In all honesty, I just don't see it happening. Unless you can get a big permanent population there.
California-type situation maybe? Other than that, I have no idea.
I think Marshal Duan was referring to the California Gold Rush.What? California was never independent. Well not really.
What if it became a penal colony for political dissidents it gives them a reason to rebel and this would increase the population coupled with an early gold rush would give a high enough population to sustain itself for long period of time.I think Marshal Duan was referring to the California Gold Rush.
I agree with the earlier posters, you need a larger population in Alaska to sustain independence, and there's no way it's going to be independent if its after industrialization, and oil is needed.
Assume that Russia holds onto it through 1895. Assume also that they managed to snatch all of the gold part of the Klondike (Dawson City, so a little east). And over this time, Russian settlers have continued trickling in. Now, have the Gold Rush go as planned, with a huge influx of American and Canadian gold seekers, but with men from Latin America and Western Europe represented as well. Now, an eclectic mix of people occupies a (temporarily) wealthy province at the edges of the Russian Empire.
Naturally, the foreigners won't be happy living under Russian dominion. But the heavy Russian presence and the balance of Americans and Canadians prevents one country or the other from annexing Alaska (as does, to a lesser extant, the threat of war with Russia). And so the settler declare an independent Republic, which they are able to hold with minimal resistance from Russia.
And so, for the next seventy years ago, Alaska relies on maritime trade to keep it economically viable. And then oil is discovered.
OK assume Russia holds on to Alaska through 1895 and on. What if America joins japan against Russia in 1905, and siezes Alaska.
And some in a peace treaty, they agree to make it a nuetral state, unlikely. i think USA would sieze it, or maybe Canada siezes it first.
After 1905 Russia would be pretty powerless to stop Canada or USA siezingit.
If Canada siezes it i wonder if that affects World War 1.
Maybe it would be possible to position more Russians there and then still have the Tsar sell of the huge chunk of North America
but to Britain rather than the United States.
Incorporated as part of Canada, Alaska's Russian majority later on leads a Quebec Independence-style movement and after a successful referendum is made independent?
The Russians wouldn't be doing this, they were colonial rivals with the British, remember. If Alaska suddenly became more worthwhile for the Russians or they at least thought so, they'd be keeping it or follow OTL and sell it the Americans.
I kinda doubt Alaska would be a Russian majority, unless it was quiet under populated, which is against what's been worked out so far. Having Alaska more populated means Anglos, though I could see a small Russian political party that focused on Alaskan elections.![]()
Alaska must have been worth something, what about Gold. 1905, Alaska still part of Russian Empire, Russian defeat, settlers rebel, Canada invades to grab the Gold and support the settlers.![]()
Or give it independence with the US and Russia guaranteeing its neutrality.