RodentRevolution
Banned
This conjures up the image of a blue whale surrounded by prawns, "Oh no they have me surrounded" I think Sweden was a bit past its great power peak by 1860.
WI: Britain buys Alaska in the early 1860s?
- Thread starter david_herdson
- Start date
This conjures up the image of a blue whale surrounded by prawns, "Oh no they have me surrounded" I think Sweden was a bit past its great power peak by 1860.
Japan. But that's about as big of an issue geopolitically as Britain buying it. I do think that with Japan's population surplus, they'd make very good use of it.
Portugal was too poor in the 19th century to afford it. I believe the Netherlands was also rather poor in the 19th century to take on an additional expense like that.
Absolutely. However, Russias perception of threats from its neighbours have at times lagged geopolitical development. They may still have had concerns.
I do have an image of Sweden buying it in the expectation that they are going to discover the Northwest or Northeast passage any day now. And when they don't, going "Well we fucked up. What now?" "You know, we have tens of thousands of people leaving for the US Midwest every year, the vast majority absolutely dirt poor. If we offer some incentives, we might redirect some of that flow..."
Couple of nations I don't know much about, the Austro-Hungarians and Ottomans. Did they want to get in on the colonization thing but found themselves screwed by geography? What kind of shape were they in?
As usertron said, they had a lot on their plate, and taking Alaska wasn't really a huge priority. The Russian-American Company and the Hudson's Bay Company were rather ok if things didn't interfere with their profit margin.
Others could, I don't think Sweden could have justified/afforded the purchase, and with it being on the other side of the world I doubt they would consider it practical.
Prussia maybe, but it would really depend on whether a) Bismarck felt like mucking about in North America and b) whether the German Confederation wanted to buy.
The Netherlands weren't incredibly wealthy IIRC in this period, and other than them, I'm not sure what powers in the Pacific have the shipping/presence to want to carry through with this idea.
Well, IOTL many of those Scandinavian Midwestern settlers did end up settling the Matanuska-Susitna Valley during the Depression, so...
unprincipled peter
Donor
Alaska is a big strategic nothing regard a threat to Russia. If it were, Russia wouldn't have sold it, and if Russia was selling, Britain would have bought it. No one, No way, no how, is using Alaska as a threat to Russia.
Russia, quite correctly, knew it was not vital to Russian interests, industry, military, or expansion, and it was over extending themselves to maintain a road to nowhere. Thus, it was sell it to anyone who would give them a nickel for it. The US wanted it because it furthered their interests. As someone above said, the Seward's Folly moniker was a political slogan. the US, overall, wanted it. Britain was busy making oodles in India, and didn't see Canada as much of a area of desire, let alone spending money to expand it.
Overall, had Britain obtained it, nothing much changes. the mineral riches go to a different country. that's about it.
Russia, quite correctly, knew it was not vital to Russian interests, industry, military, or expansion, and it was over extending themselves to maintain a road to nowhere. Thus, it was sell it to anyone who would give them a nickel for it. The US wanted it because it furthered their interests. As someone above said, the Seward's Folly moniker was a political slogan. the US, overall, wanted it. Britain was busy making oodles in India, and didn't see Canada as much of a area of desire, let alone spending money to expand it.
Overall, had Britain obtained it, nothing much changes. the mineral riches go to a different country. that's about it.
usertron2020
Donor
Charles XII's ghost looks on...
Britain would have invaded Alaska before permitting a large German presence in NA.
Baby, its COLD outside! I can just imagine the vast teeming numbers of the Best of Lisbon's Sons rushing to mushing.
They had their hands full with the Dutch East Indies.
Spain? See: Portugal.
usertron2020
Donor
Then why Operation AO?
Yeah, overall, it comes down to motive. Though I must say I feel strongly that politically at least Russia preferred a sale to the USA. To the point of making a more determined sales pitch to the US, as opposed to facing the possibility of a future seizure by the UK.
