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]

Originally Posted by Nickcvader

An Alaskan SSR, interesting.

And now, Alaskamenistan.

LOL and sigged.

[MacCaulay]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Grey Wolf

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]

Originally Posted by Amerigo Vespucci

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]

Originally Posted by MacCaulay

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]

Originally Posted by Snowman23

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]

Originally Posted by 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....)

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]

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

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]

Originally Posted by Dialga

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!

Originally Posted by Dialga

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?

Originally Posted by Dialga

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Dialga

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.

Originally Posted by Dialga

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]

Originally Posted by MacCaulay

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