U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Alaska
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-27-2017, 03:38 PM
 
3,588 posts, read 1,235,021 times
Reputation: 2189

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Razza94 View Post
Russia has a very poor demographic situation, and is struggling to literally give away land in the far east.
It was only something like 3 acres and was way to close to the chineese boarder (vladavostok area). If they started giving away 100 acre tracts of land in the Yakutia district that would be a boon. And actually let you build a run way to get supplies in and out ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-27-2017, 04:05 PM
 
18,618 posts, read 23,447,942 times
Reputation: 10020
Speaking of Russia, how are you and the mail-order bride getting along, Pitts?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2017, 11:51 PM
 
Location: Oregon Coast
794 posts, read 204,238 times
Reputation: 994
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer View Post
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.
But we are not talking about since WW2. We are talking about the mid-1800s. The US had already won a war with Mexico and took the entire Northern half of that country. Had taken Oregon from the British by adverse possession, by simply flooding the territory with American settlers. Which is exactly what would have happened to Alaska. Americans would have flooded in and just took it over. Then Russia would have gotten nothing for it.

Would Russia have liked to have kept Alaska? Of course. Would Britain have liked to have kept Oregon? Of course. Was keeping those territories worth them fighting a war halfway around the world from Europe, a war that the US would have had a strategic advantage in? Hell no. The land was just not that geographically important to them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2017, 01:16 AM
 
18,618 posts, read 23,447,942 times
Reputation: 10020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz View Post
But we are not talking about since WW2. We are talking about the mid-1800s. The US had already won a war with Mexico and took the entire Northern half of that country. Had taken Oregon from the British by adverse possession, by simply flooding the territory with American settlers. Which is exactly what would have happened to Alaska. Americans would have flooded in and just took it over. Then Russia would have gotten nothing for it.

Would Russia have liked to have kept Alaska? Of course. Would Britain have liked to have kept Oregon? Of course. Was keeping those territories worth them fighting a war halfway around the world from Europe, a war that the US would have had a strategic advantage in? Hell no. The land was just not that geographically important to them.
You've obviously never been to Alaska. American settlers who "flooded" Oregon were steeped in European agricultural traditions and would have fled screaming after one season in most parts of Alaska. A lot of them actually did.

Quote:
We are talking about the mid-1800s.
No, we are not. The deal was done in 1867.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2017, 01:59 AM
 
3,924 posts, read 900,196 times
Reputation: 1736
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer View Post
It was only something like 3 acres and was way to close to the chineese boarder (vladavostok area). If they started giving away 100 acre tracts of land in the Yakutia district that would be a boon. And actually let you build a run way to get supplies in and out ...
You're proving the point, it would take one hell of an offer to convince a significant number of people to move out there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2017, 07:37 AM
 
Location: Oregon Coast
794 posts, read 204,238 times
Reputation: 994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla View Post
You've obviously never been to Alaska. American settlers who "flooded" Oregon were steeped in European agricultural traditions and would have fled screaming after one season in most parts of Alaska. A lot of them actually did.
In the 1890s 100,000 Americans flooded into Alaska. That's more than were in Oregon, when the British decided to throw in the towel, and gave up Oregon. Russia had only 700 settlers in Alaska. So Americans would have outnumbered Russians a 150 to 1. It would have taken at least 100,000 Russian troops to try and control the American migration. It would have been a logistical nightmare for Russia to try and transport that many troops to Alaska. Russia knew full well that day was coming. That's why they took what they could get for Alaska and ran.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla View Post
No, we are not. The deal was done in 1867.
I would classify anything from the 1830s to the 1860s as the mid-1800s.

Last edited by Cloudy Dayz; 04-28-2017 at 07:46 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2017, 11:22 AM
 
Location: interior Alaska
2,521 posts, read 2,080,700 times
Reputation: 6319
The reason Alaska was "flooded" (it's really not that many people for this much land, and most of them didn't last long) was the Klondike Gold Rush and its aftermath, which no, Russia did not foresee.

The settlement of Oregon and of Alaska are not analogous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2017, 11:48 AM
 
18,618 posts, read 23,447,942 times
Reputation: 10020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostnip View Post
The reason Alaska was "flooded" (it's really not that many people for this much land, and most of them didn't last long) was the Klondike Gold Rush and its aftermath, which no, Russia did not foresee.

The settlement of Oregon and of Alaska are not analogous.
Yeah, people didn't exactly stick around and build homes and establish farms and businesses the way they did in Oregon and Washington. Most never even intended to.

Last edited by Metlakatla; 04-28-2017 at 12:36 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2017, 12:23 PM
 
Location: california
5,348 posts, read 3,755,531 times
Reputation: 6225
!942-45 Japan took a shot at trying for some of alaska and failed .
Dad was in the army there at the time, Cold Bay crash truck driver at the air port.
Had Russia still owned Alaska, Canada might have more to fear.
Russia has a significant portion of the north pole and that is a significant strategic location for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2017, 01:36 PM
 
Location: Groznia
207 posts, read 56,060 times
Reputation: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cida View Post
The reassertion of Russia’s greatness has been a motif of Vladimir V. Putin’s presidency, and his projection of military might and cyberpower is in part why Russian-American relations are at their lowest point since the end of the Cold War.

So the 150th anniversary on Thursday of Russia’s sale of Alaska to the United States — an event few Americans may notice — was a day of mourning for some hard-right Russian nationalists who see the transaction as a gigantic blunder by the ailing czarist empire, one that reverberates as the major powers vie for influence over the Arctic and its natural riches in an age of climate change.




https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/w...-150.html?_r=0
Wow!!! Someone else knows about and actually cares to discuss Russian-America...Nice!!! I was talking with my DAD about this the other week because I am writing an analysis paper where I explore one theory where America could be Geo-Politically and legally vulnerable at an international level and a justified new global war or conflict could precipitate. Russia is one, by "hypothetically" seeking to reclaim Alaska. Russia could easily make the argument that it is the "natural" rightful owner of Alaska through providence and economics...and claim that Alaska was "swindled" from Russia as, America was attaining its peak as the world super power during the time that Alaska was transformed from a "territory" into a state...as after the actual sale in 1867 the US kept Alaska as a territory from 1912 until the late 1950's...and official "statehood" signified the consummation and final closing of the purchase via the transfer of Alaska to the US. The other is the Viceroy of Spain, and New Spain of the Southwest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2013 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Alaska
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top