WI: Russia had never sold Alaska to U.S.?

TFSmith121

Banned
Colony to dominion to colony to confederation

...

Wait, what?

I mean, I understand what you're hinting at with Cuba, but... Newfoundland?

Colony to dominion to colony to Confederation with Canada in 1949. Closer to Europe than Alaska, adjacent to the dominion since 1867 but not a part of it until after WW II, population poor, extractive industries and limited agriculture - cold winters, short growing season, and immigration was minimal.

Sounds a lot like Russian America in terms of isolation, poverty, and the general economic, political, and strategic situation.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Just that Newfoundland, like Russian America, was

I don't know what you're hinting at with either.

Just that Newfoundland, like Russian America, would have been land-rich, population poor, and need some sort of benefactor to stay afloat...

It took until 1949 for Canadians to agree to taken them into the dominion, and Newfoundland itself went from colony to dominion to colony again because of economic weakness.

Best,
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Colony to dominion to colony to Confederation with Canada in 1949. Closer to Europe than Alaska, adjacent to the dominion since 1867 but not a part of it until after WW II, population poor, extractive industries and limited agriculture - cold winters, short growing season, and immigration was minimal.

Sounds a lot like Russian America in terms of isolation, poverty, and the general economic, political, and strategic situation.

Best,
But your whole post was about the ability to "hold onto" Russian Alaska. Bringing up Cuba strongly implies you meant "But the US would take it if it ever decided it wanted it", but bringing up Newfoundland is like a contradiction to that.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The point being that the trend was away from

But your whole post was about the ability to "hold onto" Russian Alaska. Bringing up Cuba strongly implies you meant "But the US would take it if it ever decided it wanted it", but bringing up Newfoundland is like a contradiction to that.


The point being that the trend, for obvious reasons of geography and politics, was away from having what amounted to settler colonies governed by appointed imperial governors - certainly such governance was on the way out (Newfoundland was really an outlier); either those governed would rebel and essentially become a protectorate (Cuba) or they would (after being unable to manage autonomy) federate with a larger Western Hemisphere power.

Russian America was land-rich, but extremely poor in human and thus marketable economic resources; Newfoundland much the same, and in a similar demanding geographic and climate setting. BC joined Canada for similar reasons, and it's pretty much the history of the Western Hemisphere republics across the board.

Best,
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The point being that the trend, for obvious reasons of geography and politics, was away from having what amounted to settler colonies governed by appointed imperial governors - certainly such governance was on the way out (Newfoundland was really an outlier); either those governed would rebel and essentially become a protectorate (Cuba) or they would (after being unable to manage autonomy) federate with a larger Western Hemisphere power.

Russian America was land-rich, but extremely poor in human and thus marketable economic resources; Newfoundland much the same, and in a similar demanding geographic and climate setting. BC joined Canada for similar reasons, and it's pretty much the history of the Western Hemisphere republics across the board.

Best,
So...

...what's the difference between Kamchatka and Alaska in that sense?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
About 2000 nautical miles and the Bering Sea.;)

Best,
But Kamchatka was largely populated by ship anyway, so it's... hold on.


St. Petersburg to Anchorage is 11,000 nautical miles via the Panama Canal, 15,600 miles by Suez and 16,700 by either Magellan or Cape Horn.


St. Petersburg to Vladivostok is 12,357 nautical miles by Suez, and it's an extra 2,000 NM at least to get up to Kamchatka.

The difference is at most (assuming 2000 NM and a steamer speed of 10 knots) about a week on a journey of a month and a half, assuming going via Suez.

I'm just not seeing how that extra week of sea travel makes things impossible.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Apparently the Czar disagreed

But Kamchatka was largely populated by ship anyway, so it's... hold on.


St. Petersburg to Anchorage is 11,000 nautical miles via the Panama Canal, 15,600 miles by Suez and 16,700 by either Magellan or Cape Horn.


St. Petersburg to Vladivostok is 12,357 nautical miles by Suez, and it's an extra 2,000 NM at least to get up to Kamchatka.

The difference is at most (assuming 2000 NM and a steamer speed of 10 knots) about a week on a journey of a month and a half, assuming going via Suez.

I'm just not seeing how that extra week of sea travel makes things impossible.

Apparently the Czar disagreed.;)

Overland travel to Vladivostok and coastal travel from there to Petropavlovsk is certainly simpler and more defensible by a continental power than taking the sea route.

Likewise, trying to hang on to a distant territory in the opposite hemisphere that is underpopulated, poverty-stricken, and adjacent to wealthier, more powerful neighbors is not a recipe for strategic stability - just ask the Newfies.

Best,
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Apparently the Czar disagreed.;)

Overland travel to Vladivostok and coastal travel from there to Petropavlovsk is certainly simpler and more defensible by a continental power than taking the sea route.

Likewise, trying to hang on to a distant territory in the opposite hemisphere that is underpopulated, poverty-stricken, and adjacent to wealthier, more powerful neighbors is not a recipe for strategic stability - just ask the Newfies.

Best,


Virato provided the numbers:

Keep in mind that in 1860 the Slavic population of the Russian Far East was fewer than 60,000. Before the trans-Siberian railway most of the colonists went by sea via the Suez canal rather than by land to the Russian Far East. By 1897 the region's population had grown to 600,000 and to 1.5 million on the eve of the First World War. Even northern Sakhalin had a population of 7,000 Russians on the eve of WWI, and I would consider that far more desolate than Alaska.




It's much simpler to go by sea over most of the period in question, the TSR wasn't finished until the early 1900s.

And Alaska wasn't connected to the US road/rail network until the 1940s, as I recall.


As for your "rule" about when colonies stay colonies, the Falklands would be interested to discover they're part of Argentina. That's your counterexample.
 
