Plausibility check: Soviet alaska

[Mister Abbadon]

how plausible is it that if america didn't buy alaska after the civil war that it would stay a part of russia until communism arrives and becomes Apart of the soviet union

[David S Poepoe]

I think its fairly unrealistic. Wilson would probably militarily move against Russian Alaska in order to prevent any Communist outposts. Also one would have to give some consideration about who will probably be settling in Alaska. I think one could extrapolate that most political troublemakers won't be sent as far as Alaska but still end up in Siberia - just because of the expense.

[Noravea]

An Alaskan SSR, interesting.

And now, Alaskamenistan.

[Thinker1200]

An Alaskan SSR, interesting.

And now, Alaskamenistan.

LOL and sigged.

[MacCaulay]

how plausible is it that if america didn't buy alaska after the civil war that it would stay a part of russia until communism arrives and becomes Apart of the soviet union

Personally, I've always thought that if it wasn't sold to the US by the 1880s, then the Russians would probably lose the Eastern Aleutians in the Russo-Japanese War and the rest of the province might be sold off by the Kerensky Government (whether they actually had control or not) to Canada and America so they could get some hard currency.
Basically, there were alot of boundary disputes between Britain and Russia about the Alaskan border. When the ownership changed to America, and the government on the other side of the border changed to Ottawa, those disputes didn't change. Alot of that came down to what line of longitude the border would be at, and whether the Canadians would get the Alaskan Panhandle.

I believe that if the Kerensky Government sold a politically volatile and possibly even Red Alaska to Canada and America, then the Americans would probably come to an agreement with the Canadians whereby Ottawa would get control of the Panhandle and the Americans could get passage through British Columbia and the Yukon for a force to occupy/invade the territory.
This would probably call for the construction of something similar to the Alcan Highway more than 20 years earlier.

[yourworstnightmare]

If Alaska was still Russkie in the Civil War, US or Britain/Canada/Commonwealth would seize it when they realize the Reds are winning. (Or Alaska become a White exile country).

[I Blame Communism]

This is all assuming no butterflies. A little less money for Russia, no slight controversy in America, no hullaballoo raised in Russia by the Orthodox Church (which was pissed at abandoning the place and its missionary effort there)... all minor things, but I'm sure we can off Lenin from them somehow! ;)

And really, more even than most hsitorical events, the Bolshevik revolution depended on a crazy number of factors coming together.

[Grey Wolf]

Well you could have a nice Anglo-Russian War in the 1890s over the Klondike :)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[yourworstnightmare]

Well you could have a nice Anglo-Russian War in the 1890s over the Klondike :)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Would be nice, perhaps a rematch 1905 due to the Russo- Japanese war (if it's not butterflied away). And no Entente!!! Long live the Kaiser!!

[Amerigo Vespucci]

I've been doing research on this, in hopes of creating a nice ATL based on no transfer in 1867. The most likely alternative, IMHO, is a Western intervention that leads to either a White Russian Alaska or an independent Alaska. Remember that tens of thousands of Western soldiers were deployed to Russia to safeguard the Allied supplies in Russian ports, then to bolster the White forces in the civil war.

Alaska, which will have no industry to spawn soviets, (lower-case, not upper-case), is likely to follow the course of Siberia, which was in White hands until the evacuation of Western forces and the collapse of organized resistance to the Bolsheviks. Because the Soviet Union lacks a naval force worthy of the name until well after WWII, I feel that independence or a situation a la Taiwan/mainland China is most likely.

[MacCaulay]

Alaska, which will have no industry to spawn soviets, (lower-case, not upper-case), is likely to follow the course of Siberia, which was in White hands until the evacuation of Western forces and the collapse of organized resistance to the Bolsheviks. Because the Soviet Union lacks a naval force worthy of the name until well after WWII, I feel that independence or a situation a la Taiwan/mainland China is most likely.

