WI: Russia sells Alaska to Japan

[Hendryk]

In Japan, the Meiji Era was officially proclaimed in February 3, 1867. In March of the same year, Russia started negociations with the US in order to sell Alaska. I wonder: what if Japan had been approached first? With a growing population and a nascent industrial base, the archipelago would soon start looking for foreign outlets, and engage in an overtly imperialistic policy which led to war against Russia itself, against China, France, Britain, the Netherlands, and ultimately against the US. Could it have been preempted by the purchase of a huge, resource-rich, underpopulated territory right at the beginning of the Meiji Era?

Of course Japan may later have taken an interest in the Kamchatka peninsula, which lies so conveniently between the Kurile and the Aleutian islands.

Thoughts?

[carlton_bach]

At this early date, would the Russians actually have considered doing this? Would the British and US (fresh from colonial memories of ordering the Japanese government around) take that kind of deal seriously and be prepared to acept it?

I think it would be more probable if it happened a little later, but it would certainly be interesting. Not that it'd do much for the confrontation over Korea, but the gold deposits might help make Japan feel more stable and less under pressure to 'get its'.

[corourke]

Originally Posted by carlton_bach

I think it would be more probable if it happened a little later, but it would certainly be interesting. Not that it'd do much for the confrontation over Korea, but the gold deposits might help make Japan feel more stable and less under pressure to 'get its'.

Yes. I feel like, for Japan to buy Alaska, the sale would have to take place in the 1880s at the very earliest. Still an interesting proposition! The treaty would probably include an agreement of sorts over Manchuria. Not to say that any agreement reached would be respected by both sides, but I think for successful negotiations to occur, the subject of Northern China would have to be negotiated.

[Hendryk]

Originally Posted by carlton_bach

I think it would be more probable if it happened a little later, but it would certainly be interesting.

That's Plan B: Russia makes the offer to the US, but is rebuffed, and turns to Japan as an afterthought. It works either way. The point is to have a Japanese Alaska by the 1890s, when OTL's Japan started throwing its weight around.

As for the name Alaska would have in that TL, it might be something along the lines of Daikita 太北. Just speculating--I don't speak Japanese, this is just an educated guess from the fact that kanji are interchangeable with Chinese characters.

[Max Sinister]

Very interesting new idea. Hm, could've Japan afford it? The US paid 7.2 million $, and Japan was smaller and less developed...

[GBW]

Originally Posted by Hendryk

That's Plan B: Russia makes the offer to the US, but is rebuffed, and turns to Japan as an afterthought. It works either way. The point is to have a Japanese Alaska by the 1890s, when OTL's Japan started throwing its weight around.

As for the name Alaska would have in that TL, it might be something along the lines of Daikita 太北. Just speculating--I don't speak Japanese, this is just an educated guess from the fact that kanji are interchangeable with Chinese characters.

How would the British view such a deal, though? I'd think they wouldn't mind adding Alaska to Canada, but would they go to war with Russia and/or Japan over such a deal?

[Hendryk]

Originally Posted by GBW

How would the British view such a deal, though? I'd think they wouldn't mind adding Alaska to Canada, but would they go to war with Russia and/or Japan over such a deal?

I think the British would actually be relieved that Alaska doesn't go to the US, and is no longer in Russian hands. Short of getting it themselves, I figure they'd consider that leaving it in the hands of those harmless Japanese is the safest outcome.

[Wendell]

Having Japan actually colonize the place could really throw a monkey wrench into things to come.

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by Hendryk

That's Plan B: Russia makes the offer to the US, but is rebuffed, and turns to Japan as an afterthought. It works either way. The point is to have a Japanese Alaska by the 1890s, when OTL's Japan started throwing its weight around.

As for the name Alaska would have in that TL, it might be something along the lines of Daikita 太北. Just speculating--I don't speak Japanese, this is just an educated guess from the fact that kanji are interchangeable with Chinese characters.

Wiktionary gives the Japanese form of the state's current name as Arasuka shū (アラスカ州)

[Thande]

Very interesting WI, Hendryk. If it goes through, it will 1) throw a spanner in the works for any U.S. attempt to dominate the Pacific, 2) ensure even greater Allied superiority in the Pacific theatre given any WW1-analogue, and 3) once oil is found there, greatly reduce the Japanese war machine's dependence on outside oil sources that proved so crucial in the leadup to WW2...

[Fabilius]

Originally Posted by Thande

Very interesting WI, Hendryk. If it goes through, it will 1) throw a spanner in the works for any U.S. attempt to dominate the Pacific, 2) ensure even greater Allied superiority in the Pacific theatre given any WW1-analogue, and 3) once oil is found there, greatly reduce the Japanese war machine's dependence on outside oil sources that proved so crucial in the leadup to WW2...

Yes the oil is a significant change. Alaska has lots of raw materials which Japan lacks. Japan would be a lot more powerful like this.

Still of course this wouldn´t make them powerful enough to take on USA, and win, but might it prevent a war?

