Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

gwern.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 165 posts

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#91

Post by abricot »

Svip wrote: post #15

It does make me wonder what it would have been like if Denmark had not sold the US Virgin Islands. Although, I feel the islands might be doing better today than they are now.

As far as i understand Denmark didn't really have a choice. Either it was sold or it would have been taken.

An important detail of the sale was that in the agreement for buying the islands, it was actually written down for the first time that Greenland was part of Danish territory.

So if the virgin Islands hadn't been sold Denmark's claim to Greenland probably wouldn't have held until today.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#92

Post by Svip »

macspoofing wrote: post #59
elliotec wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Greenland is 836,300 mi², while Denmark is 16,577 mi². Imagine the effects of climate change in 200+ years - Greenland could be VERY valuable and important then.

The issue is that if Greenland was valuable, Denmark wouldn't be able to hold it.

Denmark itself is a pretty valuable strategic asset. What with controlling the seaways into the Baltic. If Greenland is valuable, then Denmark would likely be guaranteed to own it. In the same way, that Denmark has remained independent.

During the Second Schleswig War in 1864, the King of Denmark offered Otto von Bismarck thrice that Denmark - instead of relinquishing Schleswig - would join the German Confederation - which Bismarck would later turn into the German Empire.

All three times, Bismarck rejected the offer for two primary reasons: 1) He did not believe Danes would join a pan-German state and 2) (more importantly) the other great powers would have a big problem with Denmark being German.

In the same fashion, the fight over Greenland would lead to the compromise solution that Greenland remain none of the great/super powers. The US would never accept it falling into Russian hands, but they could accept Denmark keeping it.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#93

Post by dmurray »

Mizza wrote: post #13

Wild idea: I think we should turn Greenland into an into a new frontier nation with completely open borders for refugees and people who are up for the challenge of settling a new place. Sure, there's nothing there, but if you want to build something and there's nowhere else for you, have at it. EDIT: Out of curiosity, I started looking at Greenland on Google Maps and found this sweet shadow of the buggy they used to…

Svalbard, at a similar latitude to Greenland, already has an open-borders policy [0]. It's not particularly attractive to refugees.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_Svalbard

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#94

Post by vijayr02 »

DuskStar wrote: post #85
hnzix wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denmark is part of NATO. Very different scenario. Invading Greenland would be declaring war with 29 countries.

That works against non-NATO countries. If the US decided to turn its military basing agreements into ownership, there's not much anyone could really do to stop them. (If I had to do it, I'd follow the general pattern of greatly expanding those bases and the surrounding communities and eventually holding a referendum on whether the island should remain Danish or join the US - a referendum in which all the island's res…

Why would the US do this? They are the incumbents and there's no advantage (and possibly only disadvantage) to owning this territory.

My personal view is that the current geographical extent of the United States is static; there is no political will to change this - and why would you, when you can get all the benefits without the problems?

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#95

Post by mrweasel »

cobbzilla wrote: post #31
arendtio wrote: post #18

I heard that some Danes are proud of having the largest country in Europe. Selling Greenland would certainly change that. But as I am not a Dane myself, take it with a grain of salt (and it might not be true either, depending on how you measure other countries e.g. Russia).

I’m sorry to be the classic HN “but wait” guy, but wait: technically isn’t Greenland in America? The tectonic plate separating North America from Europe goes right through Iceland (the only place the Mid-Atlantic ridge is above water), making Iceland a “country on two continents”. If a European country can count off-continent lands in its “biggest country” argument, don’t all overseas territories get that considerati…

>technically isn’t Greenland in America?

Yes it is, and to add to that, Greenland also isn't in the EU. French Guiana is France, and it is in the EU, it just happens to be in South America. Greenland/Denmark is more like Scotland/United Kingdom.

Also it would be more appropriate to ask: Should Greenland be independent? There's a whole list of problems with that, and until those issues are worked out, Denmark is Greenlands least worst option.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#96

Post by arendtio »

mrweasel wrote: post #95
cobbzilla wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry to be the classic HN “but wait” guy, but wait: technically isn’t Greenland in America? The tectonic plate separating North America from Europe goes right through Iceland (the only place the Mid-Atlantic ridge is above water), making Iceland a “country on two continents”. If a European country can count off-continent lands in its “biggest country” argument, don’t all overseas territories get that considerati…

>technically isn’t Greenland in America? Yes it is, and to add to that, Greenland also isn't in the EU. French Guiana is France, and it is in the EU, it just happens to be in South America. Greenland/Denmark is more like Scotland/United Kingdom. Also it would be more appropriate to ask: Should Greenland be independent? There's a whole list of problems with that, and until those issues are worked out, Denmark is Green…

> French Guiana is France, and it is in the EU

Wow, I didn't know that and never noticed the small green part at the edge of the map:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#/media/File:Glo...

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#97

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

wolco wrote: post #72
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Europeans would absolutely love to buy a piece of the USA if they could.

they can.. in fact most citizens of most countries can be foreign land holders.

But that wouldn't make it European land. The interesting part would be to buy a plot of land in the US, declare it EU soil which would be very interesting for airlines for instance due to flight rights.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#98

Post by EdwardDiego »

fulafel wrote: post #75
scythe wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alaska is much warmer. Only a few sheltered coastal bays on Greenland can sustain any trees at all. Meanwhile, Sitka and Ketchikan often enjoy snowless winters. This is due, I believe, to the Aleutian ridge blocking the transport of cold water from the Arctic (contrast with the Labrador current).

Indeed. Also consider that vikings managed to colonise Iceland but not Greenland.

But they did colonise Greenland. They were there for 500 years.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#99

Post by EdwardDiego »

BurningFrog wrote: post #17
madaxe_again wrote: post #10

I think, in hindsight, it will turn out to have been an exceptionally good call to retain Greenland. They have an interesting setup - there is no land ownership other than by the state, and you can only get permission to build by winning a lottery. There are minor exceptions for building small hunting cabins in the fjords, but this is negligible. The reason is to prevent private ownership from hindering possible oppo…

So far Greenland is a relatively poor and miserable place, with a population of only 56,674. Comparatively, Alaska offers a much better role model for arctic governance.

> miserable place

How are you assessing that?

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#100

Post by LeonidasXIV »

lokimedes wrote: post #83
jmaa wrote: post #80

Having lived in Denmark for 20 years, I find this in many ways reprehensible. Cooking down the complex geopolitical problem of whether to sell a large piece of territory (with people!) to exclusively monetary concerns. This is as culturally daft as asking "why is Ireland such a problem for Brexit? Just build a wall!"

As a Dane, I agree. Why don’t the US sell the Rust Belt to China? If people had any idea how much of the danish kingdom is already lost over the centuries, one would understand why the country will cling to the last remnants for no other reason that maintaining national cohesion.

While I see your point but as a person living in Denmark I can't help but consider the

> national cohesion

to Greenland and Faroe Islands for that matter to be minimal. It doesn't feel like "proper" Denmark with shipping more expensive, not being part of EU/Schengen, their own respective Kroner-like currencies. I know some Faroese coming to Denmark to study but that's about it. It is not comparable to the rust belt which is more comparable to eastern Germany, more to the Dutch Carribbean which similarly has probably minimal national cohesion with the Netherlands.

In a way it is like with Iceland. That ship has sailed and over time both Faroe Islands and Greenland will break away too, to hardly any change for people living in Denmark. I think Denmark will wish them well for their future endeavors and that chapter of colonialism will finally be closed.

Post reply on HN