WI: America doesn't buy Alaska?

[InsertCoolUsernameHere]

There's been a lot of discussion about how things would have gone differently if Russia hadn't sold Alaska to the US. Ultimately, Russia not selling the territory is very unlikely, given that it cost a fortune to maintain, was hard to access, and had a rapidly dwindling economy due to the collapse of the fur trade. So suppose Russia still tries to sell Alaska to the US, but the US refuses to buy it due to belief that Russia was asking for too much for the territory and it had little to no value.

How would this change the history of Alaska? Would Russia be able to sell it to a different country or would they be stuck with a colony they didn't want?

 

[colonel]

The Brits would be interested, but no way is Russia selling to them.

 

[stevej713]

I don't think the US would ever permanently shut the door on Alaska. After all, the United States was quite interested in the territory before and after the Civil War - American public and private involvement in the Pacific was increasing dramatically throughout the 19th century and Alaska would provide a useful anchor in the region. Furthermore, Russia and the US were on good terms at around this time as Russia supported the Union during the Civil War. The Russian charge-D Eduard de Stoeckl was quite adept at making friends in the United States and was able to win some support for the purchase in California and Oregon, and eventually in Washington D.C..

It should be noted that the US was the first to offer $7 million. Russia only pressed for an additional $200,000, so they can't really be blamed for the price tag.

The whole "Seward's Folly" narrative is a legacy of the partisan politics that were quite heated back in those days. The Republicans were working hard to remove Johnson from office and would have criticized just about anything done under his administration. Nonetheless, there was bipartisan support for purchasing Alaska in the hopes that America could encircle and eventually incorporate Canada, and the treaty was voted in by the Senate 37-2.

If the Johnson administration tables the negotiations, De Stoeckl or one of his successors will simply try again with Grant, and would likely succeed.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/2013032...n/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Month=April&Date=20

 

[InsertCoolUsernameHere]

The Brits would be interested, but no way is Russia selling to them.

If Russia was still stuck with Alaska by the late 19th century, would the gold rushes still occur? How would that impact the territory?

 

[BELFAST]

Soviet nukes in Alaska in the cold war?

 

[Nivek]

If Russia was still stuck with Alaska by the late 19th century, would the gold rushes still occur? How would that impact the territory?

They might start a bidding war because they knew either Anglo nation wants it . If nobody cares.. it will become independent during WW1 if that one goes as OTL

 

[Mitridates the Great]

Britain invades and annexes Alaska by force and challenges Russia to stop it. In the name of the "balance of powers", the other countries side with Great Britain. This makes Russia furious, but since the alternative is to start World War I, they resign themselves.

If Germany were smart, it would see this as an opportunity to get closer to Russia; as is the German Empire, they would see it as an excuse to demand territorial concessions from Russia under the threat of war. Russia refuses, Germany attacks, World War I breaks out, Germany overwhelms Russia, Britain expands into Afghanistan "to prevent Germany from conquering it" ... and somehow everyone concludes that it is all Russia's fault.

 

[alexmilman]

If Russia was still stuck with Alaska by the late 19th century, would the gold rushes still occur? How would that impact the territory?

Klondike gold rush was mostly on the Canadian side and impact on Alaska would be minimal: Russian administration may or may not allow the OTL route through Alaska’s port(s) and if it does, there would be regulations similar to those on the Canadian side. The same goes for law and order aspect.
As for the gold field on the Alaska side, Russia had its own well-regulated gold industry so the rules would be expanded to these new fields.

 

[Dr Dee]

After the Revolution, the surviving Romanovs flee to Alaska. Alaska becomes to the Soviet Union what Taiwan is to OTL China. (If that doesn't happen by the way, is there another possible Romanov redoubt? Sakhalin perhaps?)
If the Brits take it by force, is there anything the Russians can really do about it? Alaska (and Hawaii...?!!) eventually become the 11th and 12th provinces of the Canadian confederation in 1959.

 

[alexmilman]

Britain invades and annexes Alaska by force and challenges Russia to stop it. In the name of the "balance of powers", the other countries side with Great Britain. This makes Russia furious, but since the alternative is to start World War I, they resign themselves.

If Germany were smart, it would see this as an opportunity to get closer to Russia; as is the German Empire, they would see it as an excuse to demand territorial concessions from Russia under the threat of war. Russia refuses, Germany attacks, World War I breaks out, Germany overwhelms Russia, Britain expands into Afghanistan "to prevent Germany from conquering it" ... and somehow everyone concludes that it is all Russia's fault.

