AHC/WI: Russia doesn't sell Alaska to the U.S. in 1867, and instead cedes it to Japan in 1875

In OTL, Russia and Japan signed the Treaty of Saint Petersburg in 1875. This treaty essentially stated that Japan would cede its half of Sakhalin Island to Russia, and in return Russia would cede the Kuril Islands to Japan.

So, in an ATL where Russia didn't get rid of Alaska in 1867, might they have handed it to Japan in an alternate version of the Saint Petersburg treaty in 1875? This alternate treaty would be something like: Japan recognizes Russian ownership of all of Sakhalin Island, the Kuril Islands, and the Sea of Okhotsk. In return, Russia hands over ownership of Alaska to Japan.

Are Russia and Japan likely to agree to such a thing, and if so, how would a Japanese Alaska develop?

I imagine a Japanese Alaska would end up becoming much more populous than OTL Alaska, for starers.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Wouldn't Russia want to get some money out of Alaska, though? Indeed, would Japan have agreed to a sale of Alaska at a price acceptable to Russia?
 
Thing is, this doesn't really clarify part of the point of the treaty: to delineate borders on both sides which both countries disputed. There was no clear line of division in either case,with border instances and simultaneous claiming occurring at both times.

Alaska, on the other hand, was not part of any boundary dispute. (not with the Japanese, at least). As such, there wouldn't have been an inclusion. While settling the Kurils dispute was vital, it isn't worth giving up a territory the size of Alaska for a few islands.

In the context of a Russo-Japanese war, there could be some semblance of this (although, partly, if the US arbitrates the decision, there might be some resistance to Japan moving into North America). And if the choice ever comes down to Karafuto or Alaska, Karafuto will be chosen every time (distance, historical connections, better defended borders, etc).

It would have to come down to a situation where Japan wants to purchase it in addition to having no competitive power that is opposed to it drastically. Perhaps a Russia that is really taking a beating (internal troubles) while the US is caught up in a later, more damaging Civil War and Japan gets the cash to offer the proposal?
 
I've always thought the best (peaceful) way to get a Japanese Alaska is for Russia to sell it to someone besides Britain or the US, who then sells it to Japan for some reason or another.

Well, Japan's not keeping it anyways, since this doesn't butterfly WW2

It kinda does, since now Japan has the mineral resources of Alaska and an overseas colony of at least 100,000 people. That will change Japanese foreign policy, and probably US foreign policy too.

The casualty rate for the US (and Canada) would be grim if they ever fought a war there.
 
When the Russians were shopping Alaska, Japan did not have the kind of cash to buy it as they were using whatever hard currency (and credit) they could get their hands on to modernize Japan. They had to build a modern industrial and transportation infrastructure for basically zero once the Meiji Restoration happened. Buying a large chunk of frozen land with no obvious value instead of lots of other needs isn't going to happen. OTOH the USA is highly motivated to ensure that if Russia gives up Alaska it only goes to them and particularly not the UK with whom the USA has very touchy relations at this point in time.
 
Considering Alaska's mineral resources weren't abundantly known until a while after the actual sale and that Japan has to stay on the good sides of the UK, USA, and Russia (it's a bit far and separated by the ocean between three other Great Powers) in order to keep that colony, kinda don't see why Japan would purchase it in the first place.
 
Considering Alaska's mineral resources weren't abundantly known until a while after the actual sale and that Japan has to stay on the good sides of the UK, USA, and Russia (it's a bit far and separated by the ocean between three other Great Powers) in order to keep that colony, kinda don't see why Japan would purchase it in the first place.
My thoughts were that Russia wants to get rid of Alaska to stop it falling into British hands, and they decided to offer it to Japan in return for the Russo-Japanese border in the Sea of Okhotsk region being drawn in Russia's favor.

As for why Japan would want Alaska: the prestige of having a big colony, maybe?
 