In OTL, there were hundreds of thousands of miners by the early 1900s. And lord knows if anyone is willing to get crazy for labour unrest, it's miners. Take a look at the Battle of Blair Mountain, and West Virginia unionizing efforts.

[Snowman23]

In OTL, there were hundreds of thousands of miners by the early 1900s. And lord knows if anyone is willing to get crazy for labour unrest, it's miners. Take a look at the Battle of Blair Mountain, and West Virginia unionizing efforts.

Yes, but with Canada and the US so close, the White's would have foreign support right in their backyard.

[MacCaulay]

Yes, but with Canada and the US so close, the White's would have foreign support right in their backyard.

I thought about this scenario very closely, to the point of even drawing up an Alaskan Squadron of the Russian Navy. The way I saw it happening was that the "Whites" such as they were would have certain spots, like what naval bases there would be in Anchorage or Juneau but those might possibly just be captured or engulfed in riots.

I suppose it's just a difference you and me have in our thoughts on the North American reaction to the Russian Civil War in this alternate timeline.

[Dialga]

If the South won the ACW, would it have stopped (or at least put off) the purchase of Alaska? I seem to recall reding a timeline where that happened, and it had serious effects on the Cold War. (That is, assuming the Cold War wasn't butterflied away due to a different outcome of the Russian Civil War....)

[I Blame Communism]

If the South won the ACW, would it have stopped (or at least put off) the purchase of Alaska? I seem to recall reding a timeline where that happened, and it had serious effects on the Cold War. (That is, assuming the Cold War wasn't butterflied away due to a different outcome of the Russian Civil War....)

And first assuming that the Russian Civil War isn't butterflied away due to the differant outcome of the American Civil War. Which is a massive and unlikley asumption.

[Dialga]

And first assuming that the Russian Civil War isn't butterflied away due to the differant outcome of the American Civil War. Which is a massive and unlikley asumption.

So, in your humble opinion, why might a Confederate victory in the ACW result in no Revolution in Russia? The Communist Mainfesto has already been written, and someone's going to pick it up and go along with it, somewhere in the world. So why did Russia end up Communist IOTL instead of, say, America? Or Germany?

[I Blame Communism]

So, in your humble opinion, why might a Confederate victory in the ACW result in no Revolution in Russia/

Self-evidently there will be diplomatic effects going back to Europe. A shared Anglo-French entanglement in America might result, affecting their relations, and at any rate you then have the Venezeula crisis and its effects on Anglo-German relations.

Europe from the 1860s to the 1910s was choc full of diplomatic and military coincidence. The Ottomans managed to shoot themselves in the foot twice. Just take a glance through "Struggle for Mastery" to see how much small changes could ramify downward.

So we're highly unlikley to see WW1 begin in the same time and manner. After all, A Serbian crisis was made possibly by an unlikely Serbian victory in a war two years previous. With many decades to play with, Serbia in 1914 could be just as loyal a Hapsburg dependency as it was in 1885.

And if WW1 is changed, that obviously changes the Russian revolution. I could be lazy and say "Russia wins", or "Germany wins in the second year and Russia makes peace"...

But to short-circuit all that, if you refuse to use your imagination:

-Differant US politics.

-No/Differant President TR in 1905.

-Differant diplomacy surrounding Russo-Japanese war (which the Russians had a fighting chance of winning anyway, and an excellant chance of avoiding).

-1905 affected by butterflies.

-Someone obligingly murders Vladimir Ulyanov.

-Done!

The Communist Mainfesto has already been written, and someone's going to pick it up and go along with it, somewhere in the world.

A questionable hypotheses. I've written a lengthy book explaining in measured tones why I should be supreme ruler of the Earth, and no nation has yet taken it up.

To be less facetious, if you have such narrow views on Inevitability, what's the point of AH?

So why did Russia end up Communist IOTL instead of, say, America? Or Germany?

Because the Union won the American Civil War. Obviously.

