Japanese Alaska

Tetsu

There have been plenty of threads dedicated to the Czar keeping Alaska; but I had an idea. A lot of people think Alaska could have made Russia richer and better off in the 20th century, but others think it needed British, French, or American investment in order to properly exploit the region.

This idea proposes that the latter is true- and Russia doesn't get her investment. So Alaska stays what it had been to Russia prior to 1867- just a faraway colony that didn't bring much revenue.

Come 1905, however, something changes. The Japanese have just defeated the Czar's forces, and are demanding the handover of Alaska to Tokyo. With some diplomatic maneuvering, Russia gets paid for the colony- but the Czar didn't really want to keep it for much longer.

Alaska is now in Japanese hands. How does this affect the future? Assuming the rest of the timeline travels pretty much like our world, does a Japanese Alaska help Japan against the USA in 1941? It's much closer to mainland America, and places such as Seattle and San Fransisco are certainly within striking range. Do the Alaskan resources, such as gold and oil, help Tokyo to any great extent?
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
Constantinople said:
Would the US let Japan get Alaska?
Click to expand...

This tread has been discussed before.

Japan can not get Russian Alaska since it falls under the Monroe Doctrine. This would make alot of complications since the only person who came forward to negotiate the end of the Russo-Japanese War was Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States. I'm fairly certain that he would make it clear to the Japanese that the ownership of Alaska was not on the negotiating table. Anti-Japanese sentiment on the West Coast would force him to take a stand in favour of Russia.

It also entirely likely that American interest in Alaska will be fairly substantial by 1900. Actually, the Russian American Company made pretty good money in Alaska, its just the Russian Government that considered it not making money - in the 1860s. The longer the Russians have Alaska the more money they will draw out of it. It wasn't a money loser.

Also possession of Russian Alaska really changes the state of things by 1900. The possession of Alaska may (stressing may) draw Russian interests away from Korea.
 

The Gunslinger

If the US doesn't aquire Alaska, perhaps it won't have quite so much interest in the Pacific. They might maybe even let the Spanish keep their Far Eastern posessions.
 
Hapsburg

Hapsburg

Banned
Why would other countries follow the Monroe Doctrine? They're not necisarilly subject to the US, which at the time of the Mon.Doc. being created, is a weak and backwater nation...unless you mean that Japan buys it from Russia after the US becomes a formidable power?
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
The Gunslinger said:
If the US doesn't aquire Alaska, perhaps it won't have quite so much interest in the Pacific. They might maybe even let the Spanish keep their Far Eastern posessions.
Click to expand...

The United States was interested in the Pacific before it owned California. Trade and interest in opening up the China Market has always been important.
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
Hapsburg said:
Why would other countries follow the Monroe Doctrine? They're not necisarilly subject to the US, which at the time of the Mon.Doc. being created, is a weak and backwater nation...unless you mean that Japan buys it from Russia after the US becomes a formidable power?
Click to expand...

Look in your history books - tho I know you don't do that already.

By 1904 the United States is not a weak country. The Monroe Doctrine, as viewed by the US, relates to the entire Western Hemisphere - into which hemisphere (if you can't consult an atlas) includes Alaska.

By 1905 the Japanese aren't in any position to continue the war and aren't about to want to face another one. They want peace as soon as possible since they are going bankrupt.
 
Hapsburg

Hapsburg

Banned
oh. well, still, they other Great Powers are still more powerful than the US at that point in time, and the US really can't back up an age-old doctrine when the sabers or Germany, Austria-Hungary, Britain, France, Russia, and the samurai sword of Japan are pointing at their throat.
All in the defense of the European Imperialism, eh? Remember, the Dreikaiserbund could be reinacted and extended to create the "Vierkaiser und eine Koenig und eine Praesident Bund" (Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian, and Japanese Empire, the British Kingdom and the French Republic)
That is, of course, in the incredibly unlikely event that the monarchist nations and france band together to defend thier Imperialistic policies.

Most likely, if Japan got Alaksa from Russia in the Jap-Rus War, the US would make a few threats, but settle things with negotiations.
 
