WI: Alaska remains in Russia: what happens geopolitically in the world with the USSR and the Cold War?

All is in the title. Suppose that the Russians, before 1900, had the financial capacity to keep Alaska. The latter remained Russian in the 20th century. What consequences would this have on the geopolitical level if the USSR extended to Alaska included? Will there be an iron curtain in North America? Will the Soviets attempt to install missile ramps in their American region? Afterwards, I think they will have an advanced base towards the Pacific with the Aleutians. And what would Soviet Alaska look like? a place full of gulags, a bit like in Siberia? Surely there would be NATO and Warsaw Pact troops on both sides of the Canada-Soviet border. Thougts?
 
All is in the title. Suppose that the Russians, before 1900, had the financial capacity to keep Alaska. The latter remained Russian in the 20th century. What consequences would this have on the geopolitical level if the USSR extended to Alaska included? Will there be an iron curtain in North America? Will the Soviets attempt to install missile ramps in their American region? Afterwards, I think they will have an advanced base towards the Pacific with the Aleutians. And what would Soviet Alaska look like? a place full of gulags, a bit like in Siberia? Surely there would be NATO and Warsaw Pact troops on both sides of the Canada-Soviet border. Thougts?
In the event that the Soviet Union managed to retain Alaska during the Russian Civil war (ie. the UK and perhaps the US simply didn't occupy it and perhaps set up a nominally independent puppet state..) and the 20th century proceeds more or less as it did historically (which seems unlikely to me but I will play along..)

My $.02 worth:
Canada is significantly more militarized. Canada probably discourages or perhaps even prohibits settlement, road construction etc in much of the border region and focuses on stopping or at least delaying an invader at choke points some distance from the border. The US and Canada put much more emphasis on continental air defense than they did historically, both the US and Canadian Navies put more emphasis on fighting other warships in ship to ship battles than they did historically. The US Army probably has plans to send several divisions into British Columbia if needed to help the Canadians. It is open question in my mind if the Canadians would want standing US or NATO forces stationed in western Canada. Historically Canada has always been rather touchy about having foreign combat forces within their borders. Most likely the Canadians focus their NATO contribution on being able to initially contain a Soviet attack long enough for US and perhaps NATO forces to arrive. Historically Canada more or less had the equivalent of a mechanized division during the latter part of the Cold War, presumably with a direct threat to their land borders they would raise a significantly larger standing army and probably convince themselves that they could at least contain a Russian / Soviet advance on their own long enough for help to arrive. I suspect Canada might also take a different approach to their reserve forces than they did historically.

Perhaps the US pressures Canada into allowing US ground forces to be stationed in Canada in peace time, but I don't see the Canadians being enthused about this.

Edit to add, I can also see the Canadians having a highly militarized border security force to at least patrol the actual border in peace time and enforce the Canadian claim to actual sovereignty over the probably very sparsely populated border region. The process of installing boundary markers and presumably some form of fence in the border region would likely be a significant undertaking in and of itself with an unfriendly nation on the other side of the border. Conceivably the Canadians and the Soviets / Russians might agree to a de militarized border zone just for reasons of practicality if the nations were on reasonably good terms. I suspect the OTL Alaska Panhandle border between Alaska and Canada would be unlikely in this time line.

I can't see why the Russians / Soviets would not want to base strategic forces in Alaska at times during the cold war and perhaps afterwards ?

Lack of access to Alaskan Oil by the US might also have some interesting ripple effects. Maybe Canada gets more investment to develop their Oil Sands projects more quickly ?
 
Last edited:
All is in the title. Suppose that the Russians, before 1900, had the financial capacity to keep Alaska. The latter remained Russian in the 20th century. What consequences would this have on the geopolitical level if the USSR extended to Alaska included? Will there be an iron curtain in North America? Will the Soviets attempt to install missile ramps in their American region? Afterwards, I think they will have an advanced base towards the Pacific with the Aleutians. And what would Soviet Alaska look like? a place full of gulags, a bit like in Siberia? Surely there would be NATO and Warsaw Pact troops on both sides of the Canada-Soviet border. Thougts?