Apparently the Czar disagreed.;)

Overland travel to Vladivostok and coastal travel from there to Petropavlovsk is certainly simpler and more defensible by a continental power than taking the sea route.

Likewise, trying to hang on to a distant territory in the opposite hemisphere that is underpopulated, poverty-stricken, and adjacent to wealthier, more powerful neighbors is not a recipe for strategic stability - just ask the Newfies.

Best,

The reality is that before the Trans-Siberian railway, the majority of settlers to Siberia went by sea not by land. In 1879, the Russian government inaugurated a steamer service between Odessa and Vladivostok calling at the ports of Colombo, Singapore and Nagasaki just to give an idea of how long the journey was. This does not count the journey by barge or land to Odessa.
Despite this, some 55,000 settlers made the journey to Siberia by sea between 1879 and 1885. Years of famine in Russia also tended to be a boom for settlement in the Russian Far East, as in 1892 when 90,000 Russians went to Siberia.

The Russian goverment clearly prioritsed colonisation of these empty lands after the 1860s, and particularly after the 1870s. In 1883 for instance 4,500 individuals were settled in Eastern Siberia by the government at a cost of 1 million rubles. This clearly increased during the age of imperialism, as Russia sought to colonise its frontier lands with 1.1 billion rubles of state funds being allocated towards settlement of the Far East between 1897 and 1902.

By 1911, British Columbia had a population of 392,000, the Yukon Territory 27,000 and Alaska 65,000. I have no doubt that the Russian Empire could have colonised Alaska with at least 65,000 souls by 1911 and held onto the territory until the Russian Revolution (if it is not butterflied away). What would happen afterwards is anyone's guess.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
But if the Russian Far East needs those resources to be settled,

The reality is that before the Trans-Siberian railway, the majority of settlers to Siberia went by sea not by land. In 1879, the Russian government inaugurated a steamer service between Odessa and Vladivostok calling at the ports of Colombo, Singapore and Nagasaki just to give an idea of how long the journey was. This does not count the journey by barge or land to Odessa.
Despite this, some 55,000 settlers made the journey to Siberia by sea between 1879 and 1885. Years of famine in Russia also tended to be a boom for settlement in the Russian Far East, as in 1892 when 90,000 Russians went to Siberia.

The Russian goverment clearly prioritsed colonisation of these empty lands after the 1860s, and particularly after the 1870s. In 1883 for instance 4,500 individuals were settled in Eastern Siberia by the government at a cost of 1 million rubles. This clearly increased during the age of imperialism, as Russia sought to colonise its frontier lands with 1.1 billion rubles of state funds being allocated towards settlement of the Far East between 1897 and 1902.

By 1911, British Columbia had a population of 392,000, the Yukon Territory 27,000 and Alaska 65,000. I have no doubt that the Russian Empire could have colonised Alaska with at least 65,000 souls by 1911 and held onto the territory until the Russian Revolution (if it is not butterflied away). What would happen afterwards is anyone's guess.

But if the Russian Far East needs those resources to be settled, and in fact gets them, one would expect "Russian America" would be that much farther down the list. The distance only compounds the strategic problem.

Resources are never infinite, and every power prioritizes.

And as pointed out above, whatever Alaska had in terms of natural resources in the 18th century, the Russian Far East had in excess...

How many more trees and bears does one want to spend money on, especially when there is a willing buyer?

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The Falklands?

Virato provided the numbers:

Keep in mind that in 1860 the Slavic population of the Russian Far East was fewer than 60,000. Before the trans-Siberian railway most of the colonists went by sea via the Suez canal rather than by land to the Russian Far East. By 1897 the region's population had grown to 600,000 and to 1.5 million on the eve of the First World War. Even northern Sakhalin had a population of 7,000 Russians on the eve of WWI, and I would consider that far more desolate than Alaska.

It's much simpler to go by sea over most of the period in question, the TSR wasn't finished until the early 1900s.

And Alaska wasn't connected to the US road/rail network until the 1940s, as I recall.

As for your "rule" about when colonies stay colonies, the Falklands would be interested to discover they're part of Argentina. That's your counterexample.

The Falklands? Surprised you didn't offer Bemuda.;)

Minor difference in the strategic situation, don't you think?

Best,
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The Falklands? Surprised you didn't offer Bemuda.;)

Minor difference in the strategic situation, don't you think?
Not really, no. It's a small-in-population colony close to a large, heavily populated country and in a different hemisphere to the metropole. It's actually more like what you say is the ideal than Newfoundland.
 
Odds are due to inertia, and no resources other than fur seals that anyone knows about, Alaska remains Russian and pretty empty until the end of the 19th century. Depending on butterflies, the Klondike strike of the 1890's may occur on time or a little later (and remember this was in the Yukon mostly not Alaska per se) which brings a fair number of non-Russians in to Alaska but now the Russian government is more serious about retaining Alaska. The Russo-Japanese War of 1905 probably goes off as scheduled, unlikely Alaska is involved.

Big question then comes in 1917/18 with the Russian Revolution. If a lot of revolutionaries were sent to Alaska - (even further away than Siberia!) there is a chance it might go red but realistically probably stay white and if the whites are in control the reds never get there. Both the USA and Britain/Canada would intervene in Alaska to keep the reds out, they did elsewhere. So in 1920 you have the Russian political entity of Alaska, very likely somewhat of a magnet for white expats and possibly with a constitutional monarchy headed by Grand Duke (now Tsar) Michael. Does it remain independent, allied with US/UK/Canada, or is it taken over - probably by the USA?

The only thing I am sure of is that both immediately during/after the revolution and then any time later the USA will never allow a communist Alaska.
 
Top