Union and Liberty: An American TL

[Koxinga]

Great post and great looking map mate. Couple of thoughts;

- Just looking at the map alone, the Alliance Carolingien looks to have been very successful so far, taking a good amount of territory and putting their adversaries on the run. Britain has remained absolutely untouched by all accounts, while Russia/poland/hungary and Spain/Italy are getting pretty dominated. Not really sure it could have gone any other way really, given the distinct advantages a combined France and Germany would have over their neighbors.

- Just as with questions regarding Corsica, I don't see the likelyhood in Benelux (just BeNe here i guess) being forced to switch sides, or the likelyhood in the NC invading through there. this TL Germany and France have plenty of coastline accessible to them, and whatever diplomatic entreaties to get either on the NC's side would seem essentially suicidal to either without immense support from Britain, which they'd have to be pretty foolish to believe in.

- However, the one caveat here would be a Zimmermann Telegram type of situation where the BeNes could get something from the NC, some territory somewhere that they coveted, in exchange for support. This does pose an interesting possibility for covert action on the part of the NC against the AC, if they could amass forces in the area in secret. I don't consider it likely, but it could make for an interesting 'battle of the bulge' kind of scenario.

- Curious lastly about the motivations in continuing the conflict much further on either side. What is driving the governments in Paris and Berlin to continue to fight? Are there specific land or resource gains they are hoping to obtain in Eastern Europe or in the Mediterranean? Is there some point where they would stop, or are they looking for an unconditional surrender from one of the parties?

-A broader question that I've been wondering about for a long time- not just in this TL, but generally, and also very much applicable to this TL- is the role of World-Systems analysis. Glossing quickly, Immanuel Wallerstein reads history since the sixteenth century as a contest for hegemony between several key states. He sees the Netherlands as the first Hegemon in the 17th century, and sees the next set of contests as between two aspirants; France and Britain fought to take over after the Netherlands, with Britain replacing them in the 19th century. So he sees the early 20th century as a long, continuous war from 1914-1945 between Germany and the US to take Britain's place as Hegemon.

There seems to be a real thread of world-systems analysis running through the U&L history, and it really seems to point to a very divergent result. Without going forward to where the TL ends up and just going off of what we have up to 1907, the Wallerstein of U&L would probably still see Britain as the victor for 19th century hegemony; but thinking about the differences between a Germany united with France and in control of the Continent, taking over for a declining Britain... and with the United States as its ally? Can the US and Germany essentially negotiate how to deal with Britain's (inevitable?) decline?

Not sure if anyone here is into this stuff, but it's very interesting to consider states and nations as part of larger structures- and more interesting to consider alt-historical ones such.

[Grand Prince Paul II.]

Originally Posted by wilcoxchar

And the front map.

The map is not quite correct. Menorca should be red-colored.

Originally Posted by wilcoxchar

The New Coalition fleet then set up a blockade around the island of Menorca in late March, which lasted a month before the garrisons at Ciutadella and La Mola surrendered. The Spanish occupied the island beginning in April.

[jycee]

Originally Posted by Koxinga

-A broader question that I've been wondering about for a long time- not just in this TL, but generally, and also very much applicable to this TL- is the role of World-Systems analysis. Glossing quickly, Immanuel Wallerstein reads history since the sixteenth century as a contest for hegemony between several key states. He sees the Netherlands as the first Hegemon in the 17th century, and sees the next set of contests as between two aspirants; France and Britain fought to take over after the Netherlands, with Britain replacing them in the 19th century. So he sees the early 20th century as a long, continuous war from 1914-1945 between Germany and the US to take Britain's place as Hegemon.

There seems to be a real thread of world-systems analysis running through the U&L history, and it really seems to point to a very divergent result. Without going forward to where the TL ends up and just going off of what we have up to 1907, the Wallerstein of U&L would probably still see Britain as the victor for 19th century hegemony; but thinking about the differences between a Germany united with France and in control of the Continent, taking over for a declining Britain... and with the United States as its ally? Can the US and Germany essentially negotiate how to deal with Britain's (inevitable?) decline?

Not sure if anyone here is into this stuff, but it's very interesting to consider states and nations as part of larger structures- and more interesting to consider alt-historical ones such.

This is an interesting thesis actually. My main problem with it is that Russia is not considered as a competitor in Britain's decline. Since it did become hegemonic in its own sphere through it ultimately fell.

But if the thesis is correct, perhaps after the Great War the US and the Alliance will end up in a kind of cold war. For the most part I will assume the US will be ok with France and Germany taking over the affairs in Europe the Middle East and Africa without really raising a fuss, while they won't really care with what the US does with its sphere in the Americas. The big clash point would be East Asia, where France - alongside Corea's help - is slowly gaining influence. But so is Japan (and possibly the US depending on how the California affair goes).

Over all I think Wilcox is aiming to balance out the equation with multiple powers in the TL rather than the hegemonic wank.

[CaliBoy1990]

Originally Posted by jycee

Over all I think Wilcox is aiming to balance out the equation with multiple powers in the TL rather than the hegemonic wank.

I sure hope so. You know one thing that would really help achieve that? Russia losing Alaska, by any means necessary.

[Selvetrica]

Don't say by any means. Otherwise well end up with some kind of Japenese Alaska

[CaliBoy1990]

Originally Posted by Selvetrica

Don't say by any means. Otherwise well end up with some kind of Japenese Alaska

Japanese Alaska would be ASB by this point; Russia having kept Alaska at this point is at least close to implausible as is, if it hasn't crossed that line already.