Sounds as a complete fantasy. To start with, by the late XIX the Great Powers are not just grabbing other Great Powers’s territories without being at war. And Britain declaring a war just because “we want Alaska” does not look realistic. Side considerations: (a) loss of all British investments in Russia and (b) abandoned border agreement in the CA, which could have serious negative consequences for the British control over India (at least this was an existing British perception).
The German part simply does not make any sense starting from a demand for the territorial concessions: Germany did not make any claims of that type all the way to WWI and actually WII as late as in 1904 was trying to set a mutual defense treaty with Russia.
Britain tried to “expand” into Afghanistan more than once, each time with the negative results, and settled for it being somewhat British-leaning buffer zone (central government of Afghanistan exercised very limited power over most of the territory).

 

[alexmilman]

After the Revolution, the surviving Romanovs flee to Alaska. Alaska becomes to the Soviet Union what Taiwan is to OTL China. (If that doesn't happen by the way, is there another possible Romanov redoubt? Sakhalin perhaps?)
If the Brits take it by force, is there anything the Russians can really do about it? Alaska (and Hawaii...?!!) eventually become the 11th and 12th provinces of the Canadian confederation in 1959.

The surviving Romanovs preferred much more comfortable France (and the US). So did most of the emigrants. BTW, the White movements were predominantly non-monarchist.

 

[Dr Dee]

The surviving Romanovs preferred much more comfortable France (and the US). So did most of the emigrants. BTW, the White movements were predominantly non-monarchist.

Would there be a more madly nationalist/monarchist streak among some of them that would want to carry on the fight?

 

[Mitridates the Great]

Sounds as a complete fantasy. To start with, by the late XIX the Great Powers are not just grabbing other Great Powers’s territories without being at war. And Britain declaring a war just because “we want Alaska” does not look realistic. Side considerations: (a) loss of all British investments in Russia and (b) abandoned border agreement in the CA, which could have serious negative consequences for the British control over India (at least this was an existing British perception).
The German part simply does not make any sense starting from a demand for the territorial concessions: Germany did not make any claims of that type all the way to WWI and actually WII as late as in 1904 was trying to set a mutual defense treaty with Russia.
Britain tried to “expand” into Afghanistan more than once, each time with the negative results, and settled for it being somewhat British-leaning buffer zone (central government of Afghanistan exercised very limited power over most of the territory).

In the colonies it was relatively common to pressure other powers to abandon their claims to colonial territories.

One need only look at the controversy in Portugal over the "cor de rosa map" to see an example of Great Britain pressuring a country to renounce claims in the colonies in favor of it. (To make it worse, Portugal was a British ally.)

Do that to a Russia Britain is dying to give a black eye to? They would certainly consider it.

The rest of the powers of Europe would be happy to support Great Britain in something that involves screwing up Russia without any danger to them, since anyway much of their policy was based on "containing" Russia because "balance of powers" .

Like I said, "Germany part" would require Germany to be smart enough to see that this is an opportunity to get closer to Russia. The problem is that I suspect they would read that as "proof" that Russia is weak and therefore worth putting pressure on them (eg to weaken them and make them useless in an alliance with France).

Where in the phrase of Great Britain trying to expand into Afghanistan did I imply that they would be successful? I don't remember saying they were successful.

 

[Fernan3451]

Britain invades and annexes Alaska by force and challenges Russia to stop it. In the name of the "balance of powers", the other countries side with Great Britain. This makes Russia furious, but since the alternative is to start World War I, they resign themselves.

I don't see how Britain is going to risk starting a war with Russia for Alaska. Maybe if we make the Great Game escalate into an Anglo-Russian War, that may be somewhat possible.

 

[Mitridates the Great]

I don't see how Britain is going to risk starting a war with Russia for Alaska. Maybe if we make the Great Game escalate into an Anglo-Russian War, that may be somewhat possible.

Perhaps because, in a ATL, they believe there is a real threat that Russia will position huge armies in Alaska and then invade Canada. Of course, the military would probably point out that such an assumption is nonsense, but the population might believe it, just as the American population AFAIK came to seriously believe that there was a risk that Cuba would be used as a bridgehead to invade the United States, or that Japan would try to do this.

 

[alexmilman]

In the colonies it was relatively common to pressure other powers to abandon their claims to colonial territories.

To start with, Russia did not have colonies. Alaska was a part of the Russian Empire administered by RAC. If AII decided to hold Alaska, the RAC administration (which was appointed by the government) would be most probably replaced with the standard Russian administration. So you have not a colonial dispute but a direct aggression.

One need only look at the controversy in Portugal over the "cor de rosa map" to see an example of Great Britain pressuring a country to renounce claims in the colonies in favor of it. (To make it worse, Portugal was a British ally.)

FYI, Russian Empire had a slightly different international status than Portugal so example is hardly relevant.

Do that to a Russia Britain is dying to give a black eye to? They would certainly consider it.

Only if there is an ongoing war between these two. The last chance for Britain was the CW.

