effects of a Tsarist Alaska on non-Soviet europe?

I have often wondered, what the relationship between Europe and a exiled Tsarist state in Alaska would have? It seems all to easy to make a comparison of the Taiwan straights for the relations between the Soviet Union and Tsarist Alaska, and for the US, it would make a excellent Bulwark against the Soviet Union.

So, all things remaining consistent, what kind of relationship would Europe(as closely resembling OTL as possible) post WWI, WWII and Cold War look like?
 
It would be rather hard for Russia to keep the area at all - one of the Naval powers it fought with would likely eventually take it, most likely Britain adding it to Canada or Japan. They had just gotten their asses kicked in the Crimean War after all - The ease of losing it was pretty much why they sold it.

But we could butterfly that away with some luck, and replace the financial drain by the lack of purchase money/administration costs with income from gold. The biggest threat to detracting this timeline would be the Russo-Japanese rivalry - with a developed Alaska, Russia might not expand into Manchuria as much, or if it does, it might direct more strategic assets to the Far East, making its presence there stronger.

Any good Russian performance in the Russo-Japanese war would drastically weaken the Bolsheviks, as the revolution of 1905 was crucial in their strengthening.

The only way to prevent a Russian "Stalemate" or a Japanese takeover would be to have a strong enough Russian position in Alaska to discourage the Japanese from even attacking there, but have that strong position at the expense of the Russian Far East, which would be as weak (or weaker) than OTL. This would confine the war to much the same area - and the destruction of Russia's fleets would effectively stop it from bringing Alaskan reinforcements.

The most interesting effect here would that, whilst Russia would have to withdraw from other areas in the Far East, Alaska would remain heavily fortified and threatened - thereby preserving the motivation for a strong presence there. With a small population divided between Gold "Adventurists" and Military, you would see the region very unfriendly to "Worker Radicals" (there is no working class, as there is no industry).

There are two possible paths for the loyalty of the region - one is a spirit of independence, particularly if it is used as a place to keep "difficult" people far away from St Petersburg, combined with largely self-reliant prospectors and miners. The other is that of a fiercely loyal frontier zone - if the "most loyal" military chiefs are sent there (due to fears of losing the region in another war) and the spectre of being stuck between "Enemy Britain" and "Enemy Japan" was driven into the small local population.

Neither path would support a Soviet revolution should WWI come along (unless all the Bolsheviks were exiled there), but the former would be more likely to declare independence (and not be re-conquered like the other Soviet Republics) whilst the latter might play "host" to a Tsar, and be used as a base for white soldiers. But if Russia goes red, Alaska would not remain "Tsarist" for very long. It would, by now, have a tradition of little oversight and strong military self-rule, as well as its own mineral riches - so an Autocratic ruler that is used to behaving like he has the world's biggest land empire would not be a welcome face for too long. Depending on foreign support, a constitutional monarchy could develop. It being a Japanese puppet state is also possible, seeing as it was something they though of doing to the Ruskie Far East OTL, and Alaska would be much more practical, though unattractive.

The area could not possibly support a strong enough army as the one that would have been there under Czarist times, but you could be certain that Japan/England/USA/France would give it enough support to negate the lack of supplies/military industry, should a credible Bolshevik invasion be seen - but the reds are unlikely to pull something like that off, seeing as they would be hard pressed to get off their own shores.

Europe lacked the interest to stop Japanese invasions in China post WWI, Japan was picking apart said very attractive country, the US would not be that interested in aggressive expansionism on the other side of Canada, and had a depression to deal with pretty soon, and the USSR had a myriad of internal problems. This would leave Alyuska to develop pretty much on its own, quite likely under some kind of Militia/Frontiersman government - enough of a spurr towards the right wing on own, with the enmity with the Bolsheviks spurring it even further. Alaska would be devastated once the depression hit - it would have been heavily dependent on exports for survival, and would have to turn into a bunch of men with old rifles fishing to live.

Now, a Japanese take-over or client state would mean a very hostile reception, particularly from the U.S and Britain (A Japanese presense on your continent or on the borders of the Commonwealth would be much less nicely received than China) so the area is likely to continue as lightly populated, with a large (relative to its population) militia-style force with WW1 equipment. Hardly any kind of threat to the world, but enough of a sting to make its harsh environment an unnatractive takeover. Most states - especially European ones, where only England has some kind of interest in the area - would just ignore it throughout WWII. Since Alaska can pose little threat to Russia, Germany would make only symbolic gestures to it, and the threat of nearby Britain and the US would prevent the state from making anything more than a symbolic return, much as its interests are aligned with Japan and Germany.

Now, if we had made a timeline without a German-West war, it would be very interesting but...making it the same as OTL, to the point of unrealism, marginalizes Alaska.


If the Capitalists still rally against the "evil red spectre", you can be certain that Alaska will join NATO, or at least some military partnership with the US - which will lead to the development of bases there much like in OTL - with only a slightly weaker position. A White Russian Alaska would not be any more of a bulwark than US soil 58 miles from the USSR.

You will probably see western immigration pick up as the country edges away from mainland Russia and towards the West post-1918, which would dilute the "Russianess" of the country. That would only speed up the movement away from the USSR. But the country would lack any real power in foreign affairs, and with the dominance and proximity of the US, it would be treated pretty much the same way Alaska has been treated anyway. Soviet "claims" on the region would be rendered irrelevant by the lack of naval power projection, the intense native hostility and the location of the country behind a US-Anglo "Shield".

In the end, if everything up to WWII goes as OTL, so will the rest of the century. Most interesting thing that could happen is that the government ends up a Military Junta and a slight political embarassment like Greece was OTL. But mostly, nothing will change.

Apart from Alt History Sites being very interested in WI the U.S had purchased Alaska.
 
Top