What if? Russian Alaska

Onyx

Banned
Well as you can tell, Im new here. And I do want alot alt history of Russia.

So I guess:
What if Seward, thinking Alaska was nothing but a frozen wasteland decides to drop the deal with Russia.
Gold and Oil was discovered there, but would've happened if Alaska wasnt given to the Americans?
 
Depends on when Alexander dies/Gorchakov gets out of power.

Subsequent governments might want to hold on to it a little more than that one did.
 
Huge influx of American immigrants, Texas redux.
Was there any precedent for American colonists moving into an area not contiguous to any of their territory, separated by a foreign state? There is a difference between moving to Texas, bordered by America, and Alaska, bordered solely by Canada. If anyone from America comes to Alaska, it would be Canadian explorers / settlers.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I'm gonna go with...

In 1905, the Western Aleutians are captured by the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War. The antiquated Russian squadron in Alaska in pounded to bits off the coast of Kiska.

In the aftermath, the Russian Navy builds the Alaskan Squadron and bases it in Dutch Harbour as insurance against any future war with Japan.

Alaska stays as a colony of the Russian Empire until 1917. The Revolution starts, then the Kerensky government decides to sell it (whether they control it or not, which they may not) under the original proposal to America.

America can't occupy it from the sea, so it makes a deal with Canada to move troops in from the Yukon and British Columbia as well as making a naval landing somewhere around Dutch Harbour. Canada, in return, will occupy and gain control of everything in the panhandle.

The Alaskan Squadron goes over to the Reds, as does the few battalions of Russian troops in Anchorage, Juneau, and Ft. Hyder.

On April 23, 1918, American Marines come ashore to push to Juneau and Canadian Army troops push to Ft. Hyder.

That's the rough outline. God damn...I think I want to write something on this...
 
One of the reasons the Russians sold it was to avoid a future war with Britain because there were Canadian settlers moving in, along with Americans. Its unlikely the Americans would pull a Texas or California with a non-contiguous territory, but its highly likely for the Canadians to do so. The Russians were found of Americans but despised the British. Hence the solicitation to sell.
 
I'm working on something a little akin to this, but eventually Alaska would become independent... at least sections of it.

I'm trying to decide how things might turn out IF somehow the Jewish population of Russia/Eastern Europe was convinced/evicted to Alaska as resettlement.

Again, as with the Russo-Japanese War, the Japanese may procure some of the Aleutians. Once the Revolution hit, it may be that Alyaska breaks away with talks to Britain. In exchange for, say, some of the Arctic/Interior Land, more of the coastal, inhabitable areas would remain under independent Alaskan control WITH British recognition. Then David ben-Gurion shows up...

Still doing more research on the topic, but if I like your basic one for an alternate.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I'm working on something a little akin to this, but eventually Alaska would become independent... at least sections of it.

I'm trying to decide how things might turn out IF somehow the Jewish population of Russia/Eastern Europe was convinced/evicted to Alaska as resettlement.

Again, as with the Russo-Japanese War, the Japanese may procure some of the Aleutians. Once the Revolution hit, it may be that Alyaska breaks away with talks to Britain. In exchange for, say, some of the Arctic/Interior Land, more of the coastal, inhabitable areas would remain under independent Alaskan control WITH British recognition. Then David ben-Gurion shows up...

Still doing more research on the topic, but if I like your basic one for an alternate.

Thanks. I'm thinking that in a few weeks or so, then, the board will get deluged with Alaskan alternate history. :D
 

Onyx

Banned
Good sugestions guys
I was thinking that if Alaska was still part of USSR, Stalin would've deported the Jews-Ukrainians-Armenians-etc to Alaska instead of Siberia so they would defend Alaska from American Control
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Good sugestions guys
I was thinking that if Alaska was still part of USSR, Stalin would've deported the Jews-Ukrainians-Armenians-etc to Alaska instead of Siberia so they would defend Alaska from American Control

Well, my thought would be that if he deported them there, then they wouldn't be in any rush to defend the government that had put them there.

It was a pretty harsh place, but there were examples of battles on the frontier.

(digs out Encyclopedia of Battles in North America 1517-1916)

The Battle of Sitka happened in early October, 1804. What the Russians did when they owned the territory was operate it through the Russian-American Company, basically a carbon copy of the Hudson Bay Company except it was much more under the direct ownership of the czar, as opposed to private ownership from the HBC.
Basically, the Tslingit tribe of the Inuit had carried on a low level war with the Russians for years before that, where they would bushwack a Russian fort (they had actually built the most extensive fortifications east of the Mississippi and north of Mexico), and the Russians would march out later and bushwack them.
After about a decade of this, the Russians pressured some allied Inuit tribes into marching with them on the nominal capital of the Tslingit tribe, where the Inuit had built a log fort.
The Russians brought with them a frigate, and several small transports. They landed, but were attacked by musket fire from the natives. The frigate shelled the fort and after a week of shelling, the Tslingit withdrew and the Russians occupied the fort.
They established the trading post of Novo-Archangel, or New Archangel, nearby.
 
