Alaska

[RedRalph]

How do you think events of the 20th century would have differed had Russia never sold Alaska?

 

[obliterate]

Well, the Cold war would have been a whole lot different for a start. Russia would probably been richer with the gold. They might've had a far stronger Pacific fleet during the Russian-Japanese war defeating the Japanese and stagnating their dominance of the region during the early 20th century; and possibly at a stretch no Pacific theatre. Though that is drawing a long bow.

 

[RedRalph]

Yeah the cold war would have been drastically different... I think canada would have been a lot more militarised for one. but as you said, Imperial russia could have been stronger too strong enough to survive, in which case all bets are off

 

[obliterate]

If Imperial Russia was strengthened they could have beaten Germany in WW1 and not having the Revolution thus the Cold War would never have started. Russia might have been more of a western country rather than eastern.

But that is a huge hypothetical. Alaska wasn't really that big of an issue on the Russians' minds. Russia was big enough for itself anyway not really needing anymore useless icy land. If they had expanded their interests across Canada and down the Western side of modern day US then the whole situation would be entirely different. But as it is I think the only real difference is in the Cold War with more land forces deployed and a drastically different Canada.

 

[West 36]

If a revoltion still occured, who knows what would have had to Alaska there, as it wouldn't have been very populated and may have been invaded by Western powers, seeing as it borders one. So it may have been taken over then, or if the Alaskans didn't want a part of it, even declared independence.
I don't know if Imperial Russia could have lasted though, that size of a country and not exactly being very advanced, how would it have made it through the 20th century, let alone fared in WWII?
If the Soviets retained it, I wonder how its riches may have impacted it. Plus, the sphere of influence would then include Canada. Heh.. And the proximity would have been soooo much closer, in a meaningful way, to the US. I don't know if it would have changed much, but who knows. Who needs Cuba if you can get nukes on the southern strip of Alaska. Or, combining that with Cuba, and you got a missile crisis and a half for the US. Who knows, maybe things would have been very different.
Any Ruskies angry about their loss of a potentially vital, giant piece of, albeit useless, land? That said, the Russians seem to have a way of colonizing what we may consider uninhabitable, so maybe Alaska would be bustling... or just a threat even worse then being sent to Siberia.

Another q, how did Alaskans feel about being across a narrow strait from the Soviet Union during the Cold War?

 

[joycem10]

Another consideration is that the Japanese might have seized it either during/after the Russo/Japanese war, during the revolution or prior to WWII.

 

[obliterate]

Another consideration is that the Japanese might have seized it either during/after the Russo/Japanese war, during the revolution or prior to WWII.

I doubt that would ever happen. The Japanese were far more interested in Mainland Asia;China, Korea etc. Alaska would be useless to them any very costly to keep.

 

[Head Serf]

Not much. Alaska's value to Imperial Russia would have been minimal. However, they would have a nice base from which to point nukes at the US during the cold war.

 

[Tee Kay]

I think it's quite possible White Russians could've retreated to Alaska (just as the KMT retreated to Taiwan). That'd make some interesting Cold War scenarios.

 

[bestbrian]

Not much, if at all. Let's not forget that Russia is HUGE and chock full of all the resources that Alaska has. It is also sparsely populated and transportation is long/arduous/often not available; thus, most of those resources have never been properly exploited. Imperial Russia maintaining control of Alaska would only mean that Alaska would have remained empty and unexploited for much longer, and would have no bearing on the Russo-Japanese war or WW II. The only exception to this would be if gold had been discovered in a Russian Alaska. In that case, you would have seen an American-Russian war over Alaska sometime towards the tale end of the 19th century. A Mckinley administration that seizes Alaska from Russia might not take the Phillipines/PR/Guam/etc from Spain; that would have huge ramifications for 20th century history.

 

[Disenfrancised]

-Possibility of Britain nicking Alaska and giving it to Canada during the Great Game?
-Allies occupy it during the Revolution if everything else goes as the original time line did, establish independent state/commonwealth with US or Canada?

It seems just a bit to far away and too Siberia like to be worth Russia fighting over...

 

[warpus]

I don't think Russia really had the means to hold on to Alaska at the time, so I'd guess that Britain would claim it for herself, or for Canada, at some point.

 

[Tee Kay]

Yes but it's imperial possession all the same. Russia would not tolerate Britain taking Alaska by force.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Yes but it's imperial possession all the same. Russia would not tolerate Britain taking Alaska by force.

But they wouldn't be able to do much about it with the rather small navy and all their land power concentrated in Eastern Europe and central Asia.

 

[Tee Kay]

But they wouldn't be able to do much about it with the rather small navy and all their land power concentrated in Eastern Europe and central Asia.

As I said, they would not tolerate Britain taking Alaska. Although they would probably won't take back Alaska, war could break out in Europe instead. I think Britain (or Canada for that matter) won't care enough about Alaska before gold was discovered, and then it was in the late 19th century and Britain and Russia had cordial relations, and Britain had problems elsewhere (Boers, German imperial expansion, etc).

 

[bestbrian]

Britain would not have gone to war with Russia for the same reason she didn't in real life - the Russian threat to the Indian portion of the Empire. Most likely scenario, would be gold being discovered and the territory overrun by American prospectors and entrepeneurs. The Russians get heavy handed when the Americans get contemptuous of their authority (see Mexico) and the "Yellow Press" pushes the US to war and the US seizes Alaska to secure it's Manifest Destiny. No way the Russians could have maintained the Alaskan territory against the US given the distance and expense.

 

[colontos]

I think it's quite possible White Russians could've retreated to Alaska (just as the KMT retreated to Taiwan). That'd make some interesting Cold War scenarios.

This is what I've always thought too.

 

[GuitarHero]

Things might go the same, except Canada might buy it instead of America. Puerto Rico might be State #50.

 

[REDY]

USA would take it by power, so I dont see there major historical change.

 

[innonimatu]

USA would take it by power, so I dont see there major historical change.

Russia wasn't comparable to Mexico, and I believe 19th century american governments would not dare attack Alaska, for the same reasons they gave up on annexing Canada. It took them until the turn of the century to make a move to take Cuba, which was part of a much weaker (and more diplomatically isolated) empire. They would occupy in during the russian civil war, and probably keep it too. Which would in turn lead to much worst relations by the time of WW2 and after. The russians didn't forgot to retake the territory lost to Japan, would they forget about an Alaska lost in a war?
So we might have been victims of a hot war over a territory at the end of the world!