I don't know if this idea really makes much sense, but it sounds so cool.
What would the culture be like in a Japanese settler colony? What might the Sakhalin situation be like, sandwiched between the mainland and the Aleutians? There are so many interesting possibilities, especially if WWII is not butterflied away.
People seem really confident about the topic on both ways, does no one have any sources of the political mindset around the time of the decision? There surely must be some discussion by the Russian Tsar, on the wiki it says it was offered to the UK but it is unsourced.
Though I will admit all this discussion about potential buyers and whether or not it would sell is completely ignoring the OP's premise which is the UK purchases it.
Though I will admit all this discussion about potential buyers and whether or not it would sell is completely ignoring the OP's premise which is the UK purchases it.
A giant Hokkaido comes to mind, to be honest, with the Aleuts sucked into Japanese culture as the Ainu were. Some might remain followers of the Russian Orthodox Church, while others would adopt Shinto-Buddhism.
Though, would Russia consider selling it to them back then? It could get messy down the road as their interests in Northeast Asia start to collide.
They were there before, though. It's just that without Latin America, colonization became nigh-impossible. What're they going to do? Dump Filipinos there? ._.
France might (MIGHT!) have gone for it as a screw you to Britain or the US particularly after Mexico. France was claiming territory in Indocina and the South Pacific at the time, and colouring Alaska blue may just have been tempting enough for Napoleon III to gamble on. After being forced to withdraw from Mexico, Alaska could be a consolation prize in for French Influence in the Americas. There may even be a ready population for immigration in the form of the Québécois, though that is probably me just stretching too far.
It may not be that farfetched . . . IOTL there was a very significant Québécois emigration to the United States between 1840 - 1930. Of course, they would need an economic reason to move to Alaska.
usertron2020
Donor
Not. A. Chance. The French were just completing/had just completed their withdrawal from Mexico by the time of the OTL sale to the US of Alaska. Anti-French feeling in the US was running every bit as high as was interest in any more North American adventurism by Paris was running low. And things were looking dark on France's own eastern border by this time.
Giving the Quebecois a choice between a poor homeland (the poorest province in Canada before the oil was discovered) in a cold land, OR moving to and living in a partially unexplored sub arctic environment thousands of miles away OR moving a short distance south (New England, New York) to a much more economically friendly place (jobs!)? Easy choice.
There are too many people in the US and Western Canada closer. If it was ever thought that a fool like Nappy III was going to get a major foothold in North America AFTER his Mexico disaster, the only question is who gets Alaska first?
This is actually the best scenario I've seen for Britain getting Alaska: Russia and France enter talks, and Britain launches a pre-emptive strike. Though it would be very difficult logistically even for Britain.
Last edited:
Napoleonrules
Banned
Honestly the Napoleon III scenario IS the most likely and much more likely than any aggressive attack by Britain which is the lowest likely scenario. Canada and British Columbia may both push for an attack, may even see some sort of Metis led "invasion" about as successful as the Republic of Canada rebellion, the Red River rebellion, or the one in Manitoba.
What is interesting and fun is what could happen with a French Alaska. Eventual sale to the US, eventual union with Canada. Or, probably not when Prussia/Germany defeats Napoleon III, but later perhaps during one of the Morocco crisis' could Alaska be transfered to Germany in return for German acceptance of some thing else? Could we have Germany support France in Hawai'i in return for Alaska; or trade German Samoa, maybe Togo? Boy that ATL would be fun! France long had run ins with Hawai'i with the Laplace affair (1840?) and the sack of Honolulu in the (1850s?) And after taking Tahiti the king of Hawai'i even considered bringing Tahiti's ruler to the islands and unite the dynasties.
