Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Russia selling Alaska back in the old days is like someone today selling a piece of the moon. I'm not sure why it was taken seriously back then when everyone was superstitious about the god thing.
"In bed together...???" Sorry I doubt that seriously...
They made the right decision. I believe even today Russia has more land than they really need. It would have been almost impossible for Russia to defend that much territory. Most likely there would have been a war, and they would have lost it anyway.
Take a look at a population map of Russia. Russia didn't have the population to settle Alaska, the US did.
Russia has not, historically, had a difficult time protecting its territorial borders with the exception of Genghis Kahn and the Tatars...but definitely not in contemporary history...they've got Nukes positioned at any "peripheral" threats and their special ops and military are pretty seasoned and brutal...
Wow. I didn't believe that could be up to date, so I went strolling around the internet and various atlases, and it's true -- even western Russia is mostly miles and miles of miles and miles. VERY sparsely populated even by Texas standards, and though Houston and DFW are people-hives, we're much more sparse than either coast.
That said, they might have still kept it (my ancestors' neighbors couldn't take Canada, after all), but at what cost, if the only cash-cow they had was disappearing?
Siberia (and the far eastern tundra of Russia) is where the Tsars(Csars), Stalin and later the Soviet politburo would send the worst "political troublemakers" and prisoners to live at the gulags...trying to make the trek back to the center of political power in the west was particularly lethal...
Russia has ALOT of potential. Alot of open land for people to spread out without it costing your soul for a quarter acre lot.
Russia has had 'ALOT' of potential for... well, for centuries. But, so what? Land? Big deal. Russia has less arable land than the United States. Tundra is of only marginal use for populations. So those vast expanses of Siberian wastes really only speak to Russia's ability to extract the wealth that is lying around. So what? Any half-assed group of clowns can establish a state in such a manner. Ex: Saudi Arabia. Russia doesn't innovate. It makes some decent weapons of war, but that remains a limited market. No one is clamoring to buy Russian technology to any significant degree. The Russian government and culture stifle creativity. Russia does remarkably little given what it has. That's what happens when a country is a kleptocracy led by an authoritarian who routinely whacks his rivals and critics and maintains power by whipping the gullible masses into a nationalistic frenzy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer
I don't think so, how many real wars have we had since WW2 for any meaningful chunk of territory? We have had good reasons to have war as well but it still has not happened.
There's no way Russia could have held Alaska until the late 1930s. Even had it somehow managed not to lose it to the UK or U.S. in the 19th century - a virtually impossible eventuality, as others have pointed out - it would have been gone during the Revolution.
In late 1919, the Bolsheviks controlled only a small portion of the former Russian Empire. Finland, Poland, and the Baltic states were independent. The Ukraine and the Caucuses had not yet been brought into the Soviet fold, Bolshevik control extended only as far east as Yekaterinburg. Various Allied nations (UK, U.S., France, Canada, Japan, others) occupied Murmansk, Vladivostok, Odessa, and other areas. Re-establishing Bolshevik control over all these areas (not counting the chunks of Eastern Europe that were gone) wasn't completed until 1923.
There's no chance that either the UK or the U.S. would have let Alaska, were it still a part of the Russian Empire when the Tsar was sacked in 1917, fall into the hands of the Reds. It very likely would simply have been seized by the United States. Alternately, it might have become a White Russian rump state, much like Taiwan vis-a-vis China. Most likely, the Bolsheviks would have made no real effort to regain it, for no other reason than they had no ability whatsoever to project power into the western hemisphere at that point.
Russia has not, historically, had a difficult time protecting its territorial borders with the exception of Genghis Kahn and the Tatars...but definitely not in contemporary history...they've got Nukes positioned at any "peripheral" threats and their special ops and military are pretty seasoned and brutal...
But you are talking about today. At that time Russia didn't have any nukes. They would have had to defend Alaska the old fashioned way, with sailing ships and cannons. Alaska would have added over 6,000 miles of coastline, that the Russian Navy would have had to patrol. To say nothing about 1,500 miles of land border with British North America, through than unexplored wilderness areas. For what? A massive piece of land with just 700 people in it? Alaska would have been undefendable for the Russians.
I also disagree that Russia has not had a difficult time protecting its borders. You seem to be forgetting about WW2. It took 20 million Russian lives to get the Nazies out of Russia. That is pretty much unprecedented in the history of the world.
Russia has had 'ALOT' of potential for... well, for centuries. But, so what? Land? Big deal. Russia has less arable land than the United States. Tundra is of only marginal use for populations. So those vast expanses of Siberian wastes really only speak to Russia's ability to extract the wealth that is lying around. So what? Any half-assed group of clowns can establish a state in such a manner. Ex: Saudi Arabia. Russia doesn't innovate. It makes some decent weapons of war, but that remains a limited market. No one is clamoring to buy Russian technology to any significant degree. The Russian government and culture stifle creativity. Russia does remarkably little given what it has. That's what happens when a country is a kleptocracy led by an authoritarian who routinely whacks his rivals and critics and maintains power by whipping the gullible masses into a nationalistic frenzy.
