Japanese Alaska after 1905--Effect on Second World War?

[Polish Eagle]

Assuming the following scenario:

Russia holds into Alaska until the Russo-Japanese War, during which that territory is lost to Japan (Britain and the US get a bit aggressive, but stop short of anything beyond strongly-worded protests--is this ASB?). Japan makes use of the gold and other mining industries in Alaska, but since the technology to economically exploit Alaska's oil does not exist yet, Japan continues to be dependent on oil imports in the 1920s and 1930s.

Fast forward to 1941. WWII is going in Europe without any major butterfly effect changes. Japan has managed to annoy the US into cutting off scrap metal and oil imports, as IOTL. So Japan moves as they did IOTL--strike the American fleet at Pearl Harbor, attack the Philippines, strike the British.

Now where does Alaska fit into this? What role can Alaska play in the Second World War if it's been Japanese territory since 1905? How well can the Japanese fortify and man the area without crippling their campaigns in the rest of the Pacific? How long can they hold out against the Canadian and American invasion sure to follow the start of the war? Where would the hypothetical Alaska Campaign take the Pacific War after its conclusion? Island hopping down the Aleutians and Kurils to support B-29 operations? And what would be the fate of Alaska after the war ends?

 

[Germaniac]

World war two as we know it is wiped from existence. If the Anglo Japanese relationship is strong enough to allow japan to take Alaska it could happen, but the Anglo American relationship will have to be quite different.

The first idea that popped into my head was the vast impact it will have on Japanese fishing and the need to have a navy capable of defending Japans interest from america. Could be a perfect storm for Japan to spend every cent on the navy to the detriment of the nation.

Red Revolution? Maybe? If I ask nicely? A guy can hope.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Russia holds into Alaska until the Russo-Japanese War, during which that territory is lost to Japan (Britain and the US get a bit aggressive, but stop short of anything beyond strongly-worded protests--is this ASB?).

The US mediated the treaty that ended that war, they wouldn't let the Japanese take Alaska, and no other major nation was a truly neutral party to take over for them, if the US didn't let them take North Sakhalin they won't let them take Alaska

 

[BBadolato]

U.S treaty negotations largely saved Russia's bacon, I don't see the Japanese gaining anything, save a sphere of influence and southern Sakalin unless the U.S never decides to go to the table, and the negotiations are more in favor of the Japanese

 

[birdboy2000]

The US mediated the treaty that ended that war, they wouldn't let the Japanese take Alaska, and no other major nation was a truly neutral party to take over for them, if the US didn't let them take North Sakhalin they won't let them take Alaska

This is true OTL, but I'm not sure it's true regardless of who's president of the United States, and Roosevelt's ascension to the presidency was the result of his predecessor getting assassinated; hardly an inevitable event. Yes, any American president is likely to have views of Japan colored by racism, but America is also filling up with immigrants, many of them Poles and Jews fleeing the tyranny of the Tsar, whose human rights abuses are well-publicized in the US. Might a different president be more sympathetic to Japanese war aims?

(Then again a PoD in the 1870s inevitably leads to a very different set of global wars in the 20th century.)

 

[Captain Jack]

If Russia holds onto Alaska until it's going to have access to all of those resources. This could be a major boon to Russia if they actually utilize it. Mind you going off OTL that probably isn't a great assumption. Regardless, if Japan wants Alaska in the R-J War their going to have to send forces there. Anything the Japanese send to Alaska is something they aren't going to be able to use in Korea/Manchuria. Another factor is that Russia would be able to base ships in Alaskan ports and the Aleutians. Japan would have to task their own ships/men to deal with these and that pulls forces away from Vladivostok and Port Arthur. Even then there is no way the US would want Japan to acquire Alaska from Russia. The whole Monroe Doctrine thing not to mention the potentially valuable resources there are both reasons for the US to stop Japan from getting Alaska.

 

[David S Poepoe]

The US mediated the treaty that ended that war, they wouldn't let the Japanese take Alaska, and no other major nation was a truly neutral party to take over for them, if the US didn't let them take North Sakhalin they won't let them take Alaska

I think there is a lot of truth in this. In such a scenario Alaska wouldn't be on the negotiating table and the US would have mentioned to the Japanese, at the outbreak of the war, that they would consider the Japanese prolonged occupation of Alaska a grave error.

However, if the Japanese had acquired Alaska, then I consider it would virtually be the 'great anchor' on Japanese actions. Much as Canada served, to a degree, as means that the US could influence Great Britain, so would Alaska be an 'Achilles Heel' for the Japanese to Anglo-American interests. They can not hold it nor can they readily reinforce it in the eventuality of war. They can simply stand to lose it in either a short or long war.