I do hope Wilcox can come up with a decent solution one of these days. Some people on here, I've noticed, would be jumping for joy if Alaska remained Russian until the end of time(I've never heard any convincing arguments as to why this should be, though. Could just be that none of them know why.) but I really don't want this TL to end up in the ASB section.

[Venusian Si]

Originally Posted by CaliBoy1990

Japanese Alaska would be ASB by this point; Russia having kept Alaska at this point is at least close to implausible as is, if it hasn't crossed that line already.

I do hope Wilcox can come up with a decent solution one of these days. Some people on here, I've noticed, would be jumping for joy if Alaska remained Russian until the end of time(I've never heard any convincing arguments as to why this should be, though. Could just be that none of them know why.) but I really don't want this TL to end up in the ASB section.

Since this conversation has already been had in the current Map Thread.

Originally Posted by B_Munro

Indeed. As long as they stay out of a war with Japan or the UK, who else is likely to snag them? Heck, even if a war does happen with Japan, would the White Folks of the US and Canada stand for a Japanese Alaska?

Bruce

Originally Posted by CaliBoy1990

A Russian Alaska surviving beyond say, 1880 or so, is questionable, mainly because they didn't have a strong Pacific Navy at all, nor an adequate ability to project defensively beyond Eastern Siberia; if Canada wanted to take Alaska, they would have had little trouble doing so, especially with U.S. help. Now, whether or not it could have resulted in a greater war with the U.K., is debatable........

I suppose you could change things slightly in Russia's favor with an early enough POD, but I seriously and honestly can't find a plausible way for Alaska to remain Russian past the first two decades of the last century.

Originally Posted by B_Munro

This sounds...odd. Late 19th century European powers didn't just waltz into eachother's settler territories and make random land grabs. Russia is not Mexico, and if wacky Canadian filibusters invaded Alaska (were there even any such people in late 19th Canada? Seems impolite) sure as heck it would trigger a wider war, or at least fuck Anglo-British relations up beyond all repair, which I think would make Canadians rather unpopular in London...

Bruce

The argument that needs to be answered is not rather if Russia can keep Alaska, but rather why would anyone else take Alaska if Russia wasn't willingly giving it away.

Why would either Canada or the United States want Alaska to the extent that they would declare war against Russia to take it?

[CaliBoy1990]

Originally Posted by Venusian Si

Since this conversation has already been had in the current Map Thread.







The argument that needs to be answered is not rather if Russia can keep Alaska, but rather why would anyone else take Alaska if Russia wasn't willingly giving it away.

Why would either Canada or the United States want Alaska to the extent that they would declare war against Russia to take it?

It still doesn't explain how Russia can keep Alaska beyond a certain point, nor why Russia would fight a major war over a territory which is pretty much useless to them, when all the resources they seek can be found in Siberia.

The one plausible scenario I can see, without Alaska being snatched by a foreign power, is the territory becoming independent. And even if the Russians did make a big fuss about this they likely would be woefully short on projecting power. And a wider war over something as insignificant to (most of) the Russian people as just another frost-covered piece of land, in another continent, no less, which is not only far from easy to exploit, but has fewer mineral and oil reserves than land in certain parts of their home territory, would certainly cause significant amounts of anger to build amongst the members of the Russian public; I can remind you that the 1905 Revolution was catalyzed by something significantly lesser than this: worker's strikes.

The argument that desperately needs to be answered is not, by any means, "Can Russia keep Alaska?", but, rather, "When will Russia finally lose control, and how?". It's just not true to say that no one else will want Alaska, because somebody definitely will. It's only a matter of when, and when that time comes, Russia will be unable to stop the inevitable, and if they try, they will only end up digging a very deep hole for themselves, and the government that pulls that stunt will have to face at the very least, serious political consequences, if not perhaps eventual outright revolution.

Russia holding onto Alaska to the present day, or whatever future era you would like to think about is pretty much the equivalent of Sealion, no question about it; it may be fun to read about in the opinions of some, but the fact remains that it cannot be plausibly done past a point.

Again, I ask: why would Russia risk a wider war for a territory that serves no purpose to them, when their resource needs can be met at home? Siberia is truly vast and can supply Russia's needs for many, many, decades! No need to keep an auxiliary territory that is going to fall under the wishful eyes of others; selling off Alaska, or spinning it off, even as an associated state, would be a very wise decision at any stage now.

[wilcoxchar]

Originally Posted by Darth_Kiryan

I find it interesting that neither nation has not moved into Belgium or the Netherlands yet. Just of they are going for Continental supremacy, it is kinda shocking they haven't taken those nations yet?

Originally Posted by Emperor-of-New-Zealand

Why? Both are neutral and Germany and France, being allies, do not need to use either as a bridge.

Originally Posted by Darth_Kiryan

Yeah i know. And i know they are not attacking one another. Just, as i said, continental control/dominance....but i guess the thread of two major powers surrounding them would be a significant thread.

Originally Posted by CoomerREC7

Would the New Coalition see any reason to invade either nation to use as a springboard into Germany or France?

Well Belgium might want the bit of it that was taken by France in the Second Napoleonic War back, but whether they'd want to enter the fray right now is questionable.

Originally Posted by Grand Prince Paul II.

The map is not quite correct. Menorca should be red-colored.

I noticed that earlier today. Fixed now.

Originally Posted by Koxinga

Great post and great looking map mate. Couple of thoughts;

- Curious lastly about the motivations in continuing the conflict much further on either side. What is driving the governments in Paris and Berlin to continue to fight? Are there specific land or resource gains they are hoping to obtain in Eastern Europe or in the Mediterranean? Is there some point where they would stop, or are they looking for an unconditional surrender from one of the parties?