There's no way Russia could have held Alaska until the late 1930s. Even had it somehow managed not to lose it to the UK or U.S. in the 19th century - a virtually impossible eventuality, as others have pointed out - it would have been gone during the Revolution.
In late 1919, the Bolsheviks controlled only a small portion of the former Russian Empire. Finland, Poland, and the Baltic states were independent. The Ukraine and the Caucuses had not yet been brought into the Soviet fold, Bolshevik control extended only as far east as Yekaterinburg. Various Allied nations (UK, U.S., France, Canada, Japan, others) occupied Murmansk, Vladivostok, Odessa, and other areas. Re-establishing Bolshevik control over all these areas (not counting the chunks of Eastern Europe that were gone) wasn't completed until 1923.
There's no chance that either the UK or the U.S. would have let Alaska, were it still a part of the Russian Empire when the Tsar was sacked in 1917, fall into the hands of the Reds. It very likely would simply have been seized by the United States. Alternately, it might have become a White Russian rump state, much like Taiwan vis-a-vis China. Most likely, the Bolsheviks would have made no real effort to regain it, for no other reason than they had no ability whatsoever to project power into the western hemisphere at that point.
How are we not a klepocracy? The USA has fraction of 1% of the filthy rich population that runs the government, I see little to no enforcement of anti trust and most little guys that develop anything major corporations steal their patents or intellectual property. I honestly see very little difference between the USA and Russia other than maybe archetcture and cuisine. I want to travel there someday and see for myself but I suspect there will be little difference unless you are apart of the filthy rich on one side or the other. The USA maybe have a little nicer cars (which they are in debt up to their eye balls for) or better housing fixures which puts americans into massive mortgage debt so they become wage slaves unlike most russians at least I have heard. Plus we give away a ton of know how to 2nd world nations like China and only the filthy rich bennifit from someone elses idea while americans are laid off.
I don't think so, how many real wars have we had since WW2 for any meaningful chunk of territory? We have had good reasons to have war as well but it still has not happened.
We're not physiocrats any longer. Or even 20th-century neo-physiocrats. Nobody who has Clue One economically fights wars for land any more.
We're not physiocrats any longer. Or even 20th-century neo-physiocrats. Nobody who has Clue One economically fights wars for land any more.
Diamonds, gold, OIL!!!, port access, water rights, grazing land, etc etc. Land is still valuable its just the type and location has changed just a little bit. Intellecutal property at the individual level has duboius value since it is almost impossible to protect in the information age and weak laws.
Settlers flooded to Oregon because of the rich ag land. Alaska didn't have what it would have taken to sustain floods of settlers; most would have been wiped out during their first winter. Even the farmers who relocated during the Great Depression didn't make it more than a couple of years.
Russia "sold" Alaska because it needed the money and only two potential buyers were the U.S. and England. Since England and Russia were pretty fierce rivals during that time, they sold it to the U.S. ETA I think you're in that they realized it was too big for them to really govern, but I think they were more worried about losing it to England than floods of settlers from the U.S. (which never happened even after the purchase, so....).
Russia sold Alaska, because it was too far away from St. Petersburg, they couldn't maintain settlements in Alaska, and they couldn't defend it, not because they needed the money, although they did need money. But the revenue from selling Alaska was ridiculously small amount. But since they were going to lose Alaska anyway, it was better then nothing.
Quote:
Challenges emerge
But maintaining these settlements wasn’t easy. Russians in Alaska – who numbered no more than 800 at their peak – faced the reality of being half a globe away from St. Petersburg, then the capital of the empire, making communications a key problem.
Also, Alaska was too far north to allow for significant agriculture and therefore unfavorable as a place to send large numbers of settlers. So they began exploring lands farther south, at first looking only for people to trade with so they could import the foods that wouldn’t grow in Alaska’s harsh climate. They sent ships to what is now California, established trade relations with the Spaniards there and eventually set up their own settlement at Fort Ross in 1812.
Thirty years later, however, the entity set up to handle Russia’s American explorations failed and sold what remained. Not long after, the Russians began to seriously questionwhether they could continue their Alaskan colony as well.
For starters, the colony was no longer profitable after the sea otter population was decimated. Then there was the fact that Alaska was difficult to defend and Russia was short on cash due to the costs of the war in Crimea.
Americans eager for a deal
So clearly the Russians were ready to sell, but what motivated the Americans to want to buy?
In the 1840s, the United States had expanded its interests to Oregon, annexed Texas, fought a war with Mexico and acquired California. Afterward, Secretary of State Seward wrote in March 1848:
“Our population is destined to roll resistless waves to the ice barriers of the north, and to encounter oriental civilization on the shores of the Pacific.”
Almost 20 years after expressing his thoughts about expansion into the Arctic, Seward accomplished his goal.
Which is exactly what would have happened to Alaska. Americans would have flooded in and just took it over.
Again, my point was that Alaska was never in any danger of being "flooded" by U.S. settlers as you claimed. It even says that in the link you posted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Siberia (and the far eastern tundra of Russia) is where the Tsars(Csars), Stalin and later the Soviet politburo would send the worst "political troublemakers" and prisoners to live at the gulags...trying to make the trek back to the center of political power in the west was particularly lethal...