 

[MattII]

Firstly, wrong forum, secondly, Russia was in debt to Britain, and feared they'd lose the territory to Britain with no compensation in any future war (the Crimean war wasn't long over), so I'm having a hard time seeing how Russia can hang onto the territory for very long without facing significant issues.

 

[Genmotty]

Historically Alaska was sold by the Russians to America in 1867. Thus any POD is 35 years before the Russo-Japanese war, and almost 70 years before WWII.

Thus the butterflies make this an almost ASB proposition regarding WWII.



For Imperial Russia to have not sold Alaska it would have had to have been in a better position after the Criman War, both in milltary (naval) and fincial matters (less debt due to emancipation).

In this History, Alaska likely remains the unprofitable russian colony it was up until around 1900 when gold might be found in Alaska. If this is the case, then Alaska goes from being a small furs and fishing community into a Russian Gold Rush boom town (although unlikely at the same level as the US took it, but possibly with a major port being constructed.

This has several knock on effects;

1.
The first is that the Colony needs to be protected against foreign interests/encroachment. This means a branch of the army needs to be sent to Alaska. As part of this, the eastern Russian fleet needs to be expanded.

2.
The Russians likely have a second major port in Alaska on the same level as Vladivostok was at the time (or a bit less, but still significant for the time). This would give the Russians at least two staging ports for a pacific fleet.

3.
The finds of gold, likely gives the Russian crown some way to finance such operations.


The big unknown is when gold is found if it ever is. If it is found as soon as OTL or earlier then there is just about enough time for the Russians to have built up their pacific fleet and created at least two staging posts.

This gives the Russians a better position going into the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 IF, and its a big IF, the Japanese are still willing to engage in such conflicts.

From Russia's persepective it might have a winter port in Alaska, thus Vladivostok and Port Arthurs importance are quite a bit less, likewise Russian naval strenght is likely larger. This means that Russia can afford to be a little more aggressive against the Japanese. On the otherhand, Russia might 'holding all the cards', opt to let the Japanese have Port Arthur, if Russia get's Manchuria.


In this situation, Manchuria becomes Russian dominated, compared to being Chinese, then later Japanese dominated. Korea likely still becomes a Japanese colony.

If no conflict is fought with Russia (or a more equal one is fought with this outcome), then it likely means a much much stronger Anglo-America-Japanese set of relations to prevent Russian domination in the Far East.

A knock on effect might be that the Russian revolution is delayed or reduced since Russia might not be defeated on the high seas so significantly.



A stronger Anglo-Japanese relation this early basically means that as a result of the Great War Japan is going to be allowed to keep the Qingdong and Shanghai penisulars, as well as force China down to something like a Japanese protectorate.

In the fallout from the Great War, this situation in China will have two critical aspects;

1.
Rise of Communism in China, and nationalist fervour against the Japanese. With Japan and Britain exploiting coastal china, there will be a much greater anger towards both these powers, and likely a lot more dissent and unrest at their occupation. Likewise the back of republic of chinas power will have been broken by Britain and Japan, which will likely lead to dissent against the general government, and a lot more support for the Communist movements.

We might expect sometime in the late 1920s to have a full scale civil war breakout in central China much like in our timeline, however it occuring a fair bit sooner due to polarising events.

While initially this would mean little, if a leader (Mao is likely butterflied, but someone else will be a communist figurehead) is able to unite the centeral chinese warlords, then it means that Communism is entrenched in China far sooner than in our time line.

2.
Japan has no reason to join in WWII if it happens. In fact, everything from the rise of the millitarists, to invaison of Manchuria is likely butterflied away completely. Japan will have its hands full trying to keep coastal China from turning communist in which case its a soft power game to be played by the Conservatives of the Japanese diet, and Chinese province governors.

WWII likely sees Japan gain some minor German territories in the pacific that it doesn't already have, but apart from that may be seen as a strong British ally. The Americans will look on slightly cooler since the Japanese represent a closing off of China to them, but the Japanese may continue to be importers of American goods.


In the long run, following the War in Europe, Asia likely becomes the very first 'battleground' for the Cold War and when the Russians get the bomb it might be the 'Alaskan Bomber Crisis'...

...However without nuclear weapons having been used in WWII, then all too likely WWIII is fought and goes nuclear.



Thus the very long term implications of the Russian's not selling Alaska is a world of Alaskan winters...

 

[ManintheField]

 

[DoomBunny]

Butterflies. You've just murdered a lot of them.

 

[Julius Vogel]

Having a Russian Alaska would also surely massively impact on Canada/Britain.

I know for one, NZ and Australia (as it later became) suffered several Russian Scares in the 1870s-80s, which resulted in massive (for them) panic and then investment in coastal defences.