The US starting around 1885 was fearful of German influence in the Caribbean and Pacific. A German Alaska could lead to war. WWI could see the US enter earlier and actually want Alaska, Britain would see that as a wonderful concession in return for American enterance. And neither will want the Japanese there. May start as a LoN mandate and then UN trusteeship, but probably becomes a territory like the Northern Marianas chose instead of the weird status of Palau, Micronesia, and Marshall Islands; the Cold War will preclude the US from allowing Alaska too much leeway to become independent or even a Puerto Rico like status prior to 1991 and the US won't want to keep it in UN trustees hip status where the Soviets can put pressure and cause trouble.
What is interesting and fun is what could happen with a French Alaska. Eventual sale to the US, eventual union with Canada. Or, probably not when Prussia/Germany defeats Napoleon III, but later perhaps during one of the Morocco crisis' could Alaska be transfered to Germany in return for German acceptance of some thing else? Could we have Germany support France in Hawai'i in return for Alaska; or trade German Samoa, maybe Togo? Boy that ATL would be fun! France long had run ins with Hawai'i with the Laplace affair (1840?) and the sack of Honolulu in the (1850s?) And after taking Tahiti the king of Hawai'i even considered bringing Tahiti's ruler to the islands and unite the dynasties.
The US starting around 1885 was fearful of German influence in the Caribbean and Pacific. A German Alaska could lead to war. WWI could see the US enter earlier and actually want Alaska, Britain would see that as a wonderful concession in return for American enterance. And neither will want the Japanese there. May start as a LoN mandate and then UN trusteeship, but probably becomes a territory like the Northern Marianas chose instead of the weird status of Palau, Micronesia, and Marshall Islands; the Cold War will preclude the US from allowing Alaska too much leeway to become independent or even a Puerto Rico like status prior to 1991 and the US won't want to keep it in UN trustees hip status where the Soviets can put pressure and cause trouble.
usertron2020
Donor
Setting aside the politics, once gold, silver, and other precious resources start getting exploited the days of Alaskan possession by any power other than the US or the UK are numbered. And don't forget that the Canadians are limited to Vancouver as a base of exploitation into Alaska (the Yukon is too remote and rugged), while the US has the entire West Coast from Seattle to San Diego. I can not see the UK risking possible war with the second most powerful English-Speaking People in the world over a bunch of snow and ice. Plus, having Alaska as a US possession saves Britain the trouble and resources of defending it against Russia or any other greedy imperialist powers (Germany, Japan, whoever) while offering the opportunity of improving relations between the US and the Empire (1) and well as helping to increase trade between a growing Western Canada and Western/Northwestern US. (2)
1) Which is something the Empire wanted FAR more than Alaska after its disastrous foreign policy of Pro-Confederate Neutrality for most of the American Civil War. (3)
2) Canada would always be constricted in terms of LOCs between herself and Alaska. Even the US, with its long western coastline, is mostly limited to air and sea LOCs with Alaska, even today.
3) The only major European power who had a foreign policy that was one of Pro-Union Neutrality? Russia! People may poo poo Russia's sending of armored cruisers to New York City and San Francisco as either a cynical stunt or as a means of fleet dispersal during a political crisis with the British (over Poland?), but American, Russian and even Soviet (!) histories remark at the political importance of the message being sent at the time that in the event of Foreign Intervention the Union would not be alone.
Even with the fall of Napoleon the III, the establishment of the Third Republic, and the passage of the 1867 Great Reform Act (please don't poo poo that either), Franco-British relations with the USA remained sour for many decades. It took things like the Statue of Liberty and a dedicated 50 years of a Pro-American foreign policy by the British Foreign Office to help right the ship of Anglo-American and Franco-American relations.
Russia selling Alaska to the Empire would represent a huge damper on these efforts. So I wonder...? WOULD Britain buy Alaska from Russia if the US wasn't interested? Or might they in fact offer to mediate/broker a deal between the US and Imperial Russia to insure the original offer to the US goes through? If Russia KNOWS that the British won't interfere with a Russia to US deal, both the original partners might be willing to go ahead after all. AND Britain's willingness to be step aside and give its assurances to respect the deal could represent the first steps by London to engage in its OTL foreign policy towards the USA 1865-1917 (Not counting the settlements over the claims against the depredations of the CSS Alabama).
