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)
 
 
Old 04-28-2017, 01:40 PM
 
Location: Groznia
207 posts, read 55,760 times
Reputation: 221

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ethnicappalachian View Post
I thought Trump and Pooty are in bed together?

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...

Guardar
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-28-2017, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Groznia
207 posts, read 55,760 times
Reputation: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz View Post
The important part of the article.



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...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2017, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Groznia
207 posts, read 55,760 times
Reputation: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by happycrow View Post
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...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2017, 04:03 PM
Status: "down for you is up" (set 4 days ago)
 
Location: Where the creatures meet
10,222 posts, read 5,247,400 times
Reputation: 35354
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer View Post
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 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.
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.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2017, 10:20 AM
 
Location: Oregon Coast
794 posts, read 202,840 times
Reputation: 994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countess Capital View Post
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.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2017, 11:17 PM
 
3,588 posts, read 1,233,158 times
Reputation: 2184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
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.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2017, 12:36 PM
 
Location: Irving, TX
502 posts, read 423,373 times
Reputation: 698
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.
We're not physiocrats any longer. Or even 20th-century neo-physiocrats. Nobody who has Clue One economically fights wars for land any more.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2017, 10:40 PM
 
3,588 posts, read 1,233,158 times
Reputation: 2184
Quote:
Originally Posted by happycrow View Post
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.
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.


 
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