What are the best PODs for a war between the Russian Empire and the United States during the 19th century? How would a war arise, what would be its characteristics, and where/how would it be fought? And would other European powers get involved?
AHC: 19th century Russo-American war
- Thread starter Qhapaq Inka
- Start date
The Russian Empire pays a bigger focus on North American colonization in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and does not sign the RAC-HBC Agreement, keeping the coast of modern day British Columbia, Oregon and northern California to themselves and start to settle these lands with more effort than OTL. This colonization comes in opposition to the US and their Manifest Destiny shenanigans, thus they start a war against the Russian NA colonies, dragging the Empire in. Since Oregon and California would be separated from the mainland by a massive ocean without chance of resupplying and reinforcing their garrisons, they would get overrun fairly quickly, though I doubt that the Americans would attempt to attack Alaska or the singular colonies in Columbia.
Since it would be a colonial war, most European powers wouldn't pay much attention to it, though Britain would be more interested. If they wanted to, they could join the Americans here and take Alaska for themselves to solidify the Hudson Bay fur monopoly.
But that would cause a wider war with Russia... Maybe it can be TTL's equivalent to the Crimean conflict?
Colonial wars didn't usually spread much further than the localities fought, though. It would worsen the relations between Russia and Britain, but neither one would be willing or capable to attack the other in a meaningful matter aside for colonial warfare.
I am not sure about this honestly, especially as this is not the xviii century anymore and, if the situation is tense enough (as it often happened during the xix century) even a relatively minor incident in Alaska can be the spark for a full blown conflict, although I agree that it isn't likely to last long, unless other players come in, such as Turkey.
Militarily, Britain could send a naval squadron in the Baltic and engage the forts there, maybe even attempt a naval demonstration on St. Petersburg, while, depending on the exact period, Russia could menace British interests in Central Asia, although reaching India seems almost ASB to me.
British-US relations will likely improve much earlier than OTL and the effects on the American Civil War will be interesting, to say the least.
The problem is you would need quite a developed POD for this to occur, as historically the Russians really didn't care about Russian America. Especially after the decline of the Qing left them in a dominant position in East Asia. You would need to somehow eclipse Siberia as the prime focus for colonization and this isn't easy to do.
Yes, I know, it's quite a far-fetched idea and most likely impossible to achieve under normal circumstances, to be honest, but it's the best one I could think of for the challenge proposed.
Perhaps the Alaskan fur trade turns out to be more profitable than OTL? Or the Russians discover the gold deposits there earlier and begin exploitation?
What about US participation in some form in the Crimean War? Say, a small military contingent akin to what Piedmont-Sardinia sent? How likely was this? Or rather, why didn't it happen in OTL?
Because the US stood to gain jack from a venture like that. Russo-American relations were quite pleasant back in the 19th Century, and there wasn't any conflicting interests back in the day. It was only waaaaay later in the 20th Century when Red Russia (aka the Soviet Union) and America started butting heads for global influence and preaching their ideal form of economy.
Why would it be hard, it seems easy to sell it as 'All the resources of Siberia, much better climate.' Also ice free bases for the Pacific fleet.
Don't they have to go through Siberia to effectively colonize? After all, the Baltic and Black Sea are easily closed off.
And for however much you strengthen North America, you weaken their possessions in Asia. As Central Asia and China are of far more import than North America, which would consist of a series of trapper colonies with some other small industries which could be all too easily isolated.
Between Commodore Perry's first visit (1853) to Japan and his second visit (1854) the Russians had visited attempting to force the Japanese into a trade deal. The French and the British had express their wish to accompany him on the second visit so they didn't miss out on the spoils so I believe he left early for Japan. If the Russians had decided to be more forceful (ie bombarding coastal defenses & landing raiding parties) Perry would need to take a side as he know the French & British have ships coming and they are already at war with Russia in the Crimea it would be logical to join forces with the Japanese. Thus follows short sharp war followed by a trade treaties between Japan and it's sudden trio of saviors, the US as first in gets the best deal so Britain claims Alaska as a consolation prize.
Basically this:
Plus, it isn't just as simple as Russia sending off a load of colonists like a game of civilisation. OTL Siberia was a complex patina of military settlements, railway towns, new mines and resource bases, and prison systems. Sometimes people were forced, sometimes people went willingly, but in each case the Russian State wasn't the only actor in why they went there. You have to make it attractive for migrants to go and, realistically, after the Trans-Siberian railway opens up it is just so much easier to travel to the open lands of Siberia as a settler than take a series of trains and ships to the West Coast of America (remember, really, until Vladivostock develops as a major port the reality of travel for the majority of non-military Russians to America is going to be across the Atlantic and across the US by rail).
Pretty much all of this. Granted, if Russia did somehow manage to retain the rights to more of the west coast, colonization would be larger... But not by much at all. It would probably more resemble French Louisiana more than anything: one or two small cities on the mainland, trappers everywhere, and leaky, leaky borders.
And, if everything else remains equal, there won't be much incentive for the Russians to sell to the British, so it is more likely that the US would end up with it through a purchase, especially if it looks increasingly vulnerable to the British. (Better to sell to the friendly neutral rather than to let your current foe take it by force)
In the end, Russia was considered the friendliest of the European countries because their interests did not coincide with the US's, and as I read one time "they left us to our affairs and they to theirs." There was a special set of circumstances in the 20th century that lead to both countries becoming foes, after all.
How about a radical US during the Napoleonic Wars? They skirmish with Britain similar OTL, but also throw their support fully behind France, declaring war on the various coalitions, which would inevitably include Russia.
How do you get a radicalized US, though? They didn't experience all of the troubles that France did go through, much less all of the bloodshed and murders. At this stage, a radical movement would be more likely to shatter the country than to succeed.
I mean, I could see France and the US allied (despite the US immediately drifting back to being pro-British during the early war) for periods of time, but the Revolution did too much and went too far for the taste of most Americans, and their largest trading partner was Great Britain. They'd have to have more material support (which France couldn't provide) or a major decisive victory at sea against Britain to join in the dogpile.
A more brutal American Revolution that leaves the US with a strong hate of Britain and less faith in the moderates/the moderates were killed in the Revolution? Maybe they only won due to a levee en mass (such as it could be effected), and that results in some radicals gaining national prominence.