To the British? Not really and it wouldn't have applied either since Alaska wasn't an independent nation.Does this have any deterrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine ?
To the British? Not really and it wouldn't have applied either since Alaska wasn't an independent nation.Does this have any deterrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine ?
To the British? Not really and it wouldn't have applied either since Alaska wasn't an independent nation.
Two reasons. 1st Alaska and Canada share a land border. 2nd Britain will have more or less taken over running the gold fields earlier in the war in payment for war aid for the Russian Empire. When you add in the family relationship between the Romanovs and Windsors it is likely Alaska would become a British protectorate (officially or not) full of refugee White Russians.
I would tend to agree. The British could at least have seized some land and at that point it makes more sense for them to do it than the US.
If they did get it either gradually, by purchase, or outright seizure, it would certainly have impacts. The gold and oil would be nice income for them and/or Canada (assuming they incorporated it into Canada). It would give the UK a bit more presence in teh Pacific, though they already had plenty and might have a hard time garrisoning it.
Come WWII, the US might effectively occupy it to prevent (or push out) Japanese incursion since in the UK would be in no position to do so. That COULD result in the UK selling it (or parts of it) to the US or just the US essentially running operations there during WWII.