Realistic Consequences of Russia keeping Alaska

I was wondering what the realistic consequences of Russia keeping Alaska would be. What would be the short term consequences of not selling Alaska to the United States (lets say short term is 20 years or so)? What would be the long term affect (lets say more than 50 years)?

Is Russia capable of financially or militarily keeping control of Alaska until ww1?
 
Well no one wants Alaska so it will probably just act just like its more pointless Siberian land that they control. They may get some use out of it when oil and gold is discovered there but that just means the USSR may just turn it into a Gulag after the revolution.
 
Well no one wants Alaska so it will probably just act just like its more pointless Siberian land that they control. They may get some use out of it when oil and gold is discovered there but that just means the USSR may just turn it into a Gulag after the revolution.

Or the cliche route of Alaska become a refugee for the Romanovs and the fleeing Whites.
 
It ends up sparking a fight between Russia and Britain during the Yukon Gold Rush. Right around Fashoda too if that goes on schedule.
 
Couldn't the US economy suffer do to not having as many of its citizens going to the North to gather gold to then spend and contribute to the wealth of the US?
 
I've always wondered if the US and/or the UK/Canada would try to encourage Alaska to declare independence, assuming the Russian Revolution happens mostly as it did IOTL. Surely neither would want a Bolshevik Alaska to form, but maybe, as has been said, the UK/Canada would just annex it outright.

Anyone have any thoughts on an independent Alaska? What's the plausibility?
 
Soviets put missiles in Alaska, everyone gets scared.

AWKB said:
Anyone have any thoughts on an independent Alaska? What's the plausibility?
I cannot see them being anything more than a puppet state of whoever set it up. Also it wouldn't really have much of an economic base...
 
I cannot see them being anything more than a puppet state of whoever set it up. Also it wouldn't really have much of an economic base...

Oh, I agree that it'd be a puppet. I should've been clearer about the US/UK involvement: they'd encourage it to declare independence, but it'd be firmly in their sphere of influence and basically a puppet state. My bad.

As for the economic base, they wouldn't have one at first. Later on, when gold and oil are discovered (and, perhaps, as the land fills up with American and Canadian immigrants enticed by the open land or the discovered gold and oil? Something like "The Alaskan Dream?" Maybe?), that base would come into being.

It's a long shot, but I've always been curious about if/how an independent Alaska would appear.
 
Probably they'll fine gold in Alaska, then Russia will become filthy stinkin' rich!

Russia was already filthy stinkin rich, Siberia already had plenty of precious metals, its practically the only useful thing about the place but having it in Alaska wont signifigantly affect Russia.
 
Unless gold is discovered sometime during the late 1860s the chances of Russia holding on to (or even desiring to hold on to) Alaska are slim. If the US doesn't purchase it, the British/Canadians will.
 
Unless gold is discovered sometime during the late 1860s the chances of Russia holding on to (or even desiring to hold on to) Alaska are slim. If the US doesn't purchase it, the British/Canadians will.

Lets assume them finding the gold is the POD since it is probably the only reason to keep it.
 
I for some reason really cant see that happening, the reds fought them out of Siberia, if they managed that then they will be able to do the same in Alaska.

Well, except that Alaska borders Canada and (almost) borders the US, something which the rest of Russia notably does not. It also doesn't have a land connection with the rest of Russia. Together, I think there's a good case that Alaska could be a successful White enclave. It's not like the Soviets rolled over Sakhalin or the Baltics, either.
 
Well, except that Alaska borders Canada and (almost) borders the US, something which the rest of Russia notably does not. It also doesn't have a land connection with the rest of Russia. Together, I think there's a good case that Alaska could be a successful White enclave. It's not like the Soviets rolled over Sakhalin or the Baltics, either.

Okay maybe that but I really doubt the Romanovs would be able to escape there, the fact they have a different near worthless region wont make them survive the massacre.
 
Okay maybe that but I really doubt the Romanovs would be able to escape there, the fact they have a different near worthless region wont make them survive the massacre.

Well, a few Romanovs survived even IOTL. Not from the main group, of course, but other relatives, cousins or descendants of the earlier emperors. The bigger problem is probably the ambiguous attitude of the Whites themselves towards the Emperors. It's entirely possible that the group favored by Canada and the US in Alaska wants nothing to do with the Romanovs whatsoever.
 
Lets assume them finding the gold is the POD since it is probably the only reason to keep it.


That's a 25-30 year leap, which is highly unlikely if the Russians retain possession of the region. Besides, even when the Russians did find gold they didn't/couldn't exploit their discovery.

Regarding the Romanovs, I agree that they would not flee to Russian Alaska, nor would they make it there if they tried.
 
Well, a few Romanovs survived even IOTL. Not from the main group, of course, but other relatives, cousins or descendants of the earlier emperors. The bigger problem is probably the ambiguous attitude of the Whites themselves towards the Emperors. It's entirely possible that the group favored by Canada and the US in Alaska wants nothing to do with the Romanovs whatsoever.

The Romanovs would not flee to to far-off Russian Alaska, they would head for Denmark or Great Britain.
 
If one could pass all the hurdles to a Soviet-controlled Alaska-that Tsarist Russia could hang on to the territory, that it wouldn't break off on its own steam as a refuge for some kind of Whites, that neither Canada (ie, still at this point, basically Britain) nor the USA succeeds in splitting it off as a puppet protectorate--I think one thing Soviet Alaska could not be is a Gulag!

It still borders on Canada. It would be too easy for disgruntled Soviet citizens there to flee individually, or even rebel en masse with some kind of Western support. On the contrary, the place would perforce become a Potemkin Village, a showcase to the world that has this one piece of Soviet Russia to scrutinize from close by, that the Soviet system works and has won the unswerving loyalty of its liberated worker-citizens of the first Worker's State. The Kremlin might have to devote really inordinate resources to transfer there, to keep the Soviet Alaskans happy and loyal. Then of course the Soviet regime, if could possibly manage to afford this extravagance, could possibly open, or at least relax, its border, let foreigners visit and leave freely to spread the word that Leninist Socialism works!

But I'm not in the least sure that the Soviet Union could manage that sort of force-fed showcase province in good time; as things were OTL economic development was touch-and-go.

Also I do think that's a lot of gauntlets to run, to have Russian Alaska wind up in the secure possession of the Red Kremlin like that.
 
It might be that Japan takes it when they develop a modern navy. The Russians can't really defend it if their main navy is in the Baltic.
 
Top