The Truman-Trump Connection
-
wrote on 28 Dec 2024, 02:45 last edited by
Trump likes real estate. A land expansion seems pretty noteworthy for his chapter in future history books. He knows this!
-
wrote on 28 Dec 2024, 02:47 last edited by jon-nyc
It would be. We all know Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase and that Alaska was Seward’s Folly.
But does the country have a reason to do this? Besides to stroke Trump’s ego?
-
It would be. We all know Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase and that Alaska was Seward’s Folly.
But does the country have a reason to do this? Besides to stroke Trump’s ego?
wrote on 28 Dec 2024, 13:44 last edited by@jon-nyc said in The Truman-Trump Connection:
Alaska was Seward’s Folly.
The first time the U.S. thought about buying Greenland was in 1867 when Secretary of State William Seward, under President Andrew Johnson, proposed buying it and Iceland from Denmark for $5.5 million in gold, or about $117.2 million in today’s money. The offer was never made to Denmark however. That same year, Seward negotiated the Alaska Purchase from Russia for $7.2 million ($129 million today).
-
wrote on 4 Jan 2025, 00:25 last edited by
-
wrote on 4 Jan 2025, 00:37 last edited by Renauda 1 Apr 2025, 00:39
The talk is independence not union with or purchase/annexation by the USA.
https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/what-would-greenlands-independence-mean-arctic
-
The talk is independence not union with or purchase/annexation by the USA.
https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/what-would-greenlands-independence-mean-arctic
wrote on 4 Jan 2025, 00:42 last edited by@Renauda said in The Truman-Trump Connection:
The talk is independence not union with or purchase/annexation by the USA.
I didn't say that did I? Have they made such a request in the past?
-
wrote on 4 Jan 2025, 01:28 last edited by Renauda 1 Apr 2025, 01:35
You didn’t but Trump has.
The article I linked tells that Greenland is looking for some form of independence/sovereignty from Denmark. They are not looking to becoming Americans. Trump continues to promote a policy that would result in Denmark giving consideration to sell the island to the USA. The wishes of the inhabitants of Greenland would be sidelined in any ensuing negotiations.
I get it that Washington would want Greenland. The US already maintains total political and military control over the Alaskan Western Arctic entrance/exit to the Northwest Passage. It also militarily controls the Eastern entrance of the passage through USN command of the sea. It currently must share political control over eastern NW passage with its NATO allies Denmark and Canada. It would like to have complete control. Obtaining Greenland would be a strategic step towards that reaching that goal. Not necessary but politically desirable.
-
You didn’t but Trump has.
The article I linked tells that Greenland is looking for some form of independence/sovereignty from Denmark. They are not looking to becoming Americans. Trump continues to promote a policy that would result in Denmark giving consideration to sell the island to the USA. The wishes of the inhabitants of Greenland would be sidelined in any ensuing negotiations.
I get it that Washington would want Greenland. The US already maintains total political and military control over the Alaskan Western Arctic entrance/exit to the Northwest Passage. It also militarily controls the Eastern entrance of the passage through USN command of the sea. It currently must share political control over eastern NW passage with its NATO allies Denmark and Canada. It would like to have complete control. Obtaining Greenland would be a strategic step towards that reaching that goal. Not necessary but politically desirable.
wrote on 4 Jan 2025, 01:38 last edited by@Renauda said in The Truman-Trump Connection:
Not necessary but politically desirable.
You mean stategically desirable.
-
@Renauda said in The Truman-Trump Connection:
Not necessary but politically desirable.
You mean stategically desirable.
wrote on 4 Jan 2025, 02:49 last edited by Renauda 1 Apr 2025, 15:09@George-K said in The Truman-Trump Connection:
@Renauda said in The Truman-Trump Connection:
Not necessary but politically desirable.
You mean stategically desirable.
Not at all. The desirable (and almost uncontested) strategic advantage is already held by the US and the Nato alliance. It has been so since at least 1949.
What I meant was the political desirability of de jure ownership of the eastern territorial gateway to the Northwest passage. Similar to the Turk owning and controlling the Dardanelle entrance to the Black Sea.
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2025, 15:27 last edited by
