In 1910, a proposal moved through diplomatic channels that looked less like a normal land deal and more like a mapmaker’s puzzle. A U.S. ambassador to Denmark outlined a trade involving Germany, Denmark, the United States, islands in the Philippines, and a disputed stretch of northern Europe. At the end of that chain sat Greenland, a territory Washington could have gained more than a century before the island became a modern obsession.
At the time, Greenland did not carry the same political weight it does now. To many officials, it was remote, frozen, and difficult to justify after the bruising debate over Alaska. Congress had only recently accepted one giant northern acquisition, and there was little appetite for another. That political mood shaped how Washington reacted when the details of the proposed exchange became clear.
What made the idea so unusual was its route. Under the plan described in Fortune, Denmark would give the United States Greenland, while the United States would hand Denmark islands in the Philippines. Denmark would then pass those islands to Germany, and Germany would return Schleswig-Holstein to Denmark. It was not a simple purchase. It was a three-country trade built on diplomatic leverage and territorial repair.
The Proposal Looked Too Complicated to Survive
The reaction in Washington was fast. According to Fortune, the United States quickly dismissed the 1910 trade as too audacious, a response that helps explain why the episode remained obscure for so long. U.S. officials rejected the idea almost immediately, seeing it as politically risky and overly intricate. Instead of opening a public debate, the proposal died quietly.
That rejection fits the wider pattern of how Greenland was viewed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The American Action Forum notes that the United States had already considered acquiring Greenland and Iceland in 1868 for $5.5 million, but no formal offer emerged. The idea returned in 1946, when President Harry Truman offered $100 million for Greenland. The island kept appearing in American strategic thinking, even when a deal never materialized.
People bear Greenlandic flags as they gather in front of the U.S. consulate protest against U.S. President Donald Trump and his announced intent to acquire Greenland on January 17, 2026 in Nuuk, Greenland. Credit: Sean Gallup/Getty Images
The 1910 episode stands out because it was not driven by a straightforward cash price. It was built around territorial balancing at a time when colonial possessions still moved through European and American planning. That is one reason the proposal now feels so strange. Modern arguments over Greenland focus on minerals, missiles, and shipping lanes, but the first documented trade idea was shaped by imperial geography.
War Changed What Greenland Meant to Washington
The island’s importance shifted sharply during World War II. After Nazi Germany occupied Denmark, the United States moved into a protective role over Greenland and Iceland, both Danish territories at the time. According to Fortune, the U.S. built airstrips, weather stations, radar posts, and communications stations across Greenland, giving the island a direct role in North Atlantic operations.
That wartime footprint fed into the Cold War. The 1951 U.S.-Denmark defense agreement gave American forces operating rights on Greenland, while Fortune notes that Thule Air Base, now Pituffik Space Base, became central to missile warning and space surveillance. What had once seemed like an icy burden now looked like a military asset placed between North America and Eurasia.
A Royal Canadian Air Force C-17 Globemaster III and two C-130J Super Hercules aircraft from the 8th Wing Canadian Forces Base out of Trenton, Canada, are parked on the ramp at Thule Air Base. Credit: U.S. Air Force photo/Tech. Sgt. David Buchanan
The military case did not replace the old purchase idea. It made it more understandable. A territory that had looked too distant in 1910 was later treated as a strategic midpoint for bombers, radar, and Arctic defense. The change was not about the island becoming physically different. It was about the world around Greenland changing first.
The Numbers Now Attached to Greenland Are Much Larger
The modern argument over Greenland is no longer only about location. The American Action Forum estimates that the island’s known mineral and energy assets are worth about $4.4 trillion at current market prices. Remove oil and natural gas, which Greenland stopped licensing because of climate and cost concerns, and that figure falls to roughly $2.7 trillion. The same analysis says the economically extractable fraction may be closer to $186 billion.
Those estimates help explain why Greenland keeps surfacing in arguments about industrial supply chains. Fortune says the island is rich in rare earth minerals, including neodymium, dysprosium, graphite, copper, and lithium. These materials are tied to green technologies, aerospace systems, and weapons platforms, reflecting how the island is now discussed through both economic and defense language.
Rare earth core samples from the Tanbreez site. Credit: The Washington Post
The American Action Forum adds a second frame for valuing Greenland: not just “what you get,” but “where you get it.” That approach treats the island’s North Atlantic position as part of the price, tying geography to commerce and military access. It is a much different way of thinking from the one that prevailed when Washington brushed aside the 1910 trade.
That is why the 1910 decision feels newly relevant. A deal once dismissed as too ambitious now reads like an early preview of the island’s later importance. The New York Times reported that renewed U.S. interest in Greenland was met with blunt resistance from both Múte Egede and Mette Frederiksen, who repeated that “Greenland is not for sale” and that its future belongs to Greenlanders.