Summer 1940- The Soviet reconquest of British-occupied Alaska

[Gladi]

Bright day
The month has not been kind Winston Churchill the fighting in France has gone down the drain and Germany seemed unbeatable. The only good new he has recieved was declaration of war from Italy. And now another disaster has coem to the Empire. He cursed heavily as he read the declaration of war from Stalin over the "illegal occupation" of Alaska for the last twenty years. What could he do now?

So what is Winston Churchill going to do dear AHers?

PS: technically the PoD is is before 1900, but this is more about the year 1940 and the Brits; rather than US congress refusing to buy Alaska.

 

[Gladi]

To the question which is most important to half of AH.com- let us say Zhukov.

 

[Gosing]

Why is Stalin randomly attacking the West for legally buying a piece of frozen land with no importance at all? And how have the Nazis, stalin and Churchill survived the butterflies?

 

[Gladi]

Why is Stalin randomly attacking the West for legally buying a piece of frozen land with no importance at all? And how have the Nazis, stalin and Churchill survived the butterflies?

Sorry put , when I should have put ; . (Colon and semicolon???) Brits did not buy Alaska, they invaded it during Russian Civil War. Why? Do not ask me that what people eveywhere want to happen to Alaska.

And those people survived the butterflies because butterflies do not cause fucking storms, there are more butterflies than people in Europe and I do not see hundreds of millions of storms in China. Oh and through the power the Great Interwebz.

 

[Gosing]

Sorry put , when I should have put ; . (Colon and semicolon???) Brits did not buy Alaska, they invaded it during Russian Civil War. Why? Do not ask me that what people eveywhere want to happen to Alaska.

And those people survived the butterflies because butterflies do not cause fucking storms, there are more butterflies than people in Europe and I do not see hundreds of millions of storms in China. Oh and through the power the Great Interwebz.

Wait...an 1867 PoD?

I'm tempted to say that it was a totally different RCW, if not for the random Nazis.

Also, could you clarify? I'm having trouble understanding the second half of the first paragraph.

Also, think about it this way: a trapper from Ohio may not move to Alaska and meet the love of his life due to Russian immigration policy. Thus, none of his three children are born, and none of their ten children, and so on. Seeing as Winston Churchill wasn't even born until a decade after your PoD, I can't see him coming into power at exactly the same time as OTL. Also, the rise of Nazi Germany, which in OTL had a run of luck due to ridiculously specific circumstances...

And to top it all of, an allegory that shows that you have no clue how the butterfly effect works.

 

[Gladi]

Wait...an 1867 PoD?

Yes.

I'm tempted to say that it was a totally different RCW, if not for the random Nazis.

Also, could you clarify? I'm having trouble understanding the second half of the first paragraph.

I did not come with the Point of Divergence. The issue of Russian Alaska was raised on another forum. When people started talking about Cold War I got somewhat annoyed. Does nobody seem any trouble with UK or USA taking over part of Russian Territory circa 1920?

Also, think about it this way: a trapper from Ohio may not move to Alaska and meet the love of his life due to Russian immigration policy. Thus, none of his three children are born, and none of their ten children, and so on. Seeing as Winston Churchill wasn't even born until a decade after your PoD, I can't see him coming into power at exactly the same time as OTL. Also, the rise of Nazi Germany, which in OTL had a run of luck due to ridiculously specific circumstances...

And to top it all of, an allegory that shows that you have no clue how the butterfly effect works.

Butterfly Effect is named that because of weather calculations in 1960's. The predicitve algorithms of the time were found to possess a certain quirk. A minute change of certain parametres could affect the totality of the weather forecast. The change we are talking about is much larger than the flapping of butterfly wings - though that is the metaphor that has become standard for the issue. That a butterfly flapping its wings in China can cause a storm over the Pacific. Frankly weather is much more affected by other things, if this "butterfly effect" is even real and not just a quirk of programming - which is impossible to prove.

Likewise I find "butterfly effect" in alternate history scenarios to be a completely useless things. When a person constructs WI he is always talking about actual history. In this scenario I show why United Kingdom would not want to take over Alaska, either directly or as some "Russian Empire" rump state client. Even if I put seventeen Winston Churchills smoking cigars and drinking whisky and making useless naval operations, the the socio-economic realities of the British Empire are not subjects of sperm. The reality is that United Kingdom did not want war with Soviet Union OTL and would not war with Soviet Union ITTL.

Also Gosing a small recomandation. When somebody has join date six years prior to somebody else - maybe that somebody else should not be quick with the accusation of ignorance.

