DBWI: Sebastopol not ceded to Britain at the end of the Crimean War?

Given the Mayor of Moscow's recent remarks about how the city is Russian what would have happened had Sebastopol not been given to Britain in the Treaty of Paris?

(Before any one asks what a DBWI is read this. Particularly the bit about post nuclear dystopias being bad form.)
 

Susano

Banned
Well, it would derpive Britain of her single naval base in the Blakc Sea. Might still be better for the UK in the end, though, given how much argument and strife with Russia and the Ottoman Empire this has caused, the one wanting the city back, and the other always bitching about Bosporus passage rights. Who knows, maybe with less British ressoruces going there, GB could have played a more active role in other parts of the world, like, say, Africa - for it being th enaval power of the tim eit got majorly underrepresented in the Ramble for Africa!

And I guess no Second Crimean War would have helped state finances, too. Might even be that without teh Second Crimean War occupying the attention of two Great Powers German unification wouldnt have happened, at least not in the 1860s. So, yes, IMO, Sebastopol only gave a large burden to the GB, at least up until the 1950s, when it became the booming tradecentre we know it as nowadays.
 
Actually the possession of Sebastopol was greatly unvalued for many years, but the merchants in both London and that region of southern Russia reaped immense profit from it.

One has to recall how the vast network of railroads sprang up between Sebastopol and Odessa and later spread out thru much of the region stretching all the way to Kiev and the Caspian Sea. British backed railroads opened the region up and connected cities faster than the Russians themselves did. Western innovations brought increased grain yields to the Russian breadbasket which benefited the lowly farmer and held stablize the economy.

Anglo-Russian rivalry in Central Asia pretty much died down as the Russian economy finally began to grow and modernize.

Of course the biggest benefit of the colony at Sebastopol was the presence of the Royal Navy's Black Sea Squadron which ensured Ottoman neutrality during the First German War of 1914-1916 and the Second German War of 1939-1944.
 

Susano

Banned
Actually the possession of Sebastopol was greatly unvalued for many years, but the merchants in both London and that region of southern Russia reaped immense profit from it.

One has to recall how the vast network of railroads sprang up between Sebastopol and Odessa and later spread out thru much of the region stretching all the way to Kiev and the Caspian Sea. British backed railroads opened the region up and connected cities faster than the Russians themselves did. Western innovations brought increased grain yields to the Russian breadbasket which benefited the lowly farmer and held stablize the economy.

Anglo-Russian rivalry in Central Asia pretty much died down as the Russian economy finally began to grow and modernize.

Of course the biggest benefit of the colony at Sebastopol was the presence of the Royal Navy's Black Sea Squadron which ensured Ottoman neutrality during the First German War of 1914-1916 and the Second German War of 1939-1944.

So, okay, a class of fat London brokers got rich. Yay.:rolleyes:
And much good did it do to Great Britain that the Ottomans remained neutral in the European Wars (I roll my eyes at the Anglosphere's terminology!:rolleyes: ). Russia, did, too, after all, so Id challenge your claim that Russian-British hostility had died down. I mean, sure, Russia did not join the eastern camp, but it noticeably did not join the western camp, either, despite its strategical opposition to Austria. Heh, but I guess that means British possession of Sebastopol allowed for the two wars not spreading, so thats something at least. Still, both wars ended in bloody stalemates that only devasted France and changed precisely little politically, so I doubt Sebastopol's value in those wars, Ottoman Empire or not...
 

Hendryk

Banned
Ah, Sebastopol, Hong Kong of the Black Sea. I seldom side with the British imperialists, but in this case I agree it would have been a pity for Britain not to get the place. Especially as the Treaty of Kiev in 1867 extended British control to the whole Crimean peninsula on the basis of a 99-year lease, and in the following decades it became a refuge for Russian Jews fleeing persecution. With the second wave of Jewish refugees in 1916, this time from Poland and the Baltic states in the aftermath of the First German War, Crimea became majority-Jewish.

One wonders how Crimea would have fared had it been retroceded to Russia as planned; as it turned out, with antisemitism at an all-time high in Russia, the Jews of Crimea lobbied for independence instead, and Britain agreed for reasons of its own (the prospect of having a client state in such a strategic region was too good to pass up). Crimea thus became an independent country in 1966, for the first time since 1783. As its first Prime Minister, Levi Eshkol, quipped, "It may not be the Holy Land but it's close enough."
 

Susano

Banned
Yes, yes, that is known. Anything else, preferably towards the WI in question? Its unusual for you, you pose like one of those teens who create threads to boast with their knowledge of the Great Pacific War!

(OOC: Just poking fun at "as you know, Bob" ;) )
 

Hendryk

Banned
Yes, yes, that is known.
I wouldn't be so sure. Crimea is one of those places that people consider a good tourist spot, without ever bothering to enquire about its history, like the Viceroyalty of Cuba or the Sheikdom of Djibouti. And that's when they've heard of it at all--for the less well-traveled, a crimea is just a woolen headgear.
 
Top