Hapsburg

Hapsburg

Banned
David S Poepoe said:
Look in your history books - tho I know you don't do that already.

By 1904 the United States is not a weak country. The Monroe Doctrine, as viewed by the US, relates to the entire Western Hemisphere - into which hemisphere (if you can't consult an atlas) includes Alaska.

By 1905 the Japanese aren't in any position to continue the war and aren't about to want to face another one. They want peace as soon as possible since they are going bankrupt.
Click to expand...

Like i said, I thought it was when the US is in the 1820s or something...Othniel's post clarified that it wasnt. see my post directly b4 this one.
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
Hapsburg said:
Remember, the Dreikaiserbund could be reinacted and extended to create the "Vierkaiser und eine Koenig und eine Praesident Bund" (Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian, and Japanese Empire, the British Kingdom and the French Republic)
That is, of course, in the incredibly unlikely event that the monarchist nations and france band together to defend thier Imperialistic policies.
Click to expand...

Not too incredible since Britain, France and Russia formed the Triple Entente.
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
Hapsburg said:
Like i said, I thought it was when the US is in the 1820s or something...Othniel's post clarified that it wasnt. see my post directly b4 this one.
Click to expand...

The relationship with Alaska and the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 is given in the very first entry at the top of the thread.
 

Othniel

The US could go head to head with any power at that time except Great Britian. It might against Russia, but against Japan, A-H, or Italy, they'll win. Against the Ottomans, uh...not to sure....too odd a scenario for the Ottomans to ever get to us or we to them. Germany vs. the USA equals stalemate. This of corse is my eyes, but the strength ran with four nations after the Civil and Franco-Prussian wars. Meji Japan, Germany, the US, and Russia. Britian is above all of those....
 
Hapsburg

Hapsburg

Banned
but UK and Germany hated the fuck out of each other then. if Russia, Japan, UK, Germany, Austria, and France banded together in a mutual agreement to just whack the shit out of the US, that would be highly unlikely. mainly b/c they were bitter enemies at this time, they just hadnt engaged in full-scale warfare yet (that has to wait until 1914), and that the US navy is damn strong. the Anglo-German fleets would lose around 1/3 of thier ships if they engage in naval war with the US.

of course, this is all speculation.

and i do read my history books. I just havent read enough of them. i don't over-obsess about it.
 

Othniel

The US is basically a big fat unreachable island before WW1, anybody tries to invade and its a MAJOR disadvantage, we have places that can resupply, they don't...(overseas invasion) besides nobody is dumb enough to invade the western us. (one huge mountain ranges, two, almost everybody owned a gun at that time out here.) :D
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
Hapsburg said:
but UK and Germany hated the fuck out of each other then. if Russia, Japan, UK, Germany, Austria, and France banded together in a mutual agreement to just whack the shit out of the US, that would be highly unlikely. mainly b/c they were bitter enemies at this time, they just hadnt engaged in full-scale warfare yet (that has to wait until 1914), and that the US navy is damn strong. the Anglo-German fleets would lose around 1/3 of thier ships if they engage in naval war with the US.

of course, this is all speculation.

and i do read my history books. I just havent read enough of them. i don't over-obsess about it.
Click to expand...

You've got a few things mixed up.

The two powers that really fought full-scale warfare before 1914 were the Russians and Japanese. Its just that everybody forgot everything by 1914.

The US couldn't field a two ocean fleet yet, but these oceans formed the first line of defense for the nation. The Japanese, Russians, Germans and Austrians are local powers as opposed to Britain and France which are global powers. The Japanese, Russians and especially the Germans and Austrians don't have want it takes to make war against the United States in the early 1900s.

Losses in an American and Anglo-German conflict would probably weigh against the Americans.

Britain isn't going to do anything to tick the US off because of Canada.
 
Hapsburg

Hapsburg

Banned
yeah. unless they use Alaska and Canada as staging zones, and do not officially declare war until after they invade, the European Powers and Japan might have a chance of taking Michigan and Maine if war broke out.

That is, IF war broke out, Othniel...

I think this war would be an interesting war to see and hear...
*opens up MS Word*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top