 

[Macragge1]

Yes.

I did not come with the Point of Divergence. The issue of Russian Alaska was raised on another forum. When people started talking about Cold War I got somewhat annoyed. Does nobody seem any trouble with UK or USA taking over part of Russian Territory circa 1920?



Butterfly Effect is named that because of weather calculations in 1960's. The predicitve algorithms of the time were found to possess a certain quirk. A minute change of certain parametres could affect the totality of the weather forecast. The change we are talking about is much larger than the flapping of butterfly wings - though that is the metaphor that has become standard for the issue. That a butterfly flapping its wings in China can cause a storm over the Pacific. Frankly weather is much more affected by other things, if this "butterfly effect" is even real and not just a quirk of programming - which is impossible to prove.

Likewise I find "butterfly effect" in alternate history scenarios to be a completely useless things. When a person constructs WI he is always talking about actual history. In this scenario I show why United Kingdom would not want to take over Alaska, either directly or as some "Russian Empire" rump state client. Even if I put seventeen Winston Churchills smoking cigars and drinking whisky and making useless naval operations, the the socio-economic realities of the British Empire are not subjects of sperm. The reality is that United Kingdom did not want war with Soviet Union OTL and would not war with Soviet Union ITTL.

Also Gosing a small recomandation. When somebody has join date six years prior to somebody else - maybe that somebody else should not be quick with the accusation of ignorance.

What ON EARTH are you talking about?

 

[Snowstalker]

We need to slow down here a bit-first, let's focus on Russia keeping Alaska ITTL.

 

[Markus]

"So what is Winston Churchill going to do dear AHers?"

what can stalin do to Alaska? it is save unless the USSR has a navy worth that name. IOTL the civil war had wiped out almost the entire Russian navy and hit their shipbuilding industry even worse. in the 20s they struggled to reactivate pre-war DD, the first new warships were laid down at the end of the decade were small TB and poorly designed ones too. new DD were not build before 1933.
unless that has changed, the USSR has no way of actally invading Alaska. and even if they have a decent navy, their long time arch enemy Japan will still has a much bigger one.

and last but not least, why is a DoW from Italy good news for Winston????

 

[Gladi]

"So what is Winston Churchill going to do dear AHers?"

what can stalin do to Alaska? it is save unless the USSR has a navy worth that name. IOTL the civil war had wiped out almost the entire Russian navy and hit their shipbuilding industry even worse. in the 20s they struggled to reactivate pre-war DD, the first new warships were laid down at the end of the decade were small TB and poorly designed ones too. new DD were not build before 1933.
unless that has changed, the USSR has no way of actally invading Alaska. and even if they have a decent navy, their long time arch enemy Japan will still has a much bigger one.

How much combat assets would USSR need to screen the invasion route? Would all of them need to be in form of ships?

How many ships can Britain send to stop the the attacking force? Especially as the tensions with Japan are rising (are they rising?). Could Soviet Union has found anything in common with Japan as it has found something in common with its previous archenemy Germany?

and last but not least, why is a DoW from Italy good news for Winston????

Standard joke about Italian performance in military matters. /shrug just ging thw whole hog with this...

 

[Markus]

How much combat assets would USSR need to screen the invasion route? Would all of them need to be in form of ships?

-a lot
-Yes, the weather up there is artrocious. That´s why the Japanese correctly concluded the Americans would not take this route to attack them, even though it was the shortest.

How many ships can Britain send to stop the the attacking force? Especially as the tensions with Japan are rising (are they rising?). Could Soviet Union has found anything in common with Japan as it has found something in common with its previous archenemy Germany?

I regard a deal between the UK and Japan much more likely than one between Japan and the USSR, which was a de facto ally of Germany in 1940. And there is also the elephant in the room I somehow overlooked: the USA!
A communist invasion of the north American continent?! That would hardly be ignored by the Americans(people and government).

 

[Super Parker Brothers]

Would the United States recieve Alaska perhaps as it's share of the spoils after WWI? I know that Canada might want go gain land much as the other Dominions did (Such as South Africa with Nambia, Australia with New Guinea, New Zealand with Samoa), though could Canada perhaps be assuaged instead with having their claims to the Alaska border as the accepted ones, as well as giving them Newfoundland, the French islands, and perhaps oversight over some of the Carribean? Also, how would Russia respond to the attempts of massive immigration to Alaska from the gold fields of Australia and California? Would they not find the gold at all? Would the Rush in Yukon never happen? Perhaps the Czar has it as a royal monopoly? I should probably also bring up the Monroe Doctorine, in which the United States would not allow the cession of land from anyone to a European state in the Americas. They would view both the Soviets and Canadians this way. Wonder about the Ukrainians in Canada, too. Seems there would be a place for more White Russians to flee to. And the Japanese get a free pass...