The Sea of Okhotsk is very close and strategically valuable, Alaska is not (without the mineral wealth). The Sea of Okhotsk can be defended, Alaska can't be (the Japanese navy couldn't exactly stand up to the British or American fleets in such a conflict during the era). A big colony is meaningless if it can't be defended and it's economically draining like Alaska (again, without minerals because they wouldn't have known by then) would be to administer, prestige aside. Japan at this stage is still in its modernization stage and doesn't have the money to waste on a distant icebox the way that the UK or America could.

Aside from that, it's asking for trouble from the premier world power and the fastest rising power since it's step onto their regions of influence (Canada's next door and the US is really starting to flex the Monroe Doctrine now, just having helped expel the French from Mexico. It's not going to stand for some Old Worlders staking a claim in the New World, Asia or Europe).

Japanese policy probably wouldn't change if Alaska was the only change, with the imperialists perhaps a bit dampened from the costs but flushing at the size of Japan's name on the map. Doesn't give them enough resources to oppose the US, Britain, and the USSR, doesn't let them strike at enough of the US's industrial sites to put them equal in production, and doesn't stop nukes.
 
When the Russians were shopping Alaska, Japan did not have the kind of cash to buy it as they were using whatever hard currency (and credit) they could get their hands on to modernize Japan. They had to build a modern industrial and transportation infrastructure for basically zero once the Meiji Restoration happened. Buying a large chunk of frozen land with no obvious value instead of lots of other needs isn't going to happen. OTOH the USA is highly motivated to ensure that if Russia gives up Alaska it only goes to them and particularly not the UK with whom the USA has very touchy relations at this point in time.

Let's say for argument the British give a loan at (Market Price Interest + 3%) and they give 8/7 the money required to purchase Alaska. 7/7 is used to buy Alaska, and the rest is used for MORE Westernization. I'm still not seeing WW2 butterflied away. Also, the British will get paid back with full interest since the modernation and Meji reforms will way off as in OTL, if not better
 
Administration will still cost a pretty penny, even past the initial purchase. Hokkaido to Anchorage is over 3400 miles (~5500 km) per trip, which adds up in the fuel costs (Japan's not rich in coal) so the colony's going to have quite some autonomy unless Japan wants to spend more money on an icebox. When the gold rush happens, expect a flood of Americans and other foreigners, which'll likely strain relations if it turns into a Texas situation.

Plus, Alaska was, in some views, a net drain on the US economy (economist David Barker calculated that the cost of Alaska, rather than the 2007 adjusted $144 million of the purchase, was closer to $16.5 billion when accounting for the size of the US economy then vs now).

http://www.news-releases.uiowa.edu/2009/november/David Barker-Alaska.pdf

Alaska in 2010 was the top recipient of federal stimulus dollars per capita.

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/how-alaska-became-a-federal-aid-magnet/

Building infrastructure like railroads and ports would be difficult and costly for Japan, shipping people over would be expensive, administering it would be awful when the best they've got are 1870s steamers, and the cost is rather large in comparison to their total economy (Japan's GDP was a quarter of that of the US 1870, population 35 million to the US's 50 million). Japan can't afford to pay as much as the US (the US paid quite cheap in terms of land price) and paying that back plus interest isn't going to help modernization. Interest plus administration costs, plus infrastructure, plus garrisoning it and supplying the military over there all put together, still can't see Alaska doing anything but drag Japan down.

Honestly, the British probably win out here. Not only do they get money off of Japan, they also can just seize Alaska at any point and Japan can't do anything but get upset due to Britain's naval superiority. Worst come to worst, they could just starve out the Japalaskans by cutting off all ships from coming by because I don't see Alaska supporting 100,000+ people without aid (Alaska currently imports ~95% of its food. http://www.uaf.edu/ces/districts/juneau/food-security-emergency-p/food-for-thought/). It's not like the British haven't done something similar before, either (Bengal famine).

