I felt pretty honoured that you included French (attempts at) Sakhalin.
I thought it only fair I look into the feasibility of it a bit more. And the more I read, the more I wonder why no other European colonial powers made a grab for it IOTL. There's always speculation about Taiwan becoming a European colony, but very little focus on Sakhalin.
To put it into perspective, IOTL the Trans-Siberian Railroad wasn't completed until 1891. Steamboats didn't start operating on the Amur River until 1870. Then, of course, Sakhalin is a boat-ride away. I read
this when considering how long it would take a horse to travel from Moscow to Siberia and this
on 'demand and design' when considering how accessible the region was prior to the Trans-Siberian Railroad. I think that you're correct in that it would take the French less time to reach Sakhalin from India than the Russians from 'Russia proper,'
@Sārthākā .
Of course the Russians did have a naval presence in the Pacific during this time. Here's what Wikipedia tells us:
"In 1731, the Imperial Russian Navy created the
Okhotsk Military Flotilla (Охотская военная флотилия,
Okhotskaya voyennaya flotiliya) under its first commander, Grigoriy Skornyakov-Pisarev, to patrol and transport government goods to and from Kamchatka. In 1799, 3 frigates and 3 smaller ships were sent to Okhotsk under the command of Rear-Admiral I. Fomin to form a functioning military flotilla. In 1849, Petropavlovsk-na-Kamchatke became the Flotilla's principal base, which a year later would be transferred to Nikolayevsk-on-Amur and later to Vladivostok in 1871. In 1854, the men of the Flotilla distinguished themselves in the defense of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy during the Crimean War, (1853–1856). In 1856, the Okhotsk Military Flotilla changed its name to the
"Siberian Military Flotilla" (Сибирская военная флотилия,
Sibirskaya voyennaya flotiliya)."
So there is a small Russian flotilla there, but IOTL it was defeated by the British and French in the OTL Crimean War. This caused me to read up about the Siege of Petropavlovsk. Here we learn from the background of the battle:
"The primary concern of the Anglo-French allies was that cruisers of the Russian Siberian flotilla would operate against British and French trade in the area. The British force on the station was under Rear-Admiral David Price (newly promoted after serving as post captain for 39 years) and the French under Rear-Admiral Auguste Febvrier-Despointes. On 9 May 1854 the bulk of the British and French squadrons were at Callao, Peru when they received orders to operate against the Russian cruisers in the Pacific. There were three potential bases for the Russians: the island of Novo-Arkhangelsk, capital of Russian America (modern Alaska), Okhotsk on the Sea of Okhotsk, and the largest Russian settlement on the Pacific Coast, Petropavlovsk on the Kamtchatka Peninsula. Given the importance of allied trade with California, two British frigates (
Trincomalee and
Amphitrite) and a French corvette (
Artemise) were detached to cruise off that coast and defend the California trade. The remaining vessels (British frigates
President and
Pique, the British sloop
Virago, the French frigate
Forte, the French corvette
Eurydice and the French aviso
Obligado) set out to hunt down the Russian ships in the Pacific. These six ships were crewed by roughly 1,700 men and mounted 200 guns."
I feel then that French Sakhalin makes sense as it would indeed provide a base for them in the Pacific from where they could protect their trade in the area. It's also possible for the British and French to be victorious in the region, despite its remoteness.
There will be huge butterflies from this though. From the Russians relocating their flotilla from Kamchatka to Amur or Vladivostock, to an earlier establishment of a Trans-Siberian Route, to possibly even the selling of Alaska due to it being perceived as indefensible - IOTL Crimean War Novo-Arkhangelsk (Sitka) was taken in the conflict and one of the reasons Alaska was sold was to stop it falling to the British.
Lots and lots of fun things you can do with French Sakhalin.
I would say that maybe more needs to be said about the Russo-Japanese Alliance ITTL though. This alliance predates the OTL Treaty of Shimoda by 15 years and would be quite significant. I think it certainly warrants more than "because the French land at Sakhalin the Russians and Japanese sign an alliance." Does TTL treaty define the borders Japan and Russia want/claim in Sakhalin? Or are they both renouncing their claims, admitting the French have taken Sakhalin, and now just being pissed off at the French?
Sorry I'm quiet, I'm just enjoying unemployed life now. I also promised a member called Jordi that I'd help him with some grammar stuff, but lost my original message to him and need to rewrite. That's my next job.
Northstar
