No Alaska Purchase?

Damn, I love Russian Alaskan WI, how come I was invited on this topic? :D

Anyways, what about the Russian Revolution, there was a topic of mine saying that the Royal Family would flee to Alaska and make aTaiwanese-esque country.

A) But the butterflies!

B) Unless Alaska is really conservative for some reason, a White Taiwan isn't going to have any Romanovs in charge. They were topples in February, remember? Some reactionary whites (far from all) wanted to restore them but the official political doctrine of the White forces was "Fight Reds first, argue about the constitution later."

Also what about the Aleutians and Inuit, the Russians devastated the Aleutians during the control (But I think thats not true, since there's still a ton of Russophobia in the US).
If Britain's Russophobia increases,then a war could start........

I don't know much about the Aleutians and don't really follow you, but I do know that although passions could run high, the governments of the great powers didn't want to fight wars over obscure colonies and where public opinion wanted to, they slipped out (Fashoda). That's not to say an Anglo-Russian war, perhaps precipitated by a general crisis in colonial relations, isn't possible, but war over Alaska itself, no.

I doubt America will help Britain, since Russia kinda helped the US during the Civil War

Help Britain what?
 
Last edited:
Nobody is going to expel Imperial Russia by force from Alaska. The Spanish War of 1898 only took place because Spain was frankly a third-rate power with colonial holdings. I'm sorry to destroy your Theodore fanboyism but gold in Russia will only mean more russian settlers.
You know, it was discussed more than once on Russian AH-Forum, and almost all agreed that the Russians weren't able to defend Alaska even against the Anglo-Saxon adventurers alone, more so against the USN or Royal Navy. Moreover, there are strong doubts that Russia could develop the Klondike in reasonable time limits at all (there were not enough Russian-flagged ships on the Pacific, Transsiberian railway reached the ocean only in 1904, Russia lacked geologists and miners willing to work in extreme conditions, and so on).
 
Last edited:

MacCaulay

Banned
First of all, let's not start name-calling. Personally, I don't think the the turn of the century US imperialism was a good thing, and a lot of Americans at the time did not like it either, so lets put that aside. Second, Russia at the time was misgoverned, entering into major political unrest and about to get its clock cleaned by the Japanese. Leaving aside any US intervention in 1900, it seems doubtful to me that the Russian central government could have held on to Alaska after the Bosheviks seized power. Either the Whites would have used it as a refuge or one of the North American Powers would have helped themselves. Look up the Red Scare some time

You know, it was discussed more than once on Russian AH-Forum, and almost all agreed that the Russians weren't able to defend Alaska even against the Anglo-Saxon adventurers alone, more so against the USN or Royal Navy. Moreover, there are strong doubts that Russia could develop the Klondike in reasonable time limits at all (there were not enough Russian-flagged ships on the Pacific, Transsiberian railway reached the ocean only in 1904, Russia lacked geologists and miners willing to work in extreme conditions, and so on).

My thoughts (and I've voiced them on just about every one of these threads) are that the Russians probably would've lost the Western Aleutians in 1905 against the Japanese.
Tsar Nicholas II builds an Alaskan Squadron as an insurance measure in case of a second war against the Japanese.
In 1917, if the Revolution happened when it did in OTL, then chances are very good that if the politics of the miners in this Russian Alaska are like they were with other Russian miners or with the miners in Alaska in OTL, that the Soviet cause would be taken up in Russian Alaska.
Korensky might as well just sell Alaska to America under the old deal, just to make the Russian government some cash and possibly save his government. The Russians won't care: they can't control the place anyway. And the Americans would want the place by 1917. They'll know what's up there: oil, gold, silver, and some Communists standing in their way.

But the only thing between them and the resources is a lot of water that they don't have the lift capacity to get over. So they make a deal with Canada to settle the long-standing (since the 1700s) Alaskan border dispute. America and Canada will build the Alcan Highway in 1917 to facilitate an American invasion of Alaska, and Canada will finally get to occupy the Panhandle.



Anyway...that's my idea.

This would then
 
My thoughts (and I've voiced them on just about every one of these threads) are that the Russians probably would've lost the Western Aleutians in 1905 against the Japanese.
Tsar Nicholas II builds an Alaskan Squadron as an insurance measure in case of a second war against the Japanese.

Would America tolerate either a Japanese annexation or a large Russian military presence? They mediated the peace, after all, and they have their Monroe Doctrine.

In 1917, if the Revolution happened when it did in OTL, then chances are very good that if the politics of the miners in this Russian Alaska are like they were with other Russian miners or with the miners in Alaska in OTL, that the Soviet cause would be taken up in Russian Alaska.

Its possible that it will happen initially, but it will be promptly crushed by the Canadians if not the Americans (probably both).

Korensky might as well just sell Alaska to America under the old deal, just to make the Russian government some cash and possibly save his government. The Russians won't care: they can't control the place anyway. And the Americans would want the place by 1917. They'll know what's up there: oil, gold, silver, and some Communists standing in their way.

