viking
colonies in Canada flourish), because the results of that probably
don't result in a Canada (or North America) as we know it.
I dunno, King Canute's Empire holds together a little longer, and
instead of William coming over from Normandy, he has to stay home
because one of Canute's boys is on the throne.
Instead of a Hanoverian, a Danish prince gets the nod, and
Anglo-Danish union is formed in much the same way as the Scot and
English crowns were united, long before there was a formal United
Kingdom?
--
pyotr filipivich
We now return you to something called reality.
Loading...