Food costs too, forgot to factor that in. Defense, administration, food, shipping, building, purchasing, I don't think Japan's economy could really afford it (might actually save them long term by keeping them from exerting so much on the military? Sours them to the idea of empire building, maybe).
 
Why does it turn into a Texas situation? Japan tells the newcomers to gtfo and sends them packing, they have to get there by boat and Japanese ships will just turn the Americans away. Japan is infinitely more powerful than 1830s Mexico.

Canada was insanely racist to the Japanese at the time, I'd like to see how they handle the situation (poorly, I suspect).
 
I'm pretty sure Japan wouldn't keep it since WW2 doesn't get butterflied away, but the Texas situation is just silly. That's not going to happen whatsoever. How many countries will allow illegal immigration to swamp their own base population?
 
Administration will still cost a pretty penny, even past the initial purchase. Hokkaido to Anchorage is over 3400 miles (~5500 km) per trip, which adds up in the fuel costs (Japan's not rich in coal) so the colony's going to have quite some autonomy unless Japan wants to spend more money on an icebox. When the gold rush happens, expect a flood of Americans and other foreigners, which'll likely strain relations if it turns into a Texas situation.

Plus, Alaska was, in some views, a net drain on the US economy (economist David Barker calculated that the cost of Alaska, rather than the 2007 adjusted $144 million of the purchase, was closer to $16.5 billion when accounting for the size of the US economy then vs now).

http://www.news-releases.uiowa.edu/2009/november/David Barker-Alaska.pdf

Alaska in 2010 was the top recipient of federal stimulus dollars per capita.

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/how-alaska-became-a-federal-aid-magnet/

Building infrastructure like railroads and ports would be difficult and costly for Japan, shipping people over would be expensive, administering it would be awful when the best they've got are 1870s steamers, and the cost is rather large in comparison to their total economy (Japan's GDP was a quarter of that of the US 1870, population 35 million to the US's 50 million). Japan can't afford to pay as much as the US (the US paid quite cheap in terms of land price) and paying that back plus interest isn't going to help modernization. Interest plus administration costs, plus infrastructure, plus garrisoning it and supplying the military over there all put together, still can't see Alaska doing anything but drag Japan down.

Honestly, the British probably win out here. Not only do they get money off of Japan, they also can just seize Alaska at any point and Japan can't do anything but get upset due to Britain's naval superiority. Worst come to worst, they could just starve out the Japalaskans by cutting off all ships from coming by because I don't see Alaska supporting 100,000+ people without aid (Alaska currently imports ~95% of its food. http://www.uaf.edu/ces/districts/juneau/food-security-emergency-p/food-for-thought/). It's not like the British haven't done something similar before, either (Bengal famine).

Food costs too, forgot to factor that in. Defense, administration, food, shipping, building, purchasing, I don't think Japan's economy could really afford it (might actually save them long term by keeping them from exerting so much on the military? Sours them to the idea of empire building, maybe).

I'm sure some immigrants would come, but it isn't like Japan was ever particularly nice to foreigners. Not to mention, the Japanese could just get their own mine labour, who might be more likely to stay. The gaijin would be strictly monitered and made sure they leave on time.

There's no way you couldn't have enough agriculture in Alaska to feed it, at least in an emergency, to give 100,000 to 200,000 a decent food source on a survivable level. But it would be vulnerable to food shortages, just like Japan itself was in this time period.

Garrisoning Alaska will actually make sure any conflict turns into a headache for the invader. Casualties would be grim on both sides, even if its likely to result in a defeat for the Japanese. Attacking Alaska by land is a massively difficult challenge, especially in an era before things like the Alaska Highway (an equivalent road might get built earlier for commercial purposes, since this Alaska, though foreign, is more populous). The best strategy seems to be to attack by sea, and the Gulf of Alaska is very stormy, while the Inside Passage would have tons of places to put coastal artillery. That said, because interior transportation and between clusters of coastal settlements is unlikely to be very good, invading Alaska isn't too much more difficult than invading large islands.
 
Top