While the war originally started as a colonial conflict, both France and Germany see the opportunity presented to become the masters of the Continent. They're looking for large gains or at least puppets from the New Coalition powers and some colonial gains as well. Of course the New Coalition sees this and is doing everything they can to stop Franco-German dominance of Europe, so they're looking to weaken France and Germany to make sure that doesn't happen in the future. Especially for Great Britain, the Second Napoleonic War showed that they can't leave France alone too often or it will come back to bite you.

Originally Posted by Koxinga

-A broader question that I've been wondering about for a long time- not just in this TL, but generally, and also very much applicable to this TL- is the role of World-Systems analysis. Glossing quickly, Immanuel Wallerstein reads history since the sixteenth century as a contest for hegemony between several key states. He sees the Netherlands as the first Hegemon in the 17th century, and sees the next set of contests as between two aspirants; France and Britain fought to take over after the Netherlands, with Britain replacing them in the 19th century. So he sees the early 20th century as a long, continuous war from 1914-1945 between Germany and the US to take Britain's place as Hegemon.

There seems to be a real thread of world-systems analysis running through the U&L history, and it really seems to point to a very divergent result. Without going forward to where the TL ends up and just going off of what we have up to 1907, the Wallerstein of U&L would probably still see Britain as the victor for 19th century hegemony; but thinking about the differences between a Germany united with France and in control of the Continent, taking over for a declining Britain... and with the United States as its ally? Can the US and Germany essentially negotiate how to deal with Britain's (inevitable?) decline?

Not sure if anyone here is into this stuff, but it's very interesting to consider states and nations as part of larger structures- and more interesting to consider alt-historical ones such.

That's a really cool analysis Koxinga, and I'm very interested in it. I wasn't sure where I'd heard of world-system theory before, then I remembered it was from a human geography course. In the case of U&L, would Britain be seen as a victor or would the 19th century be considered more of a constant struggle between Britain and France for hegemony with neither becoming a true global hegemon? I'm honestly not sure on that. And now you've got me thinking about the development of geopolitics and geopolitical theory in TTL.

Originally Posted by jycee

This is an interesting thesis actually. My main problem with it is that Russia is not considered as a competitor in Britain's decline. Since it did become hegemonic in its own sphere through it ultimately fell.

But if the thesis is correct, perhaps after the Great War the US and the Alliance will end up in a kind of cold war. For the most part I will assume the US will be ok with France and Germany taking over the affairs in Europe the Middle East and Africa without really raising a fuss, while they won't really care with what the US does with its sphere in the Americas. The big clash point would be East Asia, where France - alongside Corea's help - is slowly gaining influence. But so is Japan (and possibly the US depending on how the California affair goes).

Over all I think Wilcox is aiming to balance out the equation with multiple powers in the TL rather than the hegemonic wank.

With Russia, one interesting thing to consider is the Georgaphical Pivot of History theory. I'm not sure how applicable it will be to TTL, but in OTL it somewhat predicted the rise of the Soviet Union as a superpower. And with the rest of your post I think I've come up with some rudimentary geopolitical theory for TTL.

Originally Posted by CaliBoy1990

I sure hope so. You know one thing that would really help achieve that? Russia losing Alaska, by any means necessary.

Originally Posted by Selvetrica

Don't say by any means. Otherwise well end up with some kind of Japenese Alaska

Originally Posted by CaliBoy1990

Japanese Alaska would be ASB by this point; Russia having kept Alaska at this point is at least close to implausible as is, if it hasn't crossed that line already.

I do hope Wilcox can come up with a decent solution one of these days. Some people on here, I've noticed, would be jumping for joy if Alaska remained Russian until the end of time(I've never heard any convincing arguments as to why this should be, though. Could just be that none of them know why.) but I really don't want this TL to end up in the ASB section.

Originally Posted by Venusian Si

The argument that needs to be answered is not rather if Russia can keep Alaska, but rather why would anyone else take Alaska if Russia wasn't willingly giving it away.

Why would either Canada or the United States want Alaska to the extent that they would declare war against Russia to take it?

I'd say Alyeska is pretty entrenched in Russian culture now, with the Russo-British border being defined and immigration to Alyeska from the gold rush. Although the gold might make it more attractive as a target to other countries.

[CaliBoy1990]

Originally Posted by wilcoxchar

I'd say Alyeska is pretty entrenched in Russian culture now, with the Russo-British border being defined and immigration to Alyeska from the gold rush. Although the gold might make it more attractive as a target to other countries.

I doubt it would be that entrenched. Russia isn't America, Wilcox. Alaska was a land of opportunity for many, and a rather alien place at that(at least to most America). Russians would almost certainly see it as something like another Siberia, and nothing more(unless of course, some crazy hyper-nationalist party takes over and decides to make Alaska a front line of some sort).

The gold rush may temporarily help things but it doesn't at all mean Russia can forever hold onto Alaska as some people would fervently wish, and as you just pointed out, the gold would indeed make it an attractive target, and any Russian leader would have to be insane to fight a war over a territory that is even more inaccessible and has far fewer resources overall than the fringes of Siberia, except possibly for gold reserves(and I'm not quite sure about that, even.).

The Russian people wouldn't be too terribly attached to a land like that, just like we probably wouldn't have been too attached to, say, Rupert's Land if we had won it in some war(though not after a certain point, of course). But unlike Russia, at least we could hold onto a conquered Rupert's Land under the right circumstances, if we truly wanted to; Russia will have to let go at some point, somehow, and hopefully, thru peaceful means instead of the country being dragged into war by some ATL Stalin analogue, or something.