An interesting idea, but sadly very unrealistic to ASB. The United States literally invaded Russia proper during the RCW.


Why would they refrain from taking Alaska?
 
Alaska gets invaded by the United States or Canada during the Russian revolution.
Neither the United States or Canada want a communist state to get a foothold in North America
 

Marc

Donor
Alaska gets invaded by the United States or Canada during the Russian revolution.
Neither the United States or Canada want a communist state to get a foothold in North America
An essential part of American foreign policy after the Russian Revolution was to prevent communist, or socialist, or any kind of leftist state occurring in the Western Hemisphere.
 
An interesting idea, but sadly very unrealistic to ASB. The United States literally invaded Russia proper during the RCW.


Why would they refrain from taking Alaska?
Oh correct many nations sent troops in support of the czar and white russians forces, not just the usa who has a 5th rate power at the time.

It wasnt an invasion per se as an intervention al biet one based on recovering debts owed and keeping a friendly face on a throne.

Russian central authority was hotly contested between parties during this period.

This is not to say that i disagree with either revolution or the gran ideals.. Its the execution and thus passing of opression from one screwed up group to the next that was botched.

Russia had/has so much potential.. But devil is in details.. Same with usa..
Power, greed.. Corpupts ..

No place is perfect, but to say the usa invaded russia.. Eh.. It intervened on behalf of the loosers

Tak..
Чтобы упомянуть, я забыл ..
12 000 американцев
То же, что британцы и французы, а не чехи, которые были х3
 
Last edited:
Im pretty sure Alska would be occupied during the Russian civil war. The question is what happens to it later.
1. On one hand I think it highly unlikely that the soviet government will acknowledge whatever the occupiers decide to do with it
2. Any finite step in this regard would lead to serious troubles with the soviets - thus i find it not unlikely that if initially nothing other is done than ocupation that will remain the case up to WWII.
3. If step 2 happens I think it likely the soviets get back Alaska during WWII - because sure as hell they would ask for it and it would be very strange not to comply. This - the soviets asking for it will happen irrespective of step 2 now that I think of it.

TLDR whatever happens in will be brought up and used as a bargaining chip in WWII by the soviet side. They will either agree to get something else in exchange or get it back.
 
Well, Russia also had a good chunk of California.

The problem was that Russia focused on the fur trade, but let us take it a bit further.

Russia discovers the Yukon gold and the oil
Russia finds the California gold

Now what?
 

Marc

Donor
Well, Russia also had a good chunk of California.

The problem was that Russia focused on the fur trade, but let us take it a bit further.

Russia discovers the Yukon gold and the oil
Russia finds the California gold

Now what?
Ah, the Yukon is part of Canada.
As for California, you would have to suppose a truly random discovery by some wandering soul who just happened to notice something glittering in the water, as the tiny Russian community was nowhere near the gold fields - really, really, and I do mean really, unlikely.
 
Last edited:
Im pretty sure Alska would be occupied during the Russian civil war. The question is what happens to it later.
1. On one hand I think it highly unlikely that the soviet government will acknowledge whatever the occupiers decide to do with it
2. Any finite step in this regard would lead to serious troubles with the soviets - thus i find it not unlikely that if initially nothing other is done than ocupation that will remain the case up to WWII.
3. If step 2 happens I think it likely the soviets get back Alaska during WWII - because sure as hell they would ask for it and it would be very strange not to comply. This - the soviets asking for it will happen irrespective of step 2 now that I think of it.

TLDR whatever happens in will be brought up and used as a bargaining chip in WWII by the soviet side. They will either agree to get something else in exchange or get it back.

If WWII even happens as OTL, and if the US agrees to give the thing back to the USSR, it would be with some kind of demilitarization agreement and probably even with US basing rights of some kind.

But WWII isn't happening as OTL and the USSR isn't demanding Alaska back in WWII even if it does happen as OTL>

Most likely outcome of the Red Revolution is the US/Canada set up some kind of remnant Russian state. The equivalent of Taiwan. And recognize it instead of the USSR. This may or may not affect some of the investment and commerce that US businessmen did in the early days of the USSR. And that may or may not have some long-term effect. But it almost certainly prevents FDR from recognizing the USSR in 1933 as in OTL. Which could mean things like no lend-lease and a pretty different WWII. If FDR does manage to resume relations with the USSR, it will be part of a deal where Russia is forced to agree to Alaskan independence.

That's assuming everything looks the same more or less up through the Russian Revolution.

But it won't.

Having Alaska be Russian will change the Klondike Gold Rush, which will in turn have effects on Russia.

Having Alaska be Russian will have some effects on the Tsarist naval and military strategy and their expansion and development of Siberia, which could change or even butterfly the Russo-Japanese war. Which has huge effects on Russian society. Which, combined with the possible diplomatic and political consequences of Imperial Russia being in the backyard of the US and of an important Dominion, could and probably will butterfly or change WWI. Which means no or a very different Russian Revolution.

It is not literally ASB to have a cold war like OTL with the USSR having Alaska. But its not going to be OTL with that one difference. It's going to be a convergent timeline where a bunch of different stuff happened, but then even more different stuff happened that converged the divergences.
 
Last edited:
Even though you are wondering about the effect After 1900 shouldn't this be in Before 1900 since that is when the divergence occurs?
 
Well if the butterfly population is to be curbed . . .

Tsar is banished Aleskaya after being deposed.

White forces seize the territory after October 1917

Red Fleet sails to retake the territory

Combined U.S., British, Japanese and White Russian taskforce defeat the Bolsheviks at sea

America props up the Tsar after getting a very good deal on the oil and mineral rights in Aleskaya

They do this to top Britain, Canada, or Japan from interfering in the icy land.

Whites lose in Europe and Asia and flee to the North American territory.

Aleskaya declared "Free Russia".
 
There are many possibilities, the most obvious is a larger Russian economy because of the gold and because of a larger population

The Russo-Japanese war may have gone differently with more soldiers nearby and an larger economy and population, these three things may have changed it.

WW1 may have gone a bit better with a larger economy and a greater population, and more importantly, larger supplies from Canada and the US, which may have prolonged the time until a revolution happens. If better / larger sea transportation had been built in this alternative timeline between Alaska and the rest of Russia then that would have helped the war effort in WW1.

There are many different possibilities.
 
Oddly i was thinking about this 2 days ago. My take is that Alaska ends up becoming an 'independent' White Russian state under nominal British influence. It probably sees a population boom as a large chunk of the exiles settle in the last bit of 'Old Russia'.

Initially it would likely be ruled by some kind of directorate made up of exiled white leaders and whoever the pre-Civil War governor was. Eventually this would likely become a Democracy of some ilk by the late 1920s. Mostly as a way of maintaining international support. Internal politics will likely be divided into 4 groups; the Tsarist ultra conservatives who blame everything on democracy and liberalism, the Democrats who blame everything on not having enough democracy and liberalism, the Pre-Civil War population who don't like how they are being sidelined by the newcomers, and the Soviet Patriots who think that maybe just maybe the Soviets aren't that bad. Power would largely bounce between the first two groups with the third being somewhere between irrelevant and a kingmaker. The Soviet Patriots would be repressed.
There would be a strong focus on the military but this will likely be relative as i doubt its population will be above (or even close to) 250,000. So probably 1 Division, 2 plane squadrons, and a couple Destroyers. Most equipment will be either British or American with most funds coming from donations and resource revenue. Their primary concern is the protection of the Alaskan coastline from any opportunistic Soviet or Japanese attack.

