In all likelihood, it is not going to stay Russian forever, and quite possibly even shorter than OTL. At the very least, once the gold rush starts, the USA is totally going to evict the Russkies, by peaceful purchase if possible, by force of arms if need be. All the concerns that drove the OTL purchase are magnified ITTL due to the direct border.
Possible...
That's just stupid. It is one thing for the US in *OTL to start a war with an obvious basket case like Mexico in order to get masses of very productive land and support pro-US rebels who are mostly US citizens.
It is another thing entirely to unilaterally invade one of the (perceived) Great Powers of the day over a frozen wasteland that many people in OTL opposed purchasing. Anyone mad enough to suggest the US should attack Russia in order to tidy up the map would be lynched not heeded.
And the only concern that drove the OTL purchase was that the Tsar was short of cash and wanted to annoy Britain as he already had plenty of frozen wasteland in Siberia. This coupled with the US had a massively expansionist Sec State in Seward enabled the OTL sale.
Sharing a border is going to make Russia less likely to sell, which is the key dynamic, not US opinion.
You also have a point. The same conditions that conspired to spark the purchase could recur ITTL, or they could not do so. A war over Alaska in the near future seems unlikely (but odder things have happened), though let me ask this - if such a war did occur, who do you think would win?
I said that the USA is going to go to war to get Alaska if Russia has not yet sold it *once the gold rush is started*. That is, a frozen wasteland that is known to be chock-full with gold and is hence attracting a lot of US settlers.
Is there any particular reason why ITTL the Tsar is expected to never be short on cash, the USA to never have an expansionist Sec State, and Russia ought not to deem the Bering Strait a fine border with America, given that it already has plenty of frozen wasteland as a buffer ?
All possibly true - but will enough of them be true at the same time to make a deal happen?
Its still an aggressive war for a purely financial reason without even the excuse of "poor oppressed Texans". Unless Congress is full of Draka's that is going to be a very hard sell.
Not necessarily - sadly, you don't have to be Drakas or Nazis to bad things in the name of nationalism.
While a sale is perfectly reasonable and could happen, a sale is only possible before the discovery of minerals when it was thought a frozen wasteland only good for fur.
Always avoid absolutes!
The OTL sale required three unlikely things to happen simultaneously, a Tsar willing to sell Alaska cheap, an expansionist Sec State wanting to buy and by the far the most important factor Congress willing to pay.
That's one way - not the only way.
As the the appropriation of money needed to purchase Alaska was delayed by more than a year due to opposition in the House of Representatives it is very easy for the butterflies to turn the other way.
Also remember it wasn't just the Tsar wanting to raise money, there was also the desire to cause trouble for Britain by either starting a bidding war or make Britain worry about the defence of the Canadian West. That isn't going to be a factor here, reducing the chance of a sale.
Not much of a factor, though maybe it could be - after all, the US didn't share a border with Alaska when they bought it, why should the DSA/Britain to bid on it?
It's up to Glen and a sale could happen I just think that its unlikely in this political situation.
Fair enough.
"Poor oppressed US settlers" in a land that is ruled by a reactionary autocracy. If it was possible to start a jingoist frenzy and a war about a ship that blew up in dubious circumstances, I have little doubt that a war could be started about Tsarist police coming down hard on rowdy US settlers, or somesuch. I think you overestimate the awe that the US public is going to have of Russia in late 19th century.
That is an...interesting...comparison.
At least the price would go up massively. But about that, my point is that knowledge of gold shall make the USA willing to get it by any means necessary.
Why, exactly? What's in it for the US government to buy a land with an unknown quantity of gold for a known high price?
Or it may not. The common border is going to make the USA more willing to "tidy up the map" and bring the border to the Bering Strait. That may easily make butterflies flutter in the opposite direction, and Tsars short on cash and expansionist US Administrations do not come so rarely in 19th century.
A point, a definity point. Of course, the other question is 'when'...
I'm very dubious that it ever was a significant factor, and anyway, if we go for the diplomatic manipulation angle, Russia may want to sell Alaska in order to make the USA focused on the southern border.
A strategic sale to the US to put pressure on the British Empire - that's an interesting thought.
As far as Alaska, why not flood it with American settlers like OTL Texas, and have the Czar sell it to the USA as it is defacto US territory anyway?
Yet another interesting thought.
Or maybe this would be a fine time to unleash William Walker?
What about William Walker?
No, just no. There is a difference between trying (and failing) to take over Guatamala and stealing a colony off one of the Great Powers of Europe.
More or less true. Unless you can play another Great Power off against them.
The US didn't "flood" Texas with American settlers, that was empty, highly fertile land luring American settlers to move, with no involvement from the US government. Pre-gold the only thing that Alaska offered was fur trapping and timber. The US has plenty of timber closer to markets and the Great North can provide all the fur the US can want. There were very good reasons almost no one moved there pre 1867.
This is true - on the other hand, it wouldn't take many to turn Americans into a majority there.
I'm not overestimating the fear in which Russia is held among the US public. I expect that the majority of the US public wouldn't know anything about Russia, however the US Government is made up of people who are aware that Russia is a Great Power that can pose a major threat to the US and are going to be cautious.
