Live data from Hacker News

Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

gwern.net

141–150 of 165 posts

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was that bad for Danes?

Typically it is expected that sovereign states resist attempts at undermining their sovereignty.

Expected by who? The original comment I replied to said that Danes offered no resistance to Nazi occupation, as if that were to be expected without stating why.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was that bad for Danes?

some of them, very bad.

Maybe you're mixing that up with Poland? Nazi rule in Denmark was popular and internment camps there we're similar to US ones of Japanese, Italians and Germans, and similarly in the US there was no resistance either.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#143
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But if someone find diamond in the dark side of the moon, would you sell USA or just al to evil communist for money. >Would you sell your homeland? What does it mean for the USA to be my homeland? My family has been here for centuries but the government is working more for "new Americans" than those of us who built the country. In that sense my homeland has been given away without my consent.

Congrats on building the country! Oh wait, you didn’t, it was your ancestors. Not sure why you think you deserve something based on your lineage—that’s an unamerican idea if I’ve ever heard one. Your idea that there is some deep conflict between immigrants and people already here is also basically wrong. Immigrants have always been a huge source of strength for America and a net benefit to those already here.

So if my ancestors building America means nothing to you then why do you say I should care if we start selling it off in part or in full? Our rulers are importing a new voter base so politicians can continue to target legacy Americans for tax extraction, businesen can suppress our wages while raising the cost of schooling and housing, without giving nearly as much back.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#144
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You could pretend with a flag and treat yearly taxes as a bribe to protect yourself against a foreign power. I guess you would have to pick a EU country and get them on board. Easier to make your own and try to get EU membership. You would need to sign a treaty for it to be real.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#145
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you think using two points along the narrow strip of land at the southwestern tip of Alaska as indicative of the overall Alaskan climate is just a wee bit dishonest?

They are apparently the 4th and 5th largest cities in the state, so not a terrible example [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Alaska

They're also unreachable by road from the Alaska "mainland".

Anyway, however you think about the state, those cities are clearly not part of the Arctic.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#146
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada is a member of NATO and yet it cannot assert its sovereignty over the Northwest Passage.

Because it is water, not land. The Nato partners consider it international water and does not accept Canadas claims. I don't think Nato would go to war to prevent anybody sailing past Greenland in international waters either.

> The Nato partners consider it international water and does not accept Canadas claims

Or to out it another way, NATO partners don't respect Canada's sovereignty claims because the Northwest Passage is too valuable and Canada can't enforce its claim. Contrast that to Taiwan, a nation that should be independent, (and is not 'international waters') but no major country is willing to recognize it as such.

Greenland would be the same way.

And by the way, Alaska and Louisiana purchases were executed because Russia and France respectively knew they were never going to be able to hold those territories and ceded it for cash.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Some country would invade it? That seems unlikely these days…

Why would it be unlikely? And invasion is too strong a word. Nations could simply ignore Denmark, the way they ignore Canada's claims to the Northwest Passage. Like Canada, Denmark is too weak and inconsequential to do anything about it.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#148
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it is water, not land. The Nato partners consider it international water and does not accept Canadas claims. I don't think Nato would go to war to prevent anybody sailing past Greenland in international waters either.

> The Nato partners consider it international water and does not accept Canadas claims Or to out it another way, NATO partners don't respect Canada's sovereignty claims because the Northwest Passage is too valuable and Canada can't enforce its claim. Contrast that to Taiwan, a nation that should be independent, (and is not 'international waters') but no major country is willing to recognize it as such. Greenland woul…

> Greenland would be the same way.

No, because Greenland is part of NATO and none of the member states disputes that.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America is the worst. Except for all the world powers that came before. Be careful what you wish for.

Things can get a lot, lot better than what America has to offer the world. Don't lose hope.

In what way. The way I see it if America pulls back, the alternative is either China picking up the mantle of a superpower and enforcing its world view ... or anarchy where local despots enforce a regional order as they see fit. Did you ever wonder why there was/is a proliferation of democracies and the lack of regional wars between local despots?

I'm genuinely curious what you imagine would replace the present American world order.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America is the worst. Except for all the world powers that came before. Be careful what you wish for.

Things can get a lot, lot better than what America has to offer the world. Don't lose hope.

My point is that the common thread throughout history is that world super powers have been incredibly brutal. The sun never sets on the British empire, as they say. For all of its faults, and there are many, America has been a relatively benign superpower.
Post reply on HN