That's possible, I suppose. Could we see Russian as a co-official language for the territory?

But the only thing between them and the resources is a lot of water that they don't have the lift capacity to get over. So they make a deal with Canada to settle the long-standing (since the 1700s) Alaskan border dispute. America and Canada will build the Alcan Highway in 1917 to facilitate an American invasion of Alaska, and Canada will finally get to occupy the Panhandle.

Surely the border issue will have been raised and resolved if Russia and Britain have been on speaking terms at any time since the Gold Rush? And surely building a railway in the Canadian far north takes much, much more time and money than going by sea, which America and its allies clearly could do, what with invading the White Sea littoral and everything.
 
I think you place too much faith on the will of Russia to sell Alaska, no matter what. If it doesn't get sold in 1867, I don't believe it will become an eternal "all for sale" territory.
 
I think you place too much faith on the will of Russia to sell Alaska, no matter what. If it doesn't get sold in 1867, I don't believe it will become an eternal "all for sale" territory.

Until the gold rush and so on, there's nothing there to inspire Russia to keep it. Russia is an autocracy and the opinion of the colonists and their lobby doesn't matter. Now there's probably a chance that it can be kpet until the gold rush somehow, but I didn't say it was always for sale. I merely said that Alexander II wanted rid of it in 1867 and has no obvious reason to change his mind over the next few years, and that its vaguely possible that America might acquire the palce during the Civil War (...but the butterflies etcetera).
 
How much control of the backland of Alaska did Russia have? I mean when gold is found in Alaska and Canada, how likely is it that the British or Canadians just annex the territories where gold is found? If there are no Russians in there that can defend the Russian claims, the British can just walk in and claim it for themselves. Without the backlands, Alaska just remains a small worthless coastal area with not many Russians in it and might decide to sell it to Britain/Canada later (I doubt the Americans would be interested in such a small Alaska).
 

MacCaulay

Banned
How much control of the backland of Alaska did Russia have? I mean when gold is found in Alaska and Canada, how likely is it that the British or Canadians just annex the territories where gold is found? If there are no Russians in there that can defend the Russian claims, the British can just walk in and claim it for themselves. Without the backlands, Alaska just remains a small worthless coastal area with not many Russians in it and might decide to sell it to Britain/Canada later (I doubt the Americans would be interested in such a small Alaska).

Well, they never annexed the land during the heated struggles over the fur trade. And there were shots fired over that in 1803 around the present northern British Columbian coast.

I Blame Communism said:
Surely the border issue will have been raised and resolved if Russia and Britain have been on speaking terms at any time since the Gold Rush? And surely building a railway in the Canadian far north takes much, much more time and money than going by sea, which America and its allies clearly could do, what with invading the White Sea littoral and everything.

Well, the Russian Government and successive British and Canadian governments didn't resolve it for 200 years. I don't see any reason why giving them another 50 and making the land worth more would make the process move along any faster.

On the other hand, the Americans and Canadians, faced with the prospect of occupying the land after it's sold off in 1917, would have every reason to just put aside their differences.

And an Alcan Highway would be needed for the Canadians to facilitate rapid occupation of the Panhandle and for the Americans to exploit the oilfields and other resources after the war. It's totally logical.
 
Trouble is the 1860s were the last sensible period in which a world power would sell a territory. After 1870 most european superpowers begin a frantic run for colonies in Asia or Africa, while the russians begin their conquest of Central Asia.

And, as someone pointed out, the decision to sell Alaska was not well-received in Russia. It was either the 1860s or never...


I think you could probably stretch that into the early to mid 1870's.. Without a purchase in 1867 by Seward... the Dominion gov't in Ottawa would consider the option themselves to round out their possessions in the NW. With BC entering Confederation it would be logical to approach the Russians about it. Even though politically London and St. Petersburg may not be on the best of terms in many different regions of the world. The regional relationship between the RAC and the HBC as stated earlier was much more "polite" shall we say, even symbiotic. Trade goods/cash from the HBC for the RAC and furs/resources from the RAC to the HBC in trade. The HBC also had obtained rights within the coastal littoral strip that had negated their need for outright control of the region early '40's I think. This would continue if Russia continued in possession of the terr. The Dominion gov't would certainly want to acquire this littoral at the very least to formalize their access to the far northwest terr.'s of the Dominion if not the entire terr. That would leave the islands off the coast out on a limb for the most part but really no more exposed than they already were if Russia and Britain were to come to serious blows once again. In any future confrontation for instance it would not be the HBC that would be determining or implementing policy, but the Dominion gov't.

While politically selling the terr. might not have been palatable, The RAC was at this time a financial drain on the Imperial treasury. Selling the terr. be it to the Americans or the British would stop the hemmorage of Imperial finances. Selling to the Dominion gov't of course is somewhat different than selling or ceding directly to Britain.
 
Last edited:
Top