That is a point. Again, the timing is something to consider.
As to US miners getting abused by evil Tsarist police during a Gold Rush that is plausible, but the US is still going to be more cautious about tangling with Russia than Spain. Especially as discovering Gold is going to require greater settlement, i.e. more Russians to be abandoned in the event of transfer and more Russians to abandon fishing and fur trapping to take up mining, thus limiting the ability of US miners to even get to the mines to be abused.
Again, timing is important.
As for the price going up massively think for a moment. The US isn't going to pay more than the land is "worth" and after gold that valuation is going to be dependent on how much everyone thinks is there. The Tsarists are going to have to assume that there is a massive amount and charge accordingly otherwise the risk being dangerously embarrassed. The US in contrast doesn't want to get caught over paying, this is going to lead to a massive problem agreeing a price. The discovery of Gold would thus probably kill any chance of a voluntary sale.
Maybe, maybe...
That leaves the military option. As an actual land invasion is impracticable due to the climate it would be a naval war. While the Russian Pacific fleet is very weak at this point the US Pacific fleet is even smaller and weaker and reinforcing the respective Pacific fleets is very hard for both sides. As the Russians have the advantage of the defence and are still the richer power, plus considering the massive difficultly the US would have projecting power I would bet on a Russian win pre-1875. Post that the US West Coast is probably developed enough to hand the advantage to the US.
Interesting thoughts. I would imagine that the US would still have access to Alaska than Russia in this time period. I tend to agree that pre-transcontinental railroad or isthmus canal the Russians might have the upper hand. However, after one or more of those, it may be the US who has the edge. One key question is what state is Russia in at the time, and who are the allies and adversaries of the two at the time.
This is reasonable, the great flood of US people is going to happen with the gold rush.
These are reasonable points but it all depends on when the discovery of the gold happens. IOTL it was considerably late, precisely because the land was underdeveloped for a long time, for the reasons you quoted above. I'm not aware of any reasons to accelerate the discovery substantially ITTL. The later the discovery happens, the more opportunity there is for butterflies favorable to a pre-discovery purchase to align, and conversely, if it does not happen, for the USA to be strong enough as not to fear a war with Russia overmuch, and get the upper hand in such a conflict. My whole reasoning about the military option for Alaska was indeed based on such a conflict happening in the 1880s-1900s.
Reasonable thoughts.
Aracnid;3935507That I semi-agree with said:
A Russian transcontinental railroad would certainly help bolster Russian resolve to keep Alaska. Sounds like the later a Russo-American War is, the bigger it would be, but also the more likely to end in an American win.
The key for an late war is the wider geo-political situation which neither of us know. It could be a Spanish-American War situation with Russia isolated, this benefits the US. Or Russia could be closely allied with Britain (and the DSA) against a European threat making the US very unlikely to risk a two front war which it would lose. Or Britain and Russia could be at war in an alt Crimean War scenario and the US can jump in to improve relations with the UK and grabs Alaska as booty. All are possible, but all are far enough from the current point in the tl that its impossible to predict. All we can say it that a sale in the next decade is very unlikely and I reckon a voluntary sale at any point is pretty unlikely.
I agree with all the above except to note that the geopolitical situation can change rapidly.
Can I just point out here that, under [Russian] Alaskan law, immigration by foreigners was illegal? Only Russians were permitted to live, work, or trade in Alaska - exception of the British, who negotiated the right to trade there after a few years OTL, but with no Canada this may be butterflied.
Or the US do the same.
Either way, any enterprising US citizens are simply going to be kicked out by the authorities the second they land, and the Russian Navy WAS regularly patrolling Alaska to enforce this - and it's one thing engineering a war to protect "the American diaspora under the cruel heel of a foreign oppressor", and quite another to start a war because the diaspora which has attempted to plant itself under the heel of a foreign oppressor has not been allowed to oppress itself. This isn't an age where you have a right to travel to foreign countries willy-nilly, remember. If the Russians refuse Americans to enter Alaska, the law is on their side and so will the international community be.
Good to know, good to know...
Wrong. While lack of air conditioning makes the DSA (or parts of it, Appalachia has and the northern tier of the DSA has a perfectly nice climate) less attractive than New England to Europeans, its not as much of a factor as the Canadian winter!!
Also while the US is going to be the most successful at luring immigrants as the "light of freedom etc." all I'm arguing is that the DSA will do better than Canada which is really very easy to manage considering the tiny numbers Canada managed to lure pre-1900, that is inevitably going to be depress US immigration numbers as the size of the "cake" is pretty fixed.
Fair points both. On the other hand, I love playing devil's advocate...who says the 'cake' is fixed?
Also while immigrants to the DSA have to compete with Black and Indian labour, they no longer have to compete with free slave labour, boosting the DSA's attractiveness. Also immigrants to the USA are probably going to a less labour starved market due to the lower population in the DSA and greater demand for labour intensive jobs, so if anything the Labour Market is going to work in the DSA's favour.
Maybe...but riddle me this. Does India alone have enough manpower to meet any demand for labor the DSA might have?
