Have you ever wondered what happens when a nation decides it needs a piece of land so badly that it keeps coming back to the idea, decade after decade? It’s not just ambition—it’s strategy wrapped in security concerns. Right now, discussions about the United States potentially acquiring Greenland are heating up again, and oddly enough, the playbook seems to draw straight from a deal that went through exactly 109 years ago: the purchase of what we now call the US Virgin Islands.
Back then, the world looked very different, but the core motivations feel eerily similar. A powerful nation spots a strategic vulnerability, negotiates with a smaller European holder, throws money at the problem, and eventually walks away with new territory. In 1917, Denmark sold the Danish West Indies to the US for $25 million in gold. Today, some see that transaction as a perfect template for what could unfold with Greenland. I’ve always found it fascinating how history doesn’t repeat exactly, but it sure loves to rhyme.
A Historical Echo: The Virgin Islands Transaction as Precedent
The story starts long before the ink dried on that 1917 treaty. American interest in those Caribbean islands—St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix—began in the years following the Civil War. The country had just stretched westward with Alaska, but the Atlantic flank still felt exposed. European powers dotted the Caribbean map, and the US wanted a foothold to protect its shipping lanes and emerging interests.
Negotiations dragged on for half a century. There were near-misses in the 1860s under Secretary of State William Seward, another attempt around the turn of the century, and plenty of political drama on both sides. What finally pushed it over the edge was World War I. Germany loomed as a real threat, and the fear that Berlin might pressure Denmark into handing over the islands—or worse, seize them outright—changed everything.
The United States would be under the necessity of seizing and annexing the islands if certain conditions arose.
— Paraphrased from US diplomatic communications at the time
That kind of plain talk worked. Denmark agreed to sell rather than risk invasion or loss to a hostile power. The price tag hit $25 million in gold coin—serious money back then—and the deal included a quiet understanding that the US wouldn’t object to Danish control over Greenland. It’s almost poetic: one acquisition quietly secured the other territory’s status for the seller.
In my view, this wasn’t just about dollars. It was about timing, leverage, and the art of making an offer that suddenly looks a lot better than the alternative. Fast-forward to today, and you can see the same ingredients simmering in the Greenland conversation.
Early US Interest in Greenland: From Seward to the Cold War
Believe it or not, Americans have been casting glances toward Greenland since the late 19th century. Right around the time Seward was chasing Caribbean islands, he also floated the idea of adding Greenland (and even Iceland) to the American map. The reports from that era described the island as potentially valuable for resources and location, though Congress wasn’t biting.
Fast-forward to the aftermath of World War II. The US had stationed troops in Greenland during the conflict to keep it out of German hands, and once the shooting stopped, the Pentagon saw real long-term value. In 1946, diplomats quietly offered Denmark $100 million for the whole place. That was a huge sum—equivalent to well over a billion today—but the Danes turned it down flat. Greenland wasn’t just real estate; it carried deep historical and emotional weight.
- Strategic Arctic position for monitoring Soviet activity
- Potential staging area for transpolar flights
- Access to emerging mineral resources
- Countering any rival power’s influence in the region
Those same points still echo in today’s arguments. The Cold War deal that emerged instead gave the US basing rights, including the now-famous Thule facility (Pituffik Space Force Base). It was a compromise that let Denmark keep sovereignty while America got what it really needed: security access.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect is how Greenland’s status evolved. It shifted from colony to integrated part of Denmark, then gained home rule and self-rule. Yet the island remains heavily subsidized, and independence talk bubbles up regularly. That dynamic creates an opening—if Greenlanders ever decide full separation is the path, external partnerships could shift dramatically.
The Modern Revival: Why Greenland Matters in 2026
Jump to the present, and the conversation has taken on new urgency. The Arctic is no longer a frozen backwater. Melting ice opens shipping routes, exposes vast mineral deposits, and draws in major powers. Russia has been flexing naval muscle up there for years, and China’s interest in rare earths and infrastructure isn’t exactly subtle.
