Instead of selling Alaska to the United States, Russia decides to liberate Alaska as its own nation. What would happen to it then?
WI: Alaska as an independent nation
- Thread starter deleted_account
- Start date
not much.. most of Alaska is not a very hospitable place.
Let's say gold rush.. people move in for resources. The British might get interested ( or Canadians.. ) so logically it would just become a part of Canada. 14 people and an army of polar bears against 100 people and an army of polar bears would be awesome though
by the time of OIL .. lots will get interested. Alaska is huge, but few places that humans want to live in there, especially in the winter
Let's say gold rush.. people move in for resources. The British might get interested ( or Canadians.. ) so logically it would just become a part of Canada. 14 people and an army of polar bears against 100 people and an army of polar bears would be awesome though
by the time of OIL .. lots will get interested. Alaska is huge, but few places that humans want to live in there, especially in the winter
Russia sold Alaska in 1867. I'm not supposed to put this here, so I'll move to before 1900.
Edit: Moved.
Edit: Moved.
Last edited:
nbcman
Donor
Not much since the peak Russian population in Alaska was numbered in the hundreds plus 40,000 Aleuts. Not enough Russian settlers to set up an independent nation.
Thank you but, this is in the wrong forum, it should be before 1900.
Edit: It has been moved.
It soon learns to enjoy being part of Canada. Maybe the panhandle gets added to British Columbia.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
Early on, the panhandle was really the only (white) inhabited part. If you did split the panhandle off from the main part of Alaska, I'd guess the main part winds up incorporated into a future "Yukon" territory and British Columbia is split into southern BC and Stickeen/Alaska panhandle.
But what if Russia liberated it as a puppet state? It isn't part of Russia, they might've benefited from its resources (in the future), and if it is in danger, Russia can defend it.
nbcman
Donor
Britain or the US would easily be able to seize the territory since the Russians aren't going to be able to challenge the RN / USN in order to defend it. The Russian Siberian Military Flotilla was far too small to challenge anyone in the Pacific that had designs on Alaska around 1867.
This might be easy, if it was just sold to the US and got independent another way : Socialist revolution in continental United States during the early 20th century like in that « Reds! » timeline can lead the remnant US government to flee towards both Hawaii and Alaska.
Napoleonrules
Banned
Immediate annexation to Canada is unlikely as British Columbia wasn't even part of Canada until 1871 (and it was only with the promise to absorb the massive debt BC had along with a promise of a transcontinental railroad). British colonization also unlikely as they had little to no interest in Alaska prior to gold discoveries in the Yukon. Alaska has neither the need for a railroad (what are they going to ship in the 1860s?) nor the massive debt that Canada can interest them into joining. Canada also is not going to do a unilateral annexation or take over or purchase (they simply don't have the constitutional right to do so until 1983 [and no, Westminster did not give them that ability in 1931 either]); it is up to the British if Alaska is going to be shaded red on a map. And they won't. Useless land. The American purchase of Alaska drove the British to basically hogtie the HBC to sell Rupert's Land to Canada because they were afraid the Americans would turn around and buy it too, and based on the purchase price of Alaska there was no way the Canadians had the money for it; so Britain made the HBC take a HUGE discount on the price of the land (the British technically took the land first, then turned around and ceded it to the Canadians, a technical political requirement). The British meanwhile were betting everything on good relations with the US, and taking Alaska would not go over well. In conclusion the only realistic option of history unfolding is Alaska being "Russian" whether the Russians abandon it or not until some fillibustering Americans turn it into a "Hawai'i" and take over and petition for annexation to the US or Canada; by then gold is discovered (which is what will bring the Americans) and suddenly the Russians will want to start enforcing their will on Alaska again causing problems. The British having enough trouble with Russia in the Great Game in Asia will probably "sell" their "claim" to Alaska to the US in return for concessions and recognition of their citizen's land rights and some border modifications compared to OTL. Russo-Japanese War instead of Roosevelt mediating, or in return for mediating, the US seizes uncontested right to Alaska. 1917 the USSR drops all pretenses to claims to Alaska. During the Cold War the USSR makes grumbles about who rightfully owns it, tries to get the UN involved. 1989-91 Russia renounces again. 2000ish Putin makes grumbles about it again.
For those who wish to dispute about Canada, Rupert's Land, and British control please see- Historica Canada and the Canadian Encyclopedia as sources first before arguing.
For those who wish to dispute about Canada, Rupert's Land, and British control please see- Historica Canada and the Canadian Encyclopedia as sources first before arguing.
Only way that Alaska could become independce is that Russia keeps that until 1917 and if revolutions aren't butterfly away Alaska might become refugee place of czarists.
Okay, the British might colonize it, but it decolonizes decades later, making Alaska independent, but part of the British Commonwealth (meaning it is ruled by UK's monarch). Also, it has alot of oil, which might improve its economy, leading to a better economy, leading to a better environment, leading to more immigration. Because it has a high amount of immigration, it gets more people to be part of the army, making the country able to defend itself better.
Napoleonrules
Banned
How do you think being independent gives Alaska the ability to turn having an exploitative natural resource economy into having a better economy than they have in OTL when part of a developed nation? At best an independent Alaska turns into a third world nation exploiting their natural resources a la every other oil based economy in the world up until the 21st century with the UAE leading a revolution of investments with some other oil rich nations following in their footsteps in varying degrees of success, but which have still left those nations as developing nations and not first world. An oil exploiting nation will have worse environmental impact. The only thing you got right was the ability to defend itself better, but not because of immigration (unlikely) but instead because of the Cold War and US investment (a la Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey). Independent Alaska, which is the most unlikely alternate history path for Alaska, is going to be like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, rich in oil, an elite class, backwards in economic output and actually building stuff, non-citizens doing the real work, and a corrupt government of the elites; unlike Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Iran however, you will see Alaskan oil fields dominated by foreign companies (mostly British and American; Chevron as the SO descendant for that area, and probably also BP) and not a nationalized company as being so close to the US that's not going to fly where as other nations were able to do it. Alaska won't be much better off than Mexico.
Well, what would be the best case scenario for an Alaskan country without using ASB?
Last edited:
