Unless Russia finds itself in a large war with America/Canada on the opposite side or America/Canada decide to adopt DoD America’s view on territorial expansion, then having the majority of the population being Russians loyal to the current regime is essentially all that’s needed to preserve Russia’s ownership of Alaska.
I agree in regards to the “right conditions,” but in the context of the U&L universe, I would argue that the time for those conditions has passed.
That may be true, perhaps.
Somewhat unlikely? Who else would be in Russian Alaska to find gold besides Russian citizens or indigenous Alaskans? It would be one thing for an American to be in Alaska if the United States already owned Alaska or moved after hearing that gold was discovered, but if Alaska remained Russia and its gold supplies remained unknown, why would any American want to move to Siberia 2.0?
Also, the Siberian resource argument doesn’t really gel with human nature. Throughout all of human history, countries have operated on the logic of “More resources the better!” Why would Russia be any different? Admittedly, the low amount or resources Alaska has in comparison to Siberia would make the loss of Alaska a bit more “tolerable”, but at the same time, I’m left to wonder why America/Canada would even bother with a war over a region with such a “low” amount of resources (especially since American or British diplomats could probably secure favorable mining contracts/trade deals).
The main problem there in lies when the Russians find themselves running out of gold. Some favorable mining contracts may be signed, of course.
And again, let me state that
war does not necessarily have to occur for Russia to let go of Alaska.
But you still disregarded Russian Alaska lasting to present day as implausible as Operation Sea Lion, when in the context of TTL, modern Russian Alaska is not only one of the most plausible outcomes (or at least it was before Russia joined the New Coalition), but it is certainly more plausible than say “Franco-German puppet Alaska.”
The problem is, even in the context of TTL, plausibility is starting to become an issue.
I certainly agree with you that in the case of a hypothetical early 20th century Alaskan War, American would most likely beat Russia, but the point I was trying to make wasn’t about military strength. Instead, I was addressing political/cultural attitudes. The Russian public (especially in a much more nationalistic era) wouldn’t tolerate their government throwing their fellow Russians in Alaska to the American sharks without at least trying to put up some sort of fight. Unfortunately for the Russian government, the lose-lose nature of the situation could become a Catch-22 that leads to revolts.
Well, what do you think they would say about independence? Now probably isn't the right time, but what about another decade or two from now?
No one said that, but based on previous statements you’ve given, you’ve implied that Russia having the economic/political stability needed to maintain Alaska as an integral territory into the modern day is just as implausible as a successful Operation Sea Lion.
Which it unfortunately is.
As noted above, why would Russia pull out of Alaska just because Siberia has resources, and what would be point of making Alaska an associated state? It would be one thing if Alaska developed a majority non-Russian population and or a population large enough that it would require self-government due to the technological limitations of the day, but based on the points I’ve made earlier, neither of these two possibilities should be a serious issue for U&L Russia.
What would be the point of keeping Alaska after all the most valuable resources run out and especially if international tensions flare up again, and if a major domestic crisis were to happen sometime in the future? If the government heads in Moscow are smart, they'll see the writing on the wall when it finally does appear.
Why would treating Alaska as an integral part of Russia (such as one would treat Moscow) not be a viable option? As Hawaii proves, geographical separation is an obstacle that can ultimately be overcome, and assuming that Alaska remains majority-Russian, why would the Russian Alaskans want to declare independence from their motherland?
Hawaii is a very different scenario, my friend. Very different.
True. At the same time though, there really isn’t any reason to assume that it would last much longer than it did in OTL.
Possible, but it may go the other way as well.
Based on various trends in U&L (both scientific and demographic), the technology could start ahead of schedule by 10-15 years without falling into the realm of implausibility.
Agreed. It all depends on what Wilcox wants to do.
As also mentioned before, actual military strength or logistics wasn’t my point. The point I was trying to make was that the Russians would be far less forgiving of having Alaska stolen from them then you assume that they would be.
For example, let’s envision a hypothetical scenario. Let’s say that an ASB-powered Canada invades Alaska or North Dakota and successfully defeats every American attempt to regain the territory. Naturally, the American public’s reaction wouldn’t nearly be as harsh as it would be if Canada conquered New York or California, but at the same time, I would argue that the difference between those reactions would be relatively moot. Americans, whether if it is Alaska or New York that is conquered, won’t be in a forgiving mood anytime soon.
I don't think they would be in a forgiving mood for a while either. But would it necessarily lead to a massive war, as some have speculated? Alaska isn't like North Dakota, btw.
It does, but because Russia has claimed the territory first, this situation is much more supportive of Russia maintaining ownership of Alaska instead of America claiming ownership or Alaska declaring independence.
You forgot to mention all the other possibilities I threw out there.
There are, and as others and myself have mentioned, there’s also the likely possibility that Russia maintains direct control of Alaska.
In the short term, maybe, but in the long term? Not.
Russian Alyskia is really an exciting part of this timeline that makes demonstrably little sense to remove, as is the case with an independent California, or Baden, or Illyria, or any number of other truly innovative elements of this timeline that really separate it from just about anything on the board right now.
Efforts on the part of some to revert them to something more resembling OTL is comically unimaginative.
Let's talk about something more interesting now, like THE GREAT FREAKING WAR.
Exciting? Some people may indeed be
somewhat interested in the idea of Russian Alaska surviving until say, 2000, or whatever, but I don't think the vast majority of people who do want a continued Russian Alaska quite share your level of enthusiasm, Koxinga, I do have to be honest.
And, TBH, Russian Alaska actually does resemble OTL quite a bit more than say, an Associated Commonwealth of Alaska puppet state, or a Republic of Alaska(hypothetical, of course, but you get the picture, right?).
Yeah, I see no reason why Alaska staying Russian appears to mean the end of the world as we know it. Especially after it's been that way for well over a century.
Well, nobody quite implied that, of course.
But I can be honest and say that it is indeed starting to become a plausibility issue, and that I would prefer that the problem be addressed as soon as possible. And as I've stated several times, it doesn't have to be American. It can be any number of things, even something like what Canada and Australia were to Britain at one point: a dominion, or commonwealth, whatever you'd like to call it.
The Russian Revolution isn't happening. This is, after all, 77 years post-PoD and counting. A revolution of some kind could happen, but it's unlikely, since TTL's Russia isn't as repressive as IOTL.
The Revolution as we knew it? You may be right, it may not happen. But I am considering what could happen in the long term, and right now, we don't know for sure if Russia will stay peaceful for a few decades(and it could), or if some trouble may occur down the road which may upset the status quo.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens, but even the most devoted Russian Alaska aficionados have to admit that I've brought up some pretty valid points & scenarios here. All that's left now is to see how the TL progresses.
@Wilcox: BTW, Wilcox, how's California holding up right now?