I mean, I guess if you really wanted to appease the Russia-wankers around here, by all means. But I'm just saying, it does become more and more of a stretch as time goes by......ultimately, it's your decision, but given that this is one of my favorite TLs, I felt obligated to lend a (very) helpful hand.

At the very least, I would hope that you would consider at least making it semi-independent in the future. Maybe, perhaps, a self-governing dependency, at least?

[Selvetrica]

I forget the relation between Russia and America but if there enemy's what about a independent Alaska as a kinda Buffer State

[QuoProQuid]

Am I the only person who wants Alaska to remain Russia, or at the least become a Russian commonwealth?

[CaliBoy1990]

Originally Posted by Selvetrica

I forget the relation between Russia and America but if there enemy's what about a independent Alaska as a kinda Buffer State

That actually isn't too terribly farfetched. In fact, I think it's very doable, even if America and Russia are NOT enemies, and not only is it plausible with the right PODs but it'll make most of those who'd like to see a change from OTL(in which the U.S. grabbed Alaska) happy too, I suspect. It's just that Alaska remaining under the direct control of St. Petersburg(Moscow?) IS becoming less and less plausible as time goes on, especially once Siberia really starts getting exploited; and then Alaska will become not only pretty much useless, but a potential weak spot for Russia in many ways, and I don't think St. Petersburg would want to risk that by any means.

Originally Posted by QuoProQuid

Am I the only person who wants Alaska to remain Russia, or at the least become a Russian commonwealth?

There's a couple of other people who share your exact opinion, I think, but not much more than that. From what I can see, though, it seems many readers would indeed welcome a difference from OTL as long as it's plausible; and that does include, btw, the possibility of Alaska becoming independent, whether associated with Russia or some other nation, or even neutral, like OTL's Switzerland.

[Archangel]

Keep it up, Wilcox!

[Koxinga]

Originally Posted by jycee

This is an interesting thesis actually. My main problem with it is that Russia is not considered as a competitor in Britain's decline. Since it did become hegemonic in its own sphere through it ultimately fell.

Found this interesting- wanted to note that Wallerstein does account for this and makes an argument that i've found rather convincing here related to Yalta. He reads Yalta as a kind of deal for containment of the Soviet Union- basically, the United States and its allies would have 2/3rds of the world, and the Soviet Union and its allies the other third. He argues that despite appearances, a military status quo "was scrupulously respected by both sides from 1945 to 1990." He elaborates further upon this thesis in After Liberalism, which i've cited. Essentially, the Soviet Union was contained from the get-go, constrained in many important ways from expanding upon barriers stipulated by the agreement at Yalta in 1945, which they never really broke except to clarify the boundaries in places.

Originally Posted by jycee

But if the thesis is correct, perhaps after the Great War the US and the Alliance will end up in a kind of cold war. For the most part I will assume the US will be ok with France and Germany taking over the affairs in Europe the Middle East and Africa without really raising a fuss, while they won't really care with what the US does with its sphere in the Americas. The big clash point would be East Asia, where France - alongside Corea's help - is slowly gaining influence. But so is Japan (and possibly the US depending on how the California affair goes).

I find this very convincing here. The one question that I find most interesting to contemplate in relation to this is, just how close are France and Germany, really? They are clearly fighting alongside one another- but are they co-equal partners? How close is the AC with the United States? In a world order which is to be dominated by Franco-German alliance in the face of waning British power, how much of this dominance will be Franco and how much will be German?

As for the prospects for a cold war after the fighting, there are some interesting aspects of the geopolitical situation in TTL as of 1907 to contemplate; in contrast to OTL where Germany and the United States were clearly the two best powers poised to wrest hegemonic power from the British- and note too that Walerstein uses the term 'hegemonic' in a more particular and limited sense than we are otherwise accustomed, suggesting that there were only 3 'real' hegemonic states in the world system ever (United Provinces, United Kingdom, United States), with two other states competing with the eventual victor for power (France, then Germany)- the relationships between the industrialized nations in U&L is quite different, with the United States and Germany closely allied and opposing the declining hegemon together.

This makes for an exciting possibility for the cold war you speak of, but one that could grow warm quickly if the lines of demarcation- this TL's Yalta, albeit one occurring several decades in advance of our own- unfairly advantage one side over another. Russia didn't industrialize or modernize in OTL nearly as early as did Britain, Germany, or the United States; they were in very real terms behind the other powers, and the United States had rendered the other rising or declining powers, Britain, Germany, and Japan impotent by 1945. A decades-long cold war between the US and Germany-France, with Great Britain's old territories divvied up among the twin victors, is indeed an interesting scenario with a ton of fascinating permeations to contemplate. Excited to see how Wilcox does it.

Originally Posted by CaliBoy1990

I sure hope so. You know one thing that would really help achieve that? Russia losing Alaska, by any means necessary.

I've responded before to the absolute asininity of this and won't do so much further except to say that, in the event that the New Coalition is defeated in some way, there is some remote plausibility to this occurring. However, it would not really in the way you seem to desire, with the absolute Americanization of the now decades-long Russian Alyskia, but rather with its Franco-Germanization. Any outcome of the war that results in significant losses for the NC- a coalition of, among the main powers, Russia, Britain, Italy, Spain, and Japan - would result in those nations making acquisitions, in territory and in capital, to the victors, in this case France, Germany, and the United States. Recognizing the geopolitical situation they face, and the possibility of an emerging conflict, even a cold one, with the United States, the Franco-German leadership would need nothing more than to lay clam to territories in the Americas. A Russian Alyskia would be a bartering chip on the table of a alt-Yalta arrangement between the nations, one that the Franco-Germans would one to bring into play on their side.

