Will Kürlich Kerl
Banned
Challenge: Have Russia sells Alaska to Great Britain instead of the USA.
What happens?
What happens?
Last edited:
AHC/WI: Russia sells Alaska to Great Britain
- Thread starter Will Kürlich Kerl
- Start date
They wouldn't. The entire reason that Russian America was sold to the US was to counter the British or at least annoy them.
Yeah, after the Crimean War the Russians were worried/peeved about the British and sold it their American territory to the US.
You'd need a POD before the Crimean War, then.
Russia selling Alaska to Great Britain is almost impossible without a POD as far back as 1813 I think. For most of the 19th century Britain and Russia were in a constant state of cold war, that went hot at times.
The primary reason Russia even sold Alaska to the US was because they were afraid a war with Britain might start again, at which point Britain would just walk in and take it. Russia had no way to defend it.
The primary reason Russia even sold Alaska to the US was because they were afraid a war with Britain might start again, at which point Britain would just walk in and take it. Russia had no way to defend it.
katchen
Banned
The British could very well have annexed Alaska --and Kamchatka, Chukotka and Kolyma up to the Lena River- during the Crimean War--if they had committed more than one ship to taking Petropavlovsk Kamchatski. Could be interesting. It would give Canada a common border with Japan for one thing. And might make a railroad over the Bering Strait actually look feasible.
And Alaska is not wasteland, There's as much potential farmland in Alaska as there is in North Dakota or Oklahoma once the Canadians reaize it.
And Alaska is not wasteland, There's as much potential farmland in Alaska as there is in North Dakota or Oklahoma once the Canadians reaize it.
deathscompanion1
Banned
I seriously doubt that the British would want or even try to hold territory in Siberia. Too far from their centre of gravity too tempting for the Russians to take back. (The British expected a Russian invasion through Afghanistan into India so an invasion of former Russian territory would be in their eyes inevitable.)
Yes, but what about an invasion limited to Alaska?
I was replying to deathscompanion1's ideas.
Also, Britain might "buy" Alaska after conquering it, like the US "bought" New Mexico after conquering it.
I would think a victory in Siberia would just be used to push for more from Russia in the West, seeing as the Crimea was not taken from Russia.
katchen
Banned
We're not talking Siberia here. Siberia is considered to end at theLena River. This is the Russian Far East. Which even by the mid 19th Century has maybe 2 or 3 outposts. You have Petropavlovsk in Kamchatka and Ambarchik at the mouth of the Kolyma and maybe one other outpost at the mouth of the Indigirka, Okhotsk and I believe Kurusu near the mouth of the Lena. Nothing else except maybe Chumikan on the border with China. Yakutsk is above the mouth of the Lena. Zhigansk is on the West side of the Lena. And the Lena Aldan Maya Nelkan line would be the logical place to cut off conquests.
Unless.
Unless somebody (Britain or Sweden) discovered that the Barents and Kara Seas are open during the summer all the way to the mouths of the Ob and Yensei Rivers. Open safely to steam ships. And the Yensei is navigable by gunboats all the way to Minusinsk and possibly to Tuva. And the Ob is navigable to Gorno Altaysk on the edge of the Altai Mountains, making Tomsk vulnerable. And the Irtysh is navigable all the way to Aletai in Chinese Dzungaria. And the Tobol is navigable all the way from Tobolsk to Tyumen. And the Pechora much of the way to Perm. And the Northern Dvina to Vologada.
The Barents and Kara Seas are not very far away a all from the UK. In fact they're closer than the Crimea. Anyone, even the Swedes who figured out just how easy Siberia is to get to from the Norwegian Sea can take Siberia in the summer and by laying in supplies by river, hold Siberia over the winter. It's a matter of hitting Russia where it's troops are not.
The Russians were very aware of Siberia's vulnerabilities. Which is why from the time of Ivan IV Grozny, the Russians had a law that foreigners in the Ob Basin were to be put to death--initially to keep Dutch traders away in the 17th Century. And I'm sure they passed along disinformation to overstate the harships of the Siberian climate.
Which is why the British did not even explore in a serious fashion let alone send naval vessels into the Northeast Passage. And why it took a Norwegian named Nordenskjold to finally traverse the Northeast Passage in the 1870s.
The Russians were very lucky that Siberia was not in Great Britain's frame of reference during and after the Crimean War. Because Western Siberia by sea and river was certainly NOT far from the UK's center of gravity.
Unless.
Unless somebody (Britain or Sweden) discovered that the Barents and Kara Seas are open during the summer all the way to the mouths of the Ob and Yensei Rivers. Open safely to steam ships. And the Yensei is navigable by gunboats all the way to Minusinsk and possibly to Tuva. And the Ob is navigable to Gorno Altaysk on the edge of the Altai Mountains, making Tomsk vulnerable. And the Irtysh is navigable all the way to Aletai in Chinese Dzungaria. And the Tobol is navigable all the way from Tobolsk to Tyumen. And the Pechora much of the way to Perm. And the Northern Dvina to Vologada.
The Barents and Kara Seas are not very far away a all from the UK. In fact they're closer than the Crimea. Anyone, even the Swedes who figured out just how easy Siberia is to get to from the Norwegian Sea can take Siberia in the summer and by laying in supplies by river, hold Siberia over the winter. It's a matter of hitting Russia where it's troops are not.
The Russians were very aware of Siberia's vulnerabilities. Which is why from the time of Ivan IV Grozny, the Russians had a law that foreigners in the Ob Basin were to be put to death--initially to keep Dutch traders away in the 17th Century. And I'm sure they passed along disinformation to overstate the harships of the Siberian climate.
Which is why the British did not even explore in a serious fashion let alone send naval vessels into the Northeast Passage. And why it took a Norwegian named Nordenskjold to finally traverse the Northeast Passage in the 1870s.
The Russians were very lucky that Siberia was not in Great Britain's frame of reference during and after the Crimean War. Because Western Siberia by sea and river was certainly NOT far from the UK's center of gravity.
Nordenskiöld was a Finland-Swede, born in Finland, and lived in Swedish exile after having spoken in favour of an independent Finland, which aggravated the Czar. He was a member of the Swedish parliament in some periods and he was married to Mannerheim's aunt.
Of course Sweden was united with Norway in this period but would that make him a Norwegian?
Perhaps you confused him with the famous Tordenskjold of the early 1700s?
Anyway, Nordenskiöld's ship was stuck in the ice for ten months, so his journey only proved that the north-east passage was not really available for shipping in those days.
I thought it was because Russia wanted to start a bidding war between the USA and Great Britain, but Great Britain wasn't that interested?
katchen
Banned
As it turned out, the United States wasn't all that that interested in Alaska either. Immediately after Alaska was acquired (as I recall, by one vote in the Senate), Congress in a fit of pique and buyer's remorse that resembles the current Tea Party attempts to defund Obamacare, refused to fund the administration or territorial organization of Alaska for the next 30 years and many in Congress wanted to know if Alaska could be given sold back to the Russians.