 

[Gladi]

-a lot
-Yes, the weather up there is artrocious. That´s why the Japanese correctly concluded the Americans would not take this route to attack them, even though it was the shortest.

What is a lot? If Alaska belonged to Imperial Russia, the USSR would have had twenty years to sit and look across the Bering Strait.

I regard a deal between the UK and Japan much more likely than one between Japan and the USSR, which was a de facto ally of Germany in 1940.

Wait, I am losing you a bit, who are talking about as de facto ally of Germany? Japan or USSR? Both are allies in a way are they not?

And what deal could UK make with Japanese? Yes, Russian invasion of Alaska is a long shot, but Japanese and British invasion of Russia is even less likely in my opinion. What about China in UK-Japan deal or Dutch East Indies?

And there is also the elephant in the room I somehow overlooked: the USA!
A communist invasion of the north American continent?! That would hardly be ignored by the Americans(people and government).

Dunno, but if people are used to Alaska being russian, maybe they will not worry that much? And was hatred for communism that high before the start of the Cold War?

 

[Markus]

What is a lot? If Alaska belonged to Imperial Russia, the USSR would have had twenty years to sit and look across the Bering Strait.

And look is all they can do without a fleet, something the USSR didn´t have in 1940 in our timeline, not nearly.

Wait, I am losing you a bit, who are talking about as de facto ally of Germany? Japan or USSR? Both are allies in a way are they not?

The USSR! They also invaded Poland and delivered vast amounts of resources to Germany. Like the oil that allowed the tanks to overrun France.

And what deal could UK make with Japanese?

Offer them China?

Dunno, but if people are used to Alaska being russian, maybe they will not worry that much? And was hatred for communism that high before the start of the Cold War?

It would still be an invasion of North America, there would be plenty of Canadians/Americans in Alaska and yes, communism was always unpopular in the USA except for the time between Dec74, 41 and May 9th, 45.

 

[Gosing]

Yes.

I did not come with the Point of Divergence. The issue of Russian Alaska was raised on another forum. When people started talking about Cold War I got somewhat annoyed. Does nobody seem any trouble with UK or USA taking over part of Russian Territory circa 1920?



Butterfly Effect is named that because of weather calculations in 1960's. The predicitve algorithms of the time were found to possess a certain quirk. A minute change of certain parametres could affect the totality of the weather forecast. The change we are talking about is much larger than the flapping of butterfly wings - though that is the metaphor that has become standard for the issue. That a butterfly flapping its wings in China can cause a storm over the Pacific. Frankly weather is much more affected by other things, if this "butterfly effect" is even real and not just a quirk of programming - which is impossible to prove.

Likewise I find "butterfly effect" in alternate history scenarios to be a completely useless things. When a person constructs WI he is always talking about actual history. In this scenario I show why United Kingdom would not want to take over Alaska, either directly or as some "Russian Empire" rump state client. Even if I put seventeen Winston Churchills smoking cigars and drinking whisky and making useless naval operations, the the socio-economic realities of the British Empire are not subjects of sperm. The reality is that United Kingdom did not want war with Soviet Union OTL and would not war with Soviet Union ITTL.

Also Gosing a small recomandation. When somebody has join date six years prior to somebody else - maybe that somebody else should not be quick with the accusation of ignorance.

1. Okay

2. I see no trouble with it sans butterflies.

3. Let me explain this to you, as nobody seems to have done in the six years you are here:

The Buttefly Effect that everybody loves to talk about here is not the meteorological theory. It's actully based off a short story by Asimov (which I definately recomend reading-the title is something like "The Sound of Thunder"). The theory goes something like this:

Changes in the course of history, no matter how small, will invariably have unpredictable consequences, which in turn will cause more unpredictable consequences, in a chain reaction that will continue until the entire course of history is changed.

As for your bolded statement..well, the first part is a (very debateable) opinion, but the second is more-or-less oxymoronic. Your scenario here has seven decades of difference, plenty of time for divergences piling up, and thus isn't OTL history.

Your next statement confuses me-as far as I can gather, you admit this is basically you trying to make a point with a scenario you made up yourself. I have yet to see you offer up any defence of its plausibility even without butterflies (I ask again: why is Stalin randomly attacking a frozen piece of nowhere when he needs to look strongest in Europe?) Hell, Finland has just given him a run for his money; why is he looking for a fight with not one, but two Great Powers that pose no direct threat to him?