But again, this is a territory that, in the minds of the people living in the timeline, has been Russian for decades and is as much a part of Russia to them as the Russian Far East continues to be for us today. In terms of the War, it hasn't figured into the calculus of any of the combatants in any important way, save to provide resources and bases for Russian operations in the Pacific- a theatre which hasn't seen much action thus far in the war at any rate. The people of the United States in this timeline do not have some irredentist claim to it, they've never seen the maps that you've grown up with. Finally, it figures into the calculus of any US entry into the war in much the same way Acadia, the Dominion of Canada, the Dominion of New Caledonia, California, and Deseret do- as states allied to one degree or another with the British, whom they oppose in the war. The only difference for the US between New Caledonia and Alyskia is only one of them doesn't share a thousand-mile long border between them.

[CaliBoy1990]

Originally Posted by Koxinga

for the prospects for a cold war after the fighting, there are some interesting aspects of the geopolitical situation in TTL as of 1907 to contemplate; in contrast to OTL where Germany and the United States were clearly the two best powers poised to wrest hegemonic power from the British- and note too that Walerstein uses the term 'hegemonic' in a more particular and limited sense than we are otherwise accustomed, suggesting that there were only 3 'real' hegemonic states in the world system ever (United Provinces, United Kingdom, United States), with two other states competing with the eventual victor for power (France, then Germany)- the relationships between the industrialized nations in U&L is quite different, with the United States and Germany closely allied and opposing the declining hegemon together.

This makes for an exciting possibility for the cold war you speak of, but one that could grow warm quickly if the lines of demarcation- this TL's Yalta, albeit one occurring several decades in advance of our own- unfairly advantage one side over another. Russia didn't industrialize or modernize in OTL nearly as early as did Britain, Germany, or the United States; they were in very real terms behind the other powers, and the United States had rendered the other rising or declining powers, Britain, Germany, and Japan impotent by 1945. A decades-long cold war between the US and Germany-France, with Great Britain's old territories divvied up among the twin victors, is indeed an interesting scenario with a ton of fascinating permeations to contemplate. Excited to see how Wilcox does it.

I think that certainly would be a very interesting twist on the concept, and I, too, would like to see what Wilcox is considering because it's not often you see a TL in which Germany is a primary antagonist of the U.S. in a Cold War type scenario, in place of China or Russia.

I've responded beforto the absolute asininity of this and won't do so much further except to say that, in the event that the New Coalition is defeated in some way, there is some remote plausibility to this occurring.

The problem is, I didn't really say that this had to occur during the Great War, per se.

However, it would not really in the way you seem to desire, with the absolute Americanization of the now decades-long Russian Alyskia, but rather with its Franco-Germanization.

Yes, I do have a soft spot for American Alaska. But a Franco-German leaning Alaska, IMO, certainly is doable and would be a rather unique twist if Wilcox chose to go in that direction.

Any outcome of the war that results in significant losses for the NC- a coalition of, among the main powers, Russia, Britain, Italy, Spain, and Japan - would result in those nations making acquisitions, in territory and in capital, to the victors, in this case France, Germany, and the United States. Recognizing the geopolitical situation they face, and the possibility of an emerging conflict, even a cold one, with the United States, the Franco-German leadership would need nothing more than to lay clam to territories in the Americas. A Russian Alyskia would be a bartering chip on the table of a alt-Yalta arrangement between the nations, one that the Franco-Germans would one to bring into play on their side.

But again, this is a territory that, in the minds of the people living in the timeline, has been Russian for decades and is as much a part of Russia to them as the Russian Far East continues to be for us today.

Yes, but keep in mind, a similar situation happened IOTL, and that didn't stop the Russians from losing Alaska anyway(though in our world, we bought it from them).

Again, let me state that I believe that Alaska breaking off from Russia would not necessarily have to occur as a result of the war(unless Wilcoxchar wants to go that route); there could be a revolution(not necessarily a Marxist one, of course!), or Siberia proves to be more useful in terms of resource extraction.

Perhaps Alaska's time as something other than a Russian boondoggle may yet still be in the making here, but for the reasons I've stated, a change of some kind will be inevitable, even if it were to just become sort of like what Canada was to Great Britain in its early days.

@Wilcox: I'd love to see the next update on the war. Hopefully it'll come one of these days.

[Venusian Si]

Originally Posted by CaliBoy1990

It still doesn't explain how Russia can keep Alaska beyond a certain point, nor why Russia would fight a major war over a territory which is pretty much useless to them, when all the resources they seek can be found in Siberia.

Reason – The majority of Alaska’s population is composed of patriotic Russians loyal to the current regime and or others apathetic to whoever rules Alaska. That’s absolutely all that’s needed for Alaska to stay Russian.

As for why Russia would fight a war over Alaska, compare and contrast Great Britain’s position in the Falklands War.

Originally Posted by CaliBoy1990

The one plausible scenario I can see, without Alaska being snatched by a foreign power, is the territory becoming independent. And even if the Russians did make a big fuss about this they likely would be woefully short on projecting power.

Based on your argument, I’m going to assume (and please correct me if I’m wrong) that you view Alaska as being in a very similar position that Texas was in the 19th century – a territory that is far from the heart of the motherland that is being overwhelmed by people of a foreign non-loyal culture.

Also based on comments you made of Russia holding Alaska no later than the early 20th century, I assume that you believe that Alaska would be overwhelmed by Americans/Canadians due to the gold rush.