Thanks. I'm thinking that in a few weeks or so, then, the board will get deluged with Alaskan alternate history. :D

I believe this happened a few months ago also. Of course many are just not aware of the Monroe Doctrine and the part it would have played in the Russo-Japanese War. The likelihood of the Japanese getting Alaska is pretty slim to highly unlikely.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I believe this happened a few months ago also. Of course many are just not aware of the Monroe Doctrine and the part it would have played in the Russo-Japanese War. The likelihood of the Japanese getting Alaska is pretty slim to highly unlikely.

Well, that's why I'm thinking they'd probably only get the Western Aleutians. Alaska's a big place, with much more than just the mainland. The Japanese would have bigger fish to fry, anyway. But if Alaska was still under Russian control, then the Japanese landing troops on the extreme edge of the chain would put a crimp in any future efforts by the Russians to move troops back and forth without difficulty.
 
Someone did a really awesome timeline on this called "The Empire of Alaska." Unfortunately, he never finished it.
 
Someone asks this question at a rate of once or twice a year. Its rather cyclical in nature, and so a quick search will always turn up stuff.

The arguments are also usualy cyclical.

Could it become Japanese? (not really - monroe, size, etc)

Could it become Communist (no - the allies were willing to intervene in OTL Russia civil war, and Canada actualy sent troops to russia, you can be sure they will not let that happen to Alaska)

Would it eventualy become American? (Alot of Americans hold to it being an inevitability, but it is an option)

Would it eventualy become Canadian? (I personally hold that thats the most plausible route short of it staying Imperial Russian, since Canada has always coveted the territory historically)

Would it become independent? (Again plausible, and depends on the arguer)

In an earlier thread ( https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=103310&highlight=Alaska ) I proposed that Alaska would become a Canadian protectorate, with the Czars installed (being evacuated by the British through Archangel or St. Petersburg) as rulers of Alaska.

The entire scenario ran something like this.

Russia never sells the area to the Americans, and though they hold on to it nervously for a while, the eventual warming of relations because of Germany cools their jets.

The Japanese never get anything in the Russo-Japanese War because of American, and others, objections. The area also isn't worth that much.

When the Russia civil war occurs, the Royal Familly is evacuated from Russia, and while they initialy rest in the comfort of London, the establishment of the protectorate in Alaska (and maybe some eastern Russia) forces them there.

Nicholas II spends the rest of his life calling for war against the Soviets to reinstall himself, or his familly.

Alaska, though initialy a protectorate of Britain, soon becomes a Canadian protectorate with the Statutes of Westminister.

World War II, and the Japanese scare, forces Canada and Alaska closer together, and they form a quasi-political-economic union.

Throughout the the cold war, Canada and Alaska become even closer together, with Alaska maintaining the semblance of independence.

As the cold war develops, and Nicholas II dies, and then his succesor dies, a more realist Romanov begins to set his (or her) sights on a throne closer to home. That throne of course being Canada's. The Romanov in question then starts a public campaign to try and get his familly installed on the throne.

Though Alaska in this scenario would try and maintain being Russian, in this scenario, both due to its proximity to Canada and America, but also due to the eventual openess causing an influx of english speakers once a resource boom happens, Alaska will probably speak english, and the Romanovs along with it. In the event of trying to get Canada, they'd probaly polish up their French too.

Odd effects not mentioned.

The OTL Alaska border dispute went bad for Canada because Britain backstabbed Canada's claim to appease America (Britain was having a dispute with the states about a border with Venuzuela), so the Alaska panhandle would probably be smaller in this scenario with the Yukon actualy having a port.

The protectorate, although officialy British, would be Canada basically from the get go.

Quote:
  • Turks and Caicos Islands - A British overseas territory in the Caribbean. There is some support for it to join Canada, and in 2004 Nova Scotia voted to invite Turks and Caicos to join that province, in the event of the islands becoming Canadian. However, the islands' small economy and Canada's involvement in Haiti has made this controversial.
  • Jamaica - In the late 19th century, there was some discussion of some form of political union between Canada and Jamaica.
  • Barbados - In 1884, the Barbados Agricultural Society sent a letter to Sir Francis Hincks requesting his private and public views on whether the Dominion of Canada would favourably entertain having the then colony of Barbados admitted as a member of the Canadian Confederation. Asked of Canada were the terms of the Canadian side to initiate discussions, and whether or not the island of Barbados could depend on the full influence of Canada in getting the change agreed to by Britain. Then in 1952 the Barbados Advocate newspaper polled several prominent Barbadian politicians, lawyers, businessmen, the Speaker of the Barbados House of Assembly and later as first President of the Senate, Sir Theodore Branker, Q.C. and found them to be in favour of immediate federation of Barbados along with the rest of the British Caribbean with complete Dominion Status within five years from the date of inauguration of the West Indies Federation with Canada.
  • Bermuda - In 1949 Henry Vassey, then Chairman of the Bermuda Trade Development Board, urged the House of Assembly of Bermuda to pursue a political union with Canada. Four Methodist church congregations in Bermuda are part of The United Church of Canada, forming Bermuda Presbytery of the United Church's Maritime Conference headquartered in Sackville, New Brunswick.
  • The West Indies Federation – In a 1952 letter by T.G. Major, a Canadian Trade Commissioner in Trinidad and Tobago, it was stated to the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs that the respective leaders of the British Caribbean could not reach a clear consensus for the exact style of a federal union with Canada. During a parliamentary conference held in Ottawa, it was also noted though that the colony of British Honduras (present day Belize) showed the most interest in a union with Canada exceeding that of the other British Caribbean colonies.
Canadian Prime Minister Robert Borden and his delegation to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 put pressure on British Prime Minister David Lloyd George to give most of the above territories to Canada as sub-dominions or League of Nations mandates, citing the concessions made to Billy Hughes' Australian delegation with regard to New Guinea and Nauru. Lloyd George eventually declined [5].