Also, you seem to assume that the length of your membership at AH.Com is the ultimate measure of wisdom and knowledge. Bu leaving that aside for the moment, I would like to point out that it isn't just some crackpot scheme I came up with one weekend; I suggest reading Look to the West and/or Decades of Darkness, two ridiculously long, detailed, enjoyable timelines written by two longtime, well-respected members of AH.Com, both of which employ the butterfly effect liberally.

 

[darkblue1893]

It was Bradbury not Asimov who wrote the short story. I have always understood AH to be based on their being an infinite amount of worlds, with an infinite amount of divergences out there, so I see no reason why Soviet Russia cant attack British Alaska.

 

[Gladi]

And look is all they can do without a fleet, something the USSR didn´t have in 1940 in our timeline, not nearly.

And it would be interesting to see what resources USSR could divert there. Also there are other fronts. What is going on in Iran and Afghanistan?

The USSR! They also invaded Poland and delivered vast amounts of resources to Germany. Like the oil that allowed the tanks to overrun France.

Agreed.

Offer them China?

But China is not UK's to give. Even if they offer japanese a free hand, would everybody follow them? Dutch probably yes, but how is USA going to see such a trade? And will Japanese see offer of China as something they do not already posses?

It would still be an invasion of North America, there would be plenty of Canadians/Americans in Alaska and yes, communism was always unpopular in the USA except for the time between Dec74, 41 and May 9th, 45.

Okay, you probably know better, I jusut know that USA had solid labour movement and socialist, while not making breakthrough had sway over very small portion of populace.

3. Let me explain this to you, as nobody seems to have done in the six years you are here:

The Buttefly Effect that everybody loves to talk about here is not the meteorological theory. It's actully based off a short story by Asimov (which I definately recomend reading-the title is something like "The Sound of Thunder"). The theory goes something like this:

I think butterfly effect is bullshit.

And it is Bradbury.

Changes in the course of history, no matter how small, will invariably have unpredictable consequences, which in turn will cause more unpredictable consequences, in a chain reaction that will continue until the entire course of history is changed.

Except of course that the author knows all these "unpredictable" consequences. And again if one butterfly does not pollinate those flowers another will. The bird that would have eaten the butterfly will eat another, or not. History going in completely different direction is no more plausible than history goint in the entirely same direction.

As for your bolded statement..well, the first part is a (very debateable) opinion, but the second is more-or-less oxymoronic. Your scenario here has seven decades of difference, plenty of time for divergences piling up, and thus isn't OTL history.

No. But it is about the limitations of British Empire. If Russia retained Alaska into 20th century I see little reason for that piece of Russia to be severed from it. I can see that UK could ahve taken Alaska, but it would be rather unprofitable acquistion.

Your next statement confuses me-as far as I can gather, you admit this is basically you trying to make a point with a scenario you made up yourself. I have yet to see you offer up any defence of its plausibility even without butterflies (I ask again: why is Stalin randomly attacking a frozen piece of nowhere when he needs to look strongest in Europe?) Hell, Finland has just given him a run for his money; why is he looking for a fight with not one, but two Great Powers that pose no direct threat to him?

Stalin is attacking Alaska because as Gasudar of Russia he cannot leave any piece of the Motherland unattented.

Also, you seem to assume that the length of your membership at AH.Com is the ultimate measure of wisdom and knowledge. Bu leaving that aside for the moment, I would like to point out that it isn't just some crackpot scheme I came up with one weekend; I suggest reading Look to the West and/or Decades of Darkness, two ridiculously long, detailed, enjoyable timelines written by two longtime, well-respected members of AH.Com, both of which employ the butterfly effect liberally.

Thanks for reading recomendation, but I stopped reading for exactly those reason. A lot of handwaving under guise of "butterflies" followed by the future of TL being decided by authorial fiat. At certain point AltHist scenarios stop being "what could happen", but start being "how can I justify a British Empire on which the Sun Never Sets?"

 

[Gosing]

I think butterfly effect is bullshit.

And it is Bradbury.

I stand corrected on the writer (I was sure it was Asimov. Huh.)