BYW, closer to the end of the XIX century the Russian military presence on the Pacific coast seriously increased due to the improved communications by the Amur and, if needed, the reinforcements could be brought to Alaska.

The rest of the powers of Europe would be happy to support Great Britain in something that involves screwing up Russia without any danger to them, since anyway much of their policy was based on "containing" Russia because "balance of powers" .

An idea that the main goal of all European powers in the XIX century was to screw Russia is British (or rather Palmerstonian) pipe dream which did not came to existence even during the CW. For example, in the early 1870s Bismark was offering Russia to screw Britain by rebuilding the Black Sea fleet. There was Alliance of Three Emperors and later the close Franco-Russian relations. If anything, in your schema it is Britain who disturbs the balance of power.

Like I said, "Germany part" would require Germany to be smart enough to see that this is an opportunity to get closer to Russia.

Germany already was close to Russia. Even Congress of Berlin did not completely change this.

The problem is that I suspect they would read that as "proof" that Russia is weak and therefore worth putting pressure on them (eg to weaken them and make them useless in an alliance with France).

I have no idea which time frame you are talking about and how exactly and why Germany of the late XIX would try to weaken Russia.

Where in the phrase of Great Britain trying to expand into Afghanistan did I imply that they would be successful? I don't remember saying they were successful.

You did not but you missed the point: in the late XIX Afghanistan already was within the British sphere of influence as per British-Russian agreement and there was no need for the Brits to move into it in any meaningful way.

 

[alexmilman]

Perhaps because, in a ATL, they believe there is a real threat that Russia will position huge armies in Alaska and then invade Canada.

While the British politicians of the XIX had been routinely delusional about potential scope of the Russian danger, it is extremely unlikely that they had been imbecilic to a degree which could produce such an illusion. 😂Why would they think anything of the kind if even supply of the OTL RAC settlements was in the hands of the Hudson Bay Company? Russia could beef up the defense of the coastal area of Alaska, which would not require a “huge” army, because Canada did not have it either but that would be it.

Not to mention that possibility to conquer Canada from a settled coastal area of Alaska is, shall we say, not very good. Besides, shouldn’t there be some practical purpose for such an endeavor?

Of course, the military would probably point out that such an assumption is nonsense, but the population might believe it,
just as the American population AFAIK came to seriously believe that there was a risk that Cuba would be used as a bridgehead to invade the United States, or that Japan would try to do this.

AFAIK, regardless the popular beliefs, the US did not start war with Cuba (or the SU) or Japan (until it attacked first). 😂

 

[Dan1988]

After the Revolution, the surviving Romanovs flee to Alaska. Alaska becomes to the Soviet Union what Taiwan is to OTL China. (If that doesn't happen by the way, is there another possible Romanov redoubt? Sakhalin perhaps?)
If the Brits take it by force, is there anything the Russians can really do about it? Alaska (and Hawaii...?!!) eventually become the 11th and 12th provinces of the Canadian confederation in 1959.

If Alaska ended up part of Canada (which it would after the Revolution - if there were any surviving Romanovs left, they would be heading for Paris, not Sitka), it would probably remain a territory; its population would be too small to sustain a province like the rest of Western Canada. Which would suit the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (as it was called back then IOTL) just fine. Not that it would preclude the formation of a small Russian émigré community (and a Ukrainian émigré community, both directly and via the existing Canadian bloc settlements, and an augmenting of the very small Belarusian and Polish communities), mind you, which could make a Russian *Taiwan a possibility. It's just they would have to share space with growing Anglophone and Francophone communities, the already-existing Alaskan Russian community, and the indigenous peoples, not to mention in the shadow of intense North American cultural and economic influence from both the US and Canada. Furthermore, the heterogenity of the White movement (which, it should be remembered, was open to not reviving the monarchy - all the more so since Grand Duke Mikhail renounced the throne even when offered by Nikolaj II upon abdication - but still wanted to maintain the basics of the autocratic patrimonialist old order) means Alaska would be more open to the reformist elements within it - a Menshevik+SR Alaska, in particular, would definitely be a TL I'd like to read, even if it kept some of the symbols otherwise associated with the White movement and was firmly within the North American orbit.

 

[InsertCoolUsernameHere]

Would Alaska have an oil boom in the mid-20th century as IOTL? If yes I can see the geopolitical situation over the area (assuming Russian Taiwan is how things go) even more fraught

 

[InsertCoolUsernameHere]

Another thing I was thinking about is how Alaska not becoming a state would have knock-on effects on the US map. OTL it was admitted around the same time as Hawaii to keep the balance between red/blue states (at the time it was assumed Alaska would be a blue state and Hawaii a red one). What could be a possible blue state to be added to the US along with Hawaii? Or does Hawaii just stay a territory to keep the balance?