Any similarities that Alaska’s situation has with Texas’s situation though are shallow at best.

For example, a Russian owned Alaska would have a nearly 100% probability of its gold rush being triggered by a Russian citizen. With that being a case, any would-be American prospector would most likely have to face competition from at least a few thousand Russian prospectors (who probably will have secured a decent amount of the available gold veins before the Americans will have). This competition and an even greater amount of failure among American prospectors will probably encourage a greater of percentage of Americans to return to the States than in comparison to original – perhaps even the vast majority of Americans.

Also, you have to consider the different attitudes that the people ITTL have. Despite Manifest Destiny leading to the Oregon War ITTL, Americans as a whole are far less interested in the west. For example, the Northwest is less populous than in OTL despite the fact that it’s America’s only access to the Pacific Ocean. Then there’s the issue of California. California would be vastly more attractive to Americans than Alaska could ever hope to be, yet by 1907, America has shown no strong desire to annex it. Even though it’s been mentioned that America occupies California during the war and permanently annexes at least some of California’s territory, the fact that it took decades for U&L’s America to do this speaks loudly about America’s attitudes towards Western North America.

Originally Posted by CaliBoy1990

And a wider war over something as insignificant to (most of) the Russian people as just another frost-covered piece of land, in another continent, no less, which is not only far from easy to exploit, but has fewer mineral and oil reserves than land in certain parts of their home territory, would certainly cause significant amounts of anger to build amongst the members of the Russian public; I can remind you that the 1905 Revolution was catalyzed by something significantly lesser than this: worker's strikes.

The argument that desperately needs to be answered is not, by any means, "Can Russia keep Alaska?", but, rather, "When will Russia finally lose control, and how?". It's just not true to say that no one else will want Alaska, because somebody definitely will. It's only a matter of when, and when that time comes, Russia will be unable to stop the inevitable, and if they try, they will only end up digging a very deep hole for themselves, and the government that pulls that stunt will have to face at the very least, serious political consequences, if not perhaps eventual outright revolution.

As noted above, the Falklands War provides an excellent counterpoint to your argument.

Originally Posted by CaliBoy1990

Russia holding onto Alaska to the present day, or whatever future era you would like to think about is pretty much the equivalent of Sealion, no question about it; it may be fun to read about in the opinions of some, but the fact remains that it cannot be plausibly done past a point..

So you’re suggesting that having Alaska presently owned by Russia (even an ATL version that’s more economically/politically stable in comparison to OTL) is practically as implausible as Germany beating British forces in order to successfully invade Great Britain and then establishing a stable puppet government?

Really?

Originally Posted by CaliBoy1990

Again, I ask: why would Russia risk a wider war for a territory that serves no purpose to them, when their resource needs can be met at home? Siberia is truly vast and can supply Russia's needs for many, many, decades! No need to keep an auxiliary territory that is going to fall under the wishful eyes of others; selling off Alaska, or spinning it off, even as an associated state, would be a very wise decision at any stage now.

If you’re going to ask that though, you have to ask why America or Canada/Britain would wage such a war. Based on the above, I assume you would answer resources. So what resources would the Americans, British, or Canadians actually being willing to fight a war for?

In the case of gold, the majority of the supply will be depleted after the initial gold rush. By the time anyone would even think of waging war, the casus belli (and one that would be viewed very negatively by the international community) would have essentially vanished.

In the case of oil, it wouldn’t be until the latter half of the 20th century before the main deposits could be properly harvested, and by that time, Russia should be more than able to defend Alaska.

Originally Posted by CaliBoy1990

I doubt it would be that entrenched. Russia isn't America, Wilcox. Alaska was a land of opportunity for many, and a rather alien place at that(at least to most America). Russians would almost certainly see it as something like another Siberia, and nothing more(unless of course, some crazy hyper-nationalist party takes over and decides to make Alaska a front line of some sort).

There is a difference between willingly selling territory in which the buyer is in no way being unfairly forced to sell to the buyer and having one’s territory being invaded. If Canada (or in the case of TTL, California) invaded a completely “Worthless” piece of American real estate, would Americans really dismiss such an act? Would any sane American think “Oh, we have plenty of land just like that. Who cares if Canada takes a few acres or so?”

I have no doubt that the average Russian will view Alaska as being a part of a “Greater Siberia,” but to say that Russians wouldn’t care if they lost Alaska in a war or a foreign-fueled rebellion completely dismisses the influence of patriotism among the Russian people.

Also, to what extent was Alaska really a “land of opportunity” among the American people?

Between 1880 and 1890, the population of Alaska decreased from approximately 33,426 to 32,052.

Between 1890 and 1900, the population increased to approximately 63,592, but between 1900 and 1910, the population increase was less than a thousand people.

Between 1910 and 1920, the population saw a decrease of nearly 10,000.

The following two decades saw minor growth of approximately 4,000 and 13,000 respectively.

While the following decades saw much larger growth, the much larger growth can be accredited to the introduction of modern technology.

If the above data says anything, Alaska was only a “land of opportunity” to a small fringe of Americans before WWII. If Russians were in control, I would predict that a much smaller amount of Americans would move to Alaska (practically all during the gold rush), and a much smaller amount would stay once the gold runs out.

[iddt3]

Originally Posted by Venusian Si

Reason – The majority of Alaska’s population is composed of patriotic Russians loyal to the current regime and or others apathetic to whoever rules Alaska. That’s absolutely all that’s needed for Alaska to stay Russian.