In 1939 it declares war on Germany as more of a symbolic gesture of solidarity towards Britain than anything. Their attention is still focused of the Soviets and the Japanese. Their propaganda spins the German-Soviet pacts as yet one more reason to hate the Reds. Due to Soviet expansion into Eastern Europe during this period there is more concern than ever about a Soviet surprise attack against them prompting the government to offer the US favourable access to Alaskan resources in return for a guarantee. The Soviets remain discouraged from making any move against Alaska.

Barbarossa likely causes an internal schism within Alaskan society as a division forms between those who see the Germans in a more favourable light (and as such are starting to wonder if that declaration of war was a tad too hasty) and those who show sympathy for the Soviets defence of Russia from the German horde. The official position of the Alaskan government ends up as one supportive of the Soviets. The latter will likely exploit these favourable relations as a part of their campaign to encourage national unity at home, we may even see the White President invited to meet with Stalin as a symbolic 'we are putting our differences aside for the moment' sort of thing.

With Russia distracted the Alaskan military effort is redirected against a potential Japanese incursion. Something which proves to be very prudent in case Japan strikes against the Aleutian Islands (something which they may not do due to the desire not to harm their non-aggression pact with the Soviets).

This alternate Aleutian Islands campaign would be pretty interesting. Japan would likely wipe out or drive away the Alaskan Navy in short order. Land wise however things will be much more drawn out as the Alaskan troops would in my view be better prepared to defend the islands than the US was in OTL. Alaskan troops would likely be very well motivated due to a desire not to loose what land they have left. State propaganda will likely paint this as a rematch of 1905. Though the Japanese would take most of the islands i doubt they will be as successful as OTL due to Alaskan resistance buying time for American and Canadian reinforcements.

Post War things go frosty again towards the Soviets and they gladly allow the US to station troops and weapons on their territory. Alaska's population would probably eventually rise to a million by the 1990s. Most things will on as they did historically. The interesting bit will be what happens after the collapse of the USSR. The US would be nervous of Russia gaining a foothold in the Americas again while there would likely be a big debate in Alaskan society as to whether they should unite with Russia citing the idea that it was still largely corrupted by soviet ideas. There would also be a growing development throughout the Cold War of the Alaskan identity as the 'True' Russians, something which i don't see being undone with the Cold Wars end. So I don't think a union would happen in the end but Alaska would likely end up as an important broker between Russia and the US. Personally i would like to see them as an outward show of their white heritage/assertion of their independence that they proclaim Vladimir Kirillovich as Grand Duke of the nation sometime before his death.
 
If we're assuming no butterflies (and we shouldn't assume no butterflies) Alaska could become the last holdout of the Russian Whites. Basically a Russian Taiwan. Probably completely dominated by the last survivors of the White Army though. An army with a state situation.
 

Marc

Donor
Oddly i was thinking about this 2 days ago. My take is that Alaska ends up becoming an 'independent' White Russian state under nominal British influence. It probably sees a population boom as a large chunk of the exiles settle in the last bit of 'Old Russia'.
I think you may be underestimating the physical difficulties of any substantial emigration to Alaska. Even with an additional half century of Russian occupation (and let's not forget that until the 20th century, the plurality if not the majority of Alaskans were Native), it's doubtful that would be more than very modest means of communication and transportation.
There is the additional question of exactly how large a European culture based population Alaska could support. Currently Alaska has about 550,000 Anglos, I suspect that twice as many is the carrying capacity of the region.
 
Last edited:

marathag

Banned
Im pretty sure Alska would be occupied during the Russian civil war. The question is what happens to it later.
It's still 'Russia', like the KMT run Taiwan was officially 'China' until 1971
So that means that 'White Russia' is still a thing and the 'Cold War':cool: is ongoing, the Whites likely to control Siberia and Alaska, being little more than a Japanese catspaw and with limited US support
 
Top