[Dialga]

Thanks for the additional info, IBC, very interesting. Could a Confederate victory in the ACW (and subsequent recognition by Europe) have hastened the onset of WW1 in Europe by several decades by bringing the Americas into the picture? Bear in mind that Napoleon III was messing around in Mexico at the time.

An earlier WW1 might help keep the Tsar in power, or he might eventually be deposed in favor of a republic (which IIRC almost happened IOTL). Would Russia hold on to Alaska in these situations, or would she end up selling it to fill her war chests anyway?

[I Blame Communism]

Thanks for the additional info, IBC, very interesting. Could a Confederate victory in the ACW (and subsequent recognition by Europe) have hastened the onset of WW1 in Europe by several decades by bringing the Americas into the picture? Bear in mind that Napoleon III was messing around in Mexico at the time.

Hmm. In the 1880s, the capability for total war began to exist (after all, the ACW itself presaged the phenomenon), what with the genera; adoption of mass conscript armies, but basically everyone was too busy overseas: this is Scramble for Africa and Scramble for China time, and European affairs were considered a lot less life-and-death. Witnes the BUlgarian crisis, in which Russia is dissuaded by Britain threatening to unleash a navy we did not in fact have and Bismarck running back and forth telling everybody to remain calm. Wars had been fought with less at stake previously.

If we have two states in the Americas who really hate each other (which isn't inevitable, but certainly possible if the CSA win), they might be armed and ready to try again by the 1880s. Were the European powers to become involved, you might have WW1: that is, a war with mass consript armies, railways, general European participation, and an advantage to the defence, although it wil be rather differant from the real Great War.

An earlier WW1 might help keep the Tsar in power, or he might eventually be deposed in favor of a republic (which IIRC almost happened IOTL).

Between the February and October revolutions, Russia was a republic, and in fact, constitutionally speaking, the most progressive in the world, IIRC. Of course what it in fact was was a mess, but in the 1880s Russian society was very differant. A republic is possibly, if Russia gets badly drubbed.

Would Russia hold on to Alaska in these situations, or would she end up selling it to fill her war chests anyway?

Depends, really. You can spin it either way, depending on how well Russia gets on with Britain and/or America, when the gold is discovered, whether America wants it, and so on.

[B_Munro]

I thought about this scenario very closely, to the point of even drawing up an Alaskan Squadron of the Russian Navy. The way I saw it happening was that the "Whites" such as they were would have certain spots, like what naval bases there would be in Anchorage or Juneau but those might possibly just be captured or engulfed in riots.

I suppose it's just a difference you and me have in our thoughts on the North American reaction to the Russian Civil War in this alternate timeline.

OTL, the Reds were considered the enemy pretty much from the start: since they overthrew the pro-Allied Kerensky government, published a lot of makes-the-allies-look-bad secret deals, and made peace with the Germans, they were seen as "objectively pro-German", and efforts to support the Whites against them started before the war had quite wound down in the west.The allies (except for Japan) didn't pull out until 1920. I really doubt Alaska is going to be able to prevent US and Canadian efforts to "restore order" if Red revolution spreads there: the place had less than 100,000 inhabitants at the time.

Heck, the Bolshies _were_ a minority, you know, and there was another Russian revolution before the Bolshevik one. Perhaps the Kerensykites remain in control in Alaska, and K. ends up as president of the Alaskan republic (he lived until 1970 OTL, BTW)

Bruce

[Amerigo Vespucci]

In OTL, there were hundreds of thousands of miners by the early 1900s. And lord knows if anyone is willing to get crazy for labour unrest, it's miners. Take a look at the Battle of Blair Mountain, and West Virginia unionizing efforts.