As for why Russia would fight a war over Alaska, compare and contrast Great Britain’s position in the Falklands War.



Based on your argument, I’m going to assume (and please correct me if I’m wrong) that you view Alaska as being in a very similar position that Texas was in the 19th century – a territory that is far from the heart of the motherland that is being overwhelmed by people of a foreign non-loyal culture.

Also based on comments you made of Russia holding Alaska no later than the early 20th century, I assume that you believe that Alaska would be overwhelmed by Americans/Canadians due to the gold rush.

Any similarities that Alaska’s situation has with Texas’s situation though are shallow at best.

For example, a Russian owned Alaska would have a nearly 100% probability of its gold rush being triggered by a Russian citizen. With that being a case, any would-be American prospector would most likely have to face competition from at least a few thousand Russian prospectors (who probably will have secured a decent amount of the available gold veins before the Americans will have). This competition and an even greater amount of failure among American prospectors will probably encourage a greater of percentage of Americans to return to the States than in comparison to original – perhaps even the vast majority of Americans.

Also, you have to consider the different attitudes that the people ITTL have. Despite Manifest Destiny leading to the Oregon War ITTL, Americans as a whole are far less interested in the west. For example, the Northwest is less populous than in OTL despite the fact that it’s America’s only access to the Pacific Ocean. Then there’s the issue of California. California would be vastly more attractive to Americans than Alaska could ever hope to be, yet by 1907, America has shown no strong desire to annex it. Even though it’s been mentioned that America occupies California during the war and permanently annexes at least some of California’s territory, the fact that it took decades for U&L’s America to do this speaks loudly about America’s attitudes towards Western North America.



As noted above, the Falklands War provides an excellent counterpoint to your argument.



So you’re suggesting that having Alaska presently owned by Russia (even an ATL version that’s more economically/politically stable in comparison to OTL) is practically as implausible as Germany beating British forces in order to successfully invade Great Britain and then establishing a stable puppet government?

Really?



If you’re going to ask that though, you have to ask why America or Canada/Britain would wage such a war. Based on the above, I assume you would answer resources. So what resources would the Americans, British, or Canadians actually being willing to fight a war for?

In the case of gold, the majority of the supply will be depleted after the initial gold rush. By the time anyone would even think of waging war, the casus belli (and one that would be viewed very negatively by the international community) would have essentially vanished.

In the case of oil, it wouldn’t be until the latter half of the 20th century before the main deposits could be properly harvested, and by that time, Russia should be more than able to defend Alaska.



There is a difference between willingly selling territory in which the buyer is in no way being unfairly forced to sell to the buyer and having one’s territory being invaded. If Canada (or in the case of TTL, California) invaded a completely “Worthless” piece of American real estate, would Americans really dismiss such an act? Would any sane American think “Oh, we have plenty of land just like that. Who cares if Canada takes a few acres or so?”

I have no doubt that the average Russian will view Alaska as being a part of a “Greater Siberia,” but to say that Russians wouldn’t care if they lost Alaska in a war or a foreign-fueled rebellion completely dismisses the influence of patriotism among the Russian people.

Also, to what extent was Alaska really a “land of opportunity” among the American people?

Between 1880 and 1890, the population of Alaska decreased from approximately 33,426 to 32,052.

Between 1890 and 1900, the population increased to approximately 63,592, but between 1900 and 1910, the population increase was less than a thousand people.

Between 1910 and 1920, the population saw a decrease of nearly 10,000.

The following two decades saw minor growth of approximately 4,000 and 13,000 respectively.

While the following decades saw much larger growth, the much larger growth can be accredited to the introduction of modern technology.

If the above data says anything, Alaska was only a “land of opportunity” to a small fringe of Americans before WWII. If Russians were in control, I would predict that a much smaller amount of Americans would move to Alaska (practically all during the gold rush), and a much smaller amount would stay once the gold runs out.

on the other hand, doesn't that mean an even smaller population of Russians than OTL Americans? It doesn't matter what the populations wishes are if they can be easily overwhelmed.

[Venusian Si]

Originally Posted by iddt3

on the other hand, doesn't that mean an even smaller population of Russians than OTL Americans? It doesn't matter what the populations wishes are if they can be easily overwhelmed.

Possibly, but once Russian Alaska receives a highly likely population spike from the gold rush, I doubt that Americans will be able to simply overwhelm them.

And when the gold does run out, how many Americans are actually going to be willing to play the role of a jingoistic filibuster in a territory that (in the eyes of Americans there at the end of the gold rush)had lost all of its value(especially when they was no serious effort to do it to the much more profitable California)?

[CaliBoy1990]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Venusian Si

Reason – The majority of Alaska’s population is composed of patriotic Russians loyal to the current regime and or others apathetic to whoever rules Alaska.......That’s absolutely all that’s needed for Alaska to stay Russian.

You'll need more than that.

Based on your argument, I’m going to assume (and please correct me if I’m wrong) that you view Alaska as being in a very similar position that Texas was in the 19th century – a territory that is far from the heart of the motherland that is being overwhelmed by people of a foreign non-loyal culture.

Also based on comments you made of Russia holding Alaska no later than the early 20th century, I assume that you believe that Alaska would be overwhelmed by Americans/Canadians due to the gold rush.

Any similarities that Alaska’s situation has with Texas’s situation though are shallow at best.

In my view, no, not necessarily like Texas, but being swamped by foreigners does it seem be a plausible possibility under the right conditions.