So, perhaps in this scenario, with Canada being allowed to assert itself far more, Canada also gets Britain carribean possesions...

Well those are my two cents.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Someone asks this question at a rate of once or twice a year. Its rather cyclical in nature, and so a quick search will always turn up stuff.

The arguments are also usualy cyclical.

Could it become Japanese? (not really - monroe, size, etc)

When I kind of brainstormed my idea out (and then thought about it some more, and jotted down some notes and grabbed some books on it), I found that my objections to the "Japanese Impossibility" kept getting more and more heated.

It's not that I'm saying that in 1905, they'd have marched into Anchorage. They wouldn't have gone within 200 miles of Dutch Harbour. That's completely illogical. What I am saying is that as security for another war against the Russians, and to avoid them being able to reenforce Alaska, they would capture key islands in the Western Aleutians to stop the Russians from having easy coaling stations, etc.
That is something they could've accomplished, and something that would've put them in a much better position come bargaining time. Even if they gave them back at the peace negotiations, then they might end up capturing them again in 1917.

Maybe I'm reading most peoples' posts wrong (I could be), but there seems to be this idea that if you mention the Japanese and Alaska in the same sentence, then you're talking about the Home Islands owning the whole thing, which isn't logical. I'm not getting a sense of...moderation.

Who knows? Maybe I'm not getting the right sense of why folks have been rejecting the Japanese out of hand. Me personally, I think it's logical.
 
When I kind of brainstormed my idea out (and then thought about it some more, and jotted down some notes and grabbed some books on it), I found that my objections to the "Japanese Impossibility" kept getting more and more heated.

It's not that I'm saying that in 1905, they'd have marched into Anchorage. They wouldn't have gone within 200 miles of Dutch Harbour. That's completely illogical. What I am saying is that as security for another war against the Russians, and to avoid them being able to reenforce Alaska, they would capture key islands in the Western Aleutians to stop the Russians from having easy coaling stations, etc.
That is something they could've accomplished, and something that would've put them in a much better position come bargaining time. Even if they gave them back at the peace negotiations, then they might end up capturing them again in 1917.

Maybe I'm reading most peoples' posts wrong (I could be), but there seems to be this idea that if you mention the Japanese and Alaska in the same sentence, then you're talking about the Home Islands owning the whole thing, which isn't logical. I'm not getting a sense of...moderation.

Who knows? Maybe I'm not getting the right sense of why folks have been rejecting the Japanese out of hand. Me personally, I think it's logical.

The Japanese seizing the Aleutians isn't that implausible in my opinion, I was just stating the majority opinion on them siezing Alaska.

Though if there is a big Pacific War with Japan gettign taken down to size, you can probably bet Alaska (or the Russians/Soviets) will be wanting them back...
 

MacCaulay

Banned
The Japanese seizing the Aleutians isn't that implausible in my opinion, I was just stating the majority opinion on them siezing Alaska.

Though if there is a big Pacific War with Japan gettign taken down to size, you can probably bet Alaska (or the Russians/Soviets) will be wanting them back...

Totally. It's an interesting idea. The Russians never had to island hop in OTL, it would be interesting to see that story.
The rough outline I've written up looks like it'll go from the 1830s (just to give a run in with real history) up to 1918.

Didn't mean to get snippy or anything. There are just times where you run into a big "all or nothing" mentality on the board, and sometimes people don't want things that are just...well..."okay."
 
Again, as with the Russo-Japanese War, the Japanese may procure some of the Aleutians. Once the Revolution hit, it may be that Alyaska breaks away with talks to Britain. In exchange for, say, some of the Arctic/Interior Land, more of the coastal, inhabitable areas would remain under independent Alaskan control WITH British recognition. Then David ben-Gurion shows up...
The series DEADLIEST CATCH is filmed with Japanese fishing boats and crews and subtitled in English. :cool:
 
Good sugestions guys
I was thinking that if Alaska was still part of USSR, Stalin would've deported the Jews-Ukrainians-Armenians-etc to Alaska instead of Siberia so they would defend Alaska from American Control
There is no way the USA and Canada would led the USSR gain territory in North America. Assuming that everything from the 1860s onward goes AIOTL, which I can confidently assure you it will not.
 
Top