There's a few problems with this idea:

There weren't "hundreds of thousands" of people, let alone miners, in Alaska until the 1950s and 1960s. Alaska's OTL population in 1900 was just over 63,000, and in TTL, it's likely to be even less, given restrictions on immigration into Russian territory and the fact that few Americans are going to want to trek into Russian territory on the off chance there might be gold there.
Those population figures get even worse if you consider the fact that of those 63,000, 25,000 were Alaska Native and thus not likely to join in any "revolution" you might have. Alaska's population actually fell between 1910 and 1920 as the easy-to-get ore bodies were mined out, but I'm not sure how much that would happen in an ATL where you have different discovery times and all.
The type of mining in Alaska in the early 1900s was wholly different from that of the coal mines you're talking about. During that point in Alaska history, it's mostly placer mining, which means miners are spread out over the surface on vast quantities of land. There aren't hundreds of miners on a single mine, except in rare instances.
By the 1910s, those rare instances have all but dried up. OTL, the deep Treadwell mine was Alaska's biggest in the 1910s, and it was flooded out of existence in 1917 when the ocean poured in. The Kennecott mines are just reaching peak production in 1916-1917, but they're inland and could easily be butterflied away in TTL.

[MacCaulay]

Heck, the Bolshies _were_ a minority, you know, and there was another Russian revolution before the Bolshevik one. Perhaps the Kerensykites remain in control in Alaska, and K. ends up as president of the Alaskan republic (he lived until 1970 OTL, BTW)

Bruce

See, this is a popular thought: that the Kerensky government will hold on to the Russian territory. Myself, I think that America and Canada (especially America, which has a shitload more cash than everyone else in 1917) would lean on Russia to make the sail it didn't make in the 1860s.

Then America can come out smelling like roses no matter how you look at it: they're providing money to an anti-Communist regime, and they're getting Alaska, with it's gold and nascent oil resources, for a bargain.

Sure, they'll have to cut a deal with Canada in a hurry to settle the border dispute in the Yukon, but that's not something that's a deal breaker.

Amerigo: I'll be honest. I kind of picked that population number out of my ass. All of my source material on Alaska I had to give to my dad except for stuff on the Alcan Highway and the Aleutian Campaign, so the historical stuff on the late-1800s is almost purely guesswork. I made a guesstimate, and I was wrong. But I was just making a point.

You are correct, though, with the fact that a Russian government would change the demographics. I can't help but wonder how many of the mines that would be running would be operated by crown companies employing prisoners.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Myself, I have to wonder how many mines would be running at all, MacCaulay. I look at all the easy-to-get resources that Imperial Russia was unable to develop IOTL for lack of capital, and I wonder how it could expect to do anything approaching what happened in Alaska OTL.

Nome's gold is definitely the easiest to get -- it's right on the beach, after all -- and there's plenty of placer deposits to be developed. The problem is finding them, and IOTL, many of the deposits were discovered only when Alaska Natives realized that they could get a ton of trade goods for just a bit of the "shiny sand" instead of a winter's worth of work on the trap line.

But TTL, you're going to have a longer period of time with the really brutal Russian attitude toward Alaska Natives, and some of those discoveries probably won't be shared, or at least not as quickly.

Then there's the matter of investment, as you mentioned. I think you're right -- it'd take Imperial investment in the Russian-American company or something on that level to get things moving. I don't think Russia has the capital to develop the easily reachable stuff that still requires investment -- near Juneau, forex. Those deposits require mineshafts and stamping mills, and that's not even mentioning the Kennicott area, which requires investment even though it's the richest copper deposit in the world, or here in Fairbanks, which is the richest gold-bearing region in Alaska but is smack dab in the middle of the territory.

[Dan Reilly The Great]

So, in your humble opinion, why might a Confederate victory in the ACW result in no Revolution in Russia? The Communist Mainfesto has already been written, and someone's going to pick it up and go along with it, somewhere in the world. So why did Russia end up Communist IOTL instead of, say, America? Or Germany?


well, assuming that it gets kicked off like OTL, you could easily get a good portion of the main leaders of the revolution killed through pure chance, a little spanish flu here, a stray bullet there, an execution in stead of exile and you effectively wipe out a good portion of the bolshevic movement. No guarantee of a loss for the commies, but a definite game changer.