For example, a Russian owned Alaska would have a nearly 100% probability of its gold rush being triggered by a Russian citizen. With that being a case, any would-be American prospector would most likely have to face competition from at least a few thousand Russian prospectors (who probably will have secured a decent amount of the available gold veins before the Americans will have). This competition and an even greater amount of failure among American prospectors will probably encourage a greater of percentage of Americans to return to the States than in comparison to original – perhaps even the vast majority of Americans.

It's possible, I suppose, though somewhat unlikely, since Siberia is closer to home and has far more valuable resources, including, quite possibly, gold. I would think that they would definitely explore Siberia first. In the example of America, in a scenario in which we had gotten both Alaska AND California at the same time, I would think we'd go for California first because it's more accessible(being on the same continent as the mainland really helps, of course.).

Here's a general look at Siberian resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia...resources#Gold

Even today, they're still finding gold up there........

Also, you have to consider the different attitudes that the people ITTL have. Despite Manifest Destiny leading to the Oregon War ITTL, Americans as a whole are far less interested in the west. For example, the Northwest is less populous than in OTL despite the fact that it’s America’s only access to the Pacific Ocean. Then there’s the issue of California. California would be vastly more attractive to Americans than Alaska could ever hope to be, yet by 1907, America has shown no strong desire to annex it. Even though it’s been mentioned that America occupies California during the war and permanently annexes at least some of California’s territory, the fact that it took decades for U&L’s America to do this speaks loudly about America’s attitudes towards Western North America.

I've definitely taken this into consideration more recently. Which is part of the reason why I've opened up to more possibilities considering Alaska, and in fact, I've stated this earlier as well.

As noted above, the Falklands War provides an excellent counterpoint to your argument.

Not exactly. The Falklands had very, very few resources and a war was only fought because the Argentines decided to invade without provocation. It was a rather pointless war, really.
The Argentines had to give up after just 2 months, partly because they knew that Britain actually did have the capability to fight a greater war; and even Britain faced difficulties, because of how far away the islands were, and problems with adequate air cover, amongst other things.

So you’re suggesting that having Alaska presently owned by Russia (even an ATL version that’s more economically/politically stable in comparison to OTL) is practically as implausible as Germany beating British forces in order to successfully invade Great Britain and then establishing a stable puppet government?

Really?

Who says Russia won't run into some problems in the future, though? And, as I stated before, Russia could perhaps just pull out of Alaska if they just happened to strike it lucky in Siberia. But they could still make an associated state out of it or something, at least temporarily.

All I'm saying is, it may be somewhat plausible at the moment, but the time where the status quo cannot hold will come eventually, and if Alaska doesn't get lost in a war, and that may indeed be the case, Russia will still have to figure out what to do when that day arrives: Do they make Alaska an associated state(like Australia was to Britain once)? Do they let Alaska declare independence? Or do they sell it to someone?

If you’re going to ask that though, you have to ask why America or Canada/Britain would wage such a war. Based on the above, I assume you would answer resources. So what resources would the Americans, British, or Canadians actually being willing to fight a war for?

In the case of gold, the majority of the supply will be depleted after the initial gold rush. By the time anyone would even think of waging war, the casus belli (and one that would be viewed very negatively by the international community) would have essentially vanished.

Wilcox hasn't said how much gold has been depleted, though, so this does remain valid speculation for the time being.

In the case of oil, it wouldn’t be until the latter half of the 20th century before the main deposits could be properly harvested, and by that time, Russia should be more than able to defend Alaska.

Depending on technological progress in the field of oil extraction, who knows? It could be as soon as 1925 or something for all we know.

There is a difference between willingly selling territory in which the buyer is in no way being unfairly forced to sell to the buyer and having one’s territory being invaded. If Canada (or in the case of TTL, California) invaded a completely “Worthless” piece of American real estate, would Americans really dismiss such an act? Would any sane American think “Oh, we have plenty of land just like that. Who cares if Canada takes a few acres or so?”

Apples and oranges. If a revanchist Canada were to take, say, Washington, we'd be able to deal with it fairly quickly, because we really don't have worthless real estate that we can't defend, and haven't had that problem for a very long time now. As far as we can deduce, from what has been written, TTL's Russia doesn't really have that luxury: is there even a Trans-Siberian railroad? If not, it makes an already Herculean job even tougher, and even with said railroad, the vastness and remoteness of Siberia alone makes for a true challenge, whether or not Alaska is invaded by a foreign power, or if it eventually decides to strike out on its own and whatever government was in power ATTM decided to go the warmongering route.

I have no doubt that the average Russian will view Alaska as being a part of a “Greater Siberia,” but to say that Russians wouldn’t care if they lost Alaska in a war or a foreign-fueled rebellion completely dismisses the influence of patriotism among the Russian people.

I think some would mourn if Alaska were to be lost thru war, true. I don't doubt the possibility of revanchism, especially if Russia were ever to come under the rule of a Stalin or Beria type figure. However, though, the reaction isn't likely to be nearly as harsh as if they had lost a crucial territory such as the Ukraine or the Caucasus; Alaska is, and will probably forever remain, a fringe territory and nothing more.

If the above data says anything, Alaska was only a “land of opportunity” to a small fringe of Americans before WWII.

This may be true, but wouldn't it apply just as much to TTL's Russians, then?

If Russians were in control, I would predict that a much smaller amount of Americans would move to Alaska (practically all during the gold rush), and a much smaller amount would stay once the gold runs out.

That could be true, I suppose. We'll have to wait and see what Wilcox wants to do, though.

Again, as I stated, there are a number of plausible possibilities for what could happen to Alaska after it is no longer under direct Russian control(war or peace? It doesn't really matter, at least not to me.); the status quo is not permanent by any means.