I imagine Canada would also be a bit worried as Alaska developed and they became more conscious of threats.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

This is true OTL, but I'm not sure it's true regardless of who's president of the United States, and Roosevelt's ascension to the presidency was the result of his predecessor getting assassinated; hardly an inevitable event. Yes, any American president is likely to have views of Japan colored by racism, but America is also filling up with immigrants, many of them Poles and Jews fleeing the tyranny of the Tsar, whose human rights abuses are well-publicized in the US. Might a different president be more sympathetic to Japanese war aims?

(Then again a PoD in the 1870s inevitably leads to a very different set of global wars in the 20th century.)

There's no other country that's A) a major power, and B) can be considered neutral [either through alliance as with France, or relations as with Germany and the UK]

As for sympathy unlikely, any US president at this time would be a WASP and care less about the immigrants save possibly making vague promises to get votes, instead things will be looked at strategically from the US POV, and giving Japan Alaska, when they've messed with the balance of power in Asia, where the US has big trade interests, is not on the list

 

[Craig_Truglia]

Working with the premise of the original post, I'd say that it would put Japan at a major disadvantage. THey could never defend that amount of land. It would spread their forces impossibly thin. It would probably be ceded very quickly in light of an US invasion. It might delay the war 6 months before the US has suitable bases for nuclear bomb drops.

 

[CalBear]

Zero probability event.

Skippy the ASB, Q, and all the Queen's horses and all the Queen's men couldn't make it happen. The U.S., to start with, acquired the area 72 years earlier. If it hadn't the chances that the Americans AND the British would allow the Japanese that much territory in North America are zero. For that matter the chances that Japan would WANT Alaska (remembering that in 1905 it was pretty much considered to be a whole lot of nothing) and the likelihood it would cause massive friction with both the UK and U.S. in the fairly near term are less than zero.

 

[Aley]

And what forces the Japanese Alaska could occupy? They were all forces in Manchuria, even on Kamchatka forces was not enough, though it is highly interested Japanese.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

First of all I see an interesting conflict in the detractors to this idea.

It seems to be conventional wisdom that Alaska was considered a useless wasteland that no one would want.

It seems to be conventional wisdom that no one would let the Japanese get Alaska or if they had it, someone would take it.

Now I understand that people can be assholes and not want something, but not want anyone else to have it either.

However, if Alaska is so useless, I think it is not inconceivable that the right people might say, fine if they are dumb enough to want it, they can have it.


So if they get it after 1905...

Yes, butterflies. HOWEVER in the more extreme multiple universe theory, all results occur, so somewhere there would be a universe where the butterflies all cancel out and WWII occurs in a recognizable form.

Assuming the following scenario:

Russia holds into Alaska until the Russo-Japanese War, during which that territory is lost to Japan (Britain and the US get a bit aggressive, but stop short of anything beyond strongly-worded protests--is this ASB?). Japan makes use of the gold and other mining industries in Alaska, but since the technology to economically exploit Alaska's oil does not exist yet, Japan continues to be dependent on oil imports in the 1920s and 1930s.

Fast forward to 1941. WWII is going in Europe without any major butterfly effect changes. Japan has managed to annoy the US into cutting off scrap metal and oil imports, as IOTL. So Japan moves as they did IOTL--strike the American fleet at Pearl Harbor, attack the Philippines, strike the British.

Now where does Alaska fit into this? What role can Alaska play in the Second World War if it's been Japanese territory since 1905? How well can the Japanese fortify and man the area without crippling their campaigns in the rest of the Pacific? How long can they hold out against the Canadian and American invasion sure to follow the start of the war? Where would the hypothetical Alaska Campaign take the Pacific War after its conclusion? Island hopping down the Aleutians and Kurils to support B-29 operations? And what would be the fate of Alaska after the war ends?

So the question become what was the settlement trends and development policy of the Japanese government?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

I find it hard to believe that Britain/Canada or the US wont end up with Alaska, even if Sewards Folly doesnt happen.

But even if Alyeska were still Russian in 1905, the Japanese are not going to get it. As others have pointed out.

If Russia still has it at the time of the revolution, assuming one happens, Britain or the US will take it at that point.

OK, maybe, maybe it's a rump Tsarist protectorate, (Im pretty sure someone did a TL like that, where Alaska then joined Canada, and the Romanov pretender became king of Canada).

But Japan?

Im not calling it ASB, 'cause maybe someone can convince me that the probability is only microscopic, not astronomically small.

 

[ManintheField]

Yes, butterflies. HOWEVER in the more extreme multiple universe theory, all results occur, so somewhere there would be a universe where the butterflies all cancel out and WWII occurs in a recognizable form.

All possible results occur.