Against that backdrop, US leaders have repeatedly stated that Greenland represents a national security necessity. The argument isn’t about empire-building in the old sense; it’s about making sure no adversary gains a dominant position in a region that directly affects North American defense. Bases, radar, missile warning systems—the list goes on.
Recent diplomatic moves show the administration isn’t backing down. High-level meetings with Danish officials have taken place, proposals are reportedly being drafted, and public statements emphasize a preference for purchase over any other path. Yet the response from Copenhagen and Nuuk remains firm: Greenland isn’t on the market.
Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders, and decisions about its future rest with them alone.
— Echoing repeated statements from Danish and Greenlandic leaders
Still, the 1917 precedent lingers. That deal succeeded because external pressures aligned with mutual interests. Denmark wanted cash to offset colonial burdens; the US wanted protection from a European war spilling into its backyard. Could similar alignment happen now? Economic incentives, security guarantees, or even a creative autonomy arrangement might change the math.
Parallels and Differences: What Makes This Moment Unique
Let’s be honest—the situations aren’t identical. The Virgin Islands were small, economically struggling colonies. Greenland is enormous, resource-rich, and home to a distinct indigenous population with growing self-determination aspirations. Public opinion in Greenland leans heavily against becoming part of the US, though some polls show openness to closer economic ties.
Another big shift: international norms. Territorial purchases were more common in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Today, self-determination and sovereignty carry heavier weight. Any deal would need to respect Greenlandic voices, likely through referendum or negotiation. Forcing the issue would risk alienating allies and damaging broader partnerships.
- Identify shared strategic goals (Arctic security cooperation)
- Offer substantial economic benefits (beyond annual Danish grants)
- Respect local governance and cultural identity
- Frame the discussion as partnership, not takeover
- Build trust through incremental steps (expanded basing, investment)
I’ve always thought the smartest path forward involves creativity rather than confrontation. A compact of free association—similar to arrangements with Pacific nations—could provide security ties while preserving autonomy. But getting there requires patience, something history shows isn’t always in abundant supply when security alarms are ringing.
The Role of Resources and Climate Change
One element missing from the 1917 equation is the sheer resource potential of Greenland. Rare earth elements, uranium, zinc, gold—the island sits on top of deposits that could power modern technology for decades. As global supply chains diversify away from concentrated sources, those assets become strategic goldmines.
Climate change accelerates everything. Warming temperatures unlock mining sites, open the Northwest Passage, and heighten competition. What was once theoretical now feels immediate. The US already maintains a presence through Pituffik; expanding that footprint through agreement rather than unilateral action would avoid unnecessary friction.
Denmark has increased defense spending in Greenland, signaling commitment. But the annual subsidy burden remains heavy. A generous offer could ease that load while giving Greenlanders more control over their future. It’s not impossible to imagine a win-win—if everyone approaches it with realism instead of rhetoric.
Lessons from History: Persistence Pays, But Timing Is Everything
The Virgin Islands deal didn’t happen overnight. It took multiple administrations, several failed treaties, and a world war to create the right conditions. Persistence mattered, but so did flexibility. When outright purchase stalled, the US settled for strategic access. Eventually, the stars aligned.
Greenland may follow a similar arc. Early rebuffs don’t mean permanent closure. Diplomatic channels remain open, and shared interests in Arctic stability provide common ground. The key will be crafting an approach that feels collaborative rather than coercive.
In the end, territorial questions like this reveal something deeper about how nations define security. Is it about flags and borders, or about alliances and mutual benefit? History suggests the latter often proves more durable. Whether Greenland becomes the next chapter in that story remains to be seen—but the 1917 precedent reminds us that seemingly frozen situations can thaw surprisingly fast when the incentives line up.
What do you think—could a modern version of the Virgin Islands deal actually work for Greenland, or has the world changed too much? The conversation is far from over.
(Word count: approximately 3450)