1) Which is something the Empire wanted FAR more than Alaska after its disastrous foreign policy of Pro-Confederate Neutrality for most of the American Civil War.
(3)2) Canada would always be constricted in terms of LOCs between herself and Alaska. Even the US, with its long western coastline, is mostly limited to air and sea LOCs with Alaska, even today.
3) The only major European power who had a foreign policy that was one of Pro-Union Neutrality? Russia! People may poo poo Russia's sending of armored cruisers to New York City and San Francisco as either a cynical stunt or as a means of fleet dispersal during a political crisis with the British (over Poland?), but American, Russian and even Soviet (!) histories remark at the political importance of the message being sent at the time that in the event of Foreign Intervention the Union would not be alone.
Even with the fall of Napoleon the III, the establishment of the Third Republic, and the passage of the 1867 Great Reform Act (please don't poo poo that either), Franco-British relations with the USA remained sour for many decades. It took things like the Statue of Liberty
and a dedicated 50 years of a Pro-American foreign policy by the British Foreign Office to help right the ship of Anglo-American and Franco-American relations.Russia selling Alaska to the Empire would represent a huge damper on these efforts. So I wonder...? WOULD Britain buy Alaska from Russia if the US wasn't interested? Or might they in fact offer to mediate/broker a deal between the US and Imperial Russia to insure the original offer to the US goes through? If Russia KNOWS that the British won't interfere with a Russia to US deal, both the original partners might be willing to go ahead after all. AND Britain's willingness to be step aside and give its assurances to respect the deal could represent the first steps by London to engage in its OTL foreign policy towards the USA 1865-1917 (Not counting the settlements over the claims against the depredations of the CSS Alabama).
There was no one insane enough to launch a military campaign against Alaska until the Empire of Japan tried it in 1942. Why would the Russians, who as we've been discussing we're trying to get rid of the indefensible drain on their treasury, decide to launch an insanely costly/ridiculous attack to get it back? How would the Germans even do this without a Pacific fleet? Why would the Japanese even want the place when from the 1870s to 1945 their strategic focus was on China and South East Asia where all the easily exploitable resources are??
Why on Earth would the US decide to fight a war over a Russian territory they don't own, offers no strategic benefits, and they don't have a naval base within 100 miles of and aren't even contiguously connected to by land in the 1860s at the height of Reconstruction if the British are buying it?
1) Which is something the Empire wanted FAR more than Alaska after its disastrous foreign policy of Pro-Confederate Neutrality for most of the American Civil War.
There was no "pro-Confederate" neutrality by the British government.
I sincerely urge you to look up the Canadian response to the Yukon gold rush. Canada would have zero trouble in making her presence known in Alaska were it necessary.
3) The only major European power who had a foreign policy that was one of Pro-Union Neutrality? Russia! People may poo poo Russia's sending of armored cruisers to New York City and San Francisco as either a cynical stunt or as a means of fleet dispersal during a political crisis with the British (over Poland?), but American, Russian and even Soviet (!) histories remark at the political importance of the message being sent at the time that in the event of Foreign Intervention the Union would not be alone.
That's exactly what it was, and I've yet to read any non-internet source which claims otherwise. The tsar wasn't about to stick his neck out militarily for the Union and that was that.
In short, no. Britain wasn't about to facilitate the enlarging of US territory in the 1860s, and put off any notion of paying the Alabama claims until they entered into a negotiation where a tribunal of three nations awarded the US 15.5 million dollars in compensation. That was as much as Britain was willing to do.
Hell Disraeli might decide to add Alaska to the empire just to rub the tsars nose in it. Alaska will very much be played out according to Anglo-Russian relations, not Anglo-American relations if the US refuses to buy it. It's far closer to British bases than American ones in the first place.