If the US does not exist, who is Russia most likely to sell Alaska to?

Who is Russia most likely to sell Alaska to?

  • Britain

    Votes: 62 53.4%
  • France

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Japan

    Votes: 7 6.0%
  • Russia keeps it as just another part of Russia

    Votes: 31 26.7%
  • Russia keeps it but gives it autonomy

    Votes: 5 4.3%
  • It becomes an independent country

    Votes: 2 1.7%
  • Other (specify in post)

    Votes: 8 6.9%

  • Total voters
    116
It would be realistically impossible to have Alaska remain a part of Russia, but here's a kicker: say a revolution on a similar scale to the Bolshevik Revolution breaks out in Russia. Could the Russian Royal Family evacuate to Alaska that is still Russian owned?
 
Washington never seriously attempted to slow down American expansion across the continent.

That is pretty significant when it comes to whether Britain will spend good money on Louisiana - and even more so on Alaska, which isn't even good settler land (as in, it wouldn't be keeping up with the movement of settlers).

I don't think Britain will spend that much money. But the settlers are going to take it regardless of whether a purchase goes ahead. At that point, it's only a matter of time before its recognised in some peace treaty or other.

Think of how little Canada was worth and tell me that's an entirely unreasonable assessment.

It might be more willing to give up Louisiana than "other territories", but it's not just going to give it up the first chance it gets, either.

It was willing to give it up pretty quickly in OTL. Here I'm imagining it ten-twenty years later when it's in a much more precarious position.
 
It was willing to give it up pretty quickly in OTL. Here I'm imagining it ten-twenty years later when it's in a much more precarious position.

It was giving it up to in exchange for money to a neutral. Not to its archenemy.

There is a difference.
 
It was giving it up to in exchange for money to a neutral. Not to its archenemy.

There is a difference.

That's a fair point, but that probably balances out with being in the late 1810s with settlers on its door step (or even inside the house!).

In fact, if the French revolutionary wars happen in this timeline, it's likely Britain grabs New Orleans (and by default the rest of Lousiana) then, and doesn't give it back at the end.
 
It would be realistically impossible to have Alaska remain a part of Russia, but here's a kicker: say a revolution on a similar scale to the Bolshevik Revolution breaks out in Russia. Could the Russian Royal Family evacuate to Alaska that is still Russian owned?

That could happen, yes. But it would also help if Alaska's security was guaranteed, which may not be the case(it's not exactly very defendable, you know!); however, though, if it does become a U.S. protectorate, and it could under these circumstances, then that problem would essentially be solved. :)


It was giving it up to in exchange for money to a neutral. Not to its archenemy.

There is a difference.

True.
 
Top