Second, that is your opinion. I would say however that the butterfly effect very much fits the common perception of how the world works. To take your example: the Russians retaining Alaska will have a number of effects upon the global balance of power, but it will also have an uncounted multitude of smaller effects. For example: the money the OTL US used on Alaska will instead go to other uses. It migh slightly reduce taxes, which will allow a man to marry and have a child that wasn't born IOTL. It might allow for a larger standing army, which will result in a man not being discharged and thus not meeting the love of his life. You could reverse both these scenarios in Russia for the government not having the money. And then you have all the other, unknowable differences, causing other differences, stacking up decadeafter decade...

I personally find it hard to enjoy a TL that doesn't take these into effect. But c'est la vie.

Except of course that the author knows all these "unpredictable" consequences. And again if one butterfly does not pollinate those flowers another will. The bird that would have eaten the butterfly will eat another, or not. History going in completely different direction is no more plausible than history goint in the entirely same direction.

And the butterfly that is eaten rather then pollinates then it gives the bird the sustinence it needs to survive. It then trips a passing stable boy, resulting in him needing to wash his clothes and thus conceives five hours later, resulting in a different sperm and a totally different son, who in turn will act differently then any of the other sons would have...

We're talking about a new British colony here, so the butterflies would go straight to the British Colonial and Foreign Offices. A certain young dandy by the name of Lord Randolph Churchill is currently sitting in Parliament. Do you really think he'll be totally unaffected?

No. But it is about the limitations of British Empire. If Russia retained Alaska into 20th century I see little reason for that piece of Russia to be severed from it. I can see that UK could ahve taken Alaska, but it would be rather unprofitable acquistion.

So in other words, you've made up a scenario...to make a point.

Stalin is attacking Alaska because as Gasudar of Russia he cannot leave any piece of the Motherland unattented.

Here's the thing about the lands in Eastern Europe that Stalin reclaimed: they had strategic value, valuable resources, were traditionally coveted by Russia, and were close to the Soviet heartland. And even then, Stalin only moved when he had a chance to move safely, without antagonizing a major power. There aren't sufficient forces in the Far East to invade without either leaving the Japanese border unguarded (musn't leave an opening for them to get revenge) or sending troops in the west on a months-long, demoralizing trek to Siberia and leaving the way open for a German invasion.

Stalin was a statesman. A brutal, paranoid, repressive statesman, but a statesman. He grabbed what he could, but never actually started a war with a major power. It doesn't seem slightly out of character for him to randomly declare war on two major powers (I'm not seeing the Americans not joining in, assuming they weren't selectively butterflied to hate the British too).

Thanks for reading recomendation, but I stopped reading for exactly those reason. A lot of handwaving under guise of "butterflies" followed by the future of TL being decided by authorial fiat. At certain point AltHist scenarios stop being "what could happen", but start being "how can I justify a British Empire on which the Sun Never Sets?"

So you're backing up on the dig about experience?

Also, has it ever occured to you that it may be just as much handwaving to force history on the exact same track as OTL? You seem to be dictating the setting of this scenario so that it is maximumly bad for the British.

Also, in which of those TLs do you think the sun is never setting? DoD has the Empire traumatically destroyed by German invasion, while LTTW doesn't have a "British Empire" in the OTL sense at all. Both seem, on the whole, extremely well-thought out and unwankish to me.

 

[Markus]

Okay, you probably know better, I jusut know that USA had solid labour movement and socialist, while not making breakthrough had sway over very small portion of populace.

I don´t know better but a solid labour movement ain´t communism, especially not the kind that comes as a foreign invader.

 

[Gladi]

So in other words, you've made up a scenario...to make a point.

Duh.

There aren't sufficient forces in the Far East to invade without either leaving the Japanese border unguarded (musn't leave an opening for them to get revenge) or sending troops in the west on a months-long, demoralizing trek to Siberia and leaving the way open for a German invasion.

The Japanese has lost several engagments and have lost all will to fight the Soviets and Germans are right now marching to eliminate last French strongholds.

So you're backing up on the dig about experience?

No. I still think your lecture was moronic.

Also, has it ever occured to you that it may be just as much handwaving to force history on the exact same track as OTL? You seem to be dictating the setting of this scenario so that it is maximumly bad for the British.

Duh. *waves hands frantically*

Could British Empire afford both belligerent Germany and Soviet Union? I thought not. Though I agree that I did not give enough thought to Japan.

My own answer to that question in OP is make peace with Germany, btw.

I don´t know better but a solid labour movement ain´t communism, especially not the kind that comes as a foreign invader.

I thought that invasion of !Alaska is different than invasion Alaska. Hmm, what was the latest involvement of non-americans in Americas? (Well, Falklnads, but closer to the time) I do not remember much all british interventions in Ibero-America.