[marl_d]

the question really should be, would Japan be able to develop the resources that are there, remember the biggest reason for some of Alaskas development was people going up there during the gold rush and the US's advancement in Tech and man power advantage

[Smaug]

I thought that most of the alledged Alaskan Gold Rush happened on Canadian territory. I know there was a brief Gold Rush near Nome,(Help me out here, it was on the beaches). But the Klondike mostly took place on Canadian territory.

I will grant that Japan desperately needed wood products, and was starved for raw materials, the fishing grounds would also have been huge. If Japan had been patient......:l they would have had their oil.

If nothing else, it would have been a convenient place to get rid of ursurpers, and other peeps who wanted to take over. It would also give the Japanese the the feeling that they were on the same level as the European powers.

All in all, I don't think they had the resources to make the most out or thier newfound possession. Hell, It took the US till the early 60's. Japan has always been starved of raw materials. Don't get me wrong, they do well with what they get, but they have to import the raw materials, in order to do what they do. And they still make money, they sell us back our recycled steel, cheaper than when we made it:l

JMO

[GBW]

Here's a thought: Perhaps the selling price would be cheaper for Japan if the Japanese decide to cede control of Sakhalin and maybe also the Kuril Islands earlier?

Another thing, this might make Japan a viable contender for control of Hawaii against the US and the British.

[NapoleonXIV]

I don't think the Japanese would have found the oil any sooner than the US did and that was a long time after WWII. The North Slope is one of the most remote places on Earth.

OTOH, the Japanese did have more motivation to look, having none of their own. Even so, did the tech to get oil out of such places even exist back then?

In other minerals, fisheries and especially lumber I am quite sure they would have been very good at getting them out, (look at how well they've exploited the forests of the East Indies in OTL) and this would have certainly made some difference in reference to WWII. Since it's not oil, however, I don't see WWII as being stopped.

I don't agree that the sale was more likely later than even sooner, say 1865. The Brits, as has been said would be likely to support it anytime, since it was going to the 'harmless' Japanese.

If it's sold in 1865, or even early 1867 we have an interesting possiblility. What if Saigo Takamori and his followers get away, and go to set up a new samurai state, somewhere north of Nome?

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Hendryk

I think the British would actually be relieved that Alaska doesn't go to the US, and is no longer in Russian hands. Short of getting it themselves, I figure they'd consider that leaving it in the hands of those harmless Japanese is the safest outcome.

Hendryk

I agree that the British will probably be pretty content. However how will the yanks feel? Will they start claiming it breaches the Monroe doctrine and seek to seize it by force? I know strictly speaking the Monroe doctrine opposed European based imperialism but I could easily see it being spread to any non-US imperialism. Especially given this is shortly after the civil war. The US has built up a large military infrastructure and is probably feeling pretty cocky. Also there was a period of xenophobia at the time and while directed at the undesirable Catholic and Orthodox settlers starting to come in I think the Chinese brought in to work on the railways were pretty unpopular as well.

Steve

[David S Poepoe]

Thru out the 19th century the US did extend the Monroe Doctrine, which became a useful tool of Manifest Destiny, to even include the independent Kingdom of Hawaii.

The few problems with this WI is why and how would the Japanese, pre-1880, buy Alaska. They don't quite run into any material problems, such as shortages, until the turn of the century - if not until the 1920s. They don't have any major degree of surplus population. The Russo-Japanese War isn't going to be butterflied away since Russian expansion into the Far East is still going on and its the fear of Russian influence on the Korean peninsula that really frightened the Japanese.

Could the Japanese afford the Russian asking price? Alaska was actually making money for the Russians, but it must would have been hard and expensive to defend it. For whatever money the Japanese spend on it - where does the funds not go to?

That being said, had the Japanese come into possession of Alaska in the late 1800s I would suspect that one would see an increased American presence in the Pacific. There may be a drive to earlier annex Hawaii and definately a larger US naval force. I wouldn't think it unlikely that the US may actually press much harder to gain a Chinese 'treaty port'. Plan Orange may have a 'northern express' type of addendum to attack Japanese Alaska. It wouldn't be too hard to imagine that the Panama Canal may come into existence earlier, maybe by 1900 or so, in order to allow the reinforcement of the US Pacific Fleet.

I don't think there is any reason to believe that Japanese expansion into Korea and portions of China will be any different.

[corourke]

Originally Posted by David S Poepoe

I don't think there is any reason to believe that Japanese expansion into Korea and portions of China will be any different.

I disagree. The sale of Alaska to Japan, if it takes place after 1880, would have to include some statements about Manchuria and Korea. I don't think serious negotiations between Russia and Japan could take place without addressing those issues.

[Fabilius]

I don´t think USA would´ve done anything about Japan. Did they view them as a threat at that time?

Don´t think so...

[Nicole]

And we didn't really care about Alaska anyway... just buying it was "Seward's Folly", can you imagine the public outcry if we seemed to be going to war over a pile of snow?