Alaska, USSR

We'll we would have missed out on the Klondike Gold rush, the Alaskan oil wells and the once lucrative fishing and fur trade there so that would have hurt our coffers a bit. Would the Japanese have still attacked the Alution Islands if they were owned by Russia? I think they would have been more concerned with American holdings and left them alone for the time being.

Cold war could have led to a Canadian wall and a military build up in the northeast, if the population warranted. Of course the area probably would not have been as developed and populated under Soviet control, being at the fringe of their empire.

After the fall of the Soviets I would see it breaking off into its own independent state so Sarah Palin would not have been the VP candidate in the US - She would have been the President of the Alaskan Independent Union.

Pure, quick speculation of course.:type:

 

Unlike the buffoons running our country, the Soviets (and now Russians) would have gone after the resources contained there. (Now, they would have likely gone to the other extreme, and stripped the land bare. I agree--there is such a thing as responsible stewardship of land and resources...though I doubt the Soviets have ever heard of "responsibility." Not sure how bad the Russians would be.)

Russia would be filthy rich right now. Thanks to our cranio-rectal inverted tree-worshippers, we can't even go after the oil that's there for the taking. Sheesh.

Now...Of course, Alaska in Russia's hands would end up with a "ruling class" of twelve Narcoleptic, Calvinistic Beekeeping Magazine Models who run Real Estate Offices on the side. They would become quite powerful and imporant, and would be known as the...


...wait for it...

The Dozen Buzzin' Dozin' Posin' Closin' Frozen Chosen.

 

Oh Boy! Now wiping coffee off the laptop! :laugh:

 

If America had failed to purchase Alaska, it would almost certainly have been acquired by the Brits. British Columbia had had a rapid expansion due to a gold rush there and Brits (I am including Canadians in this) were already beginning to press into Alaska. Russia had no resources to protect, much less develop Alaska (one of the big reasons why they sold it). That certainly hadn't changed by the time of the Alaskan gold rush 30 years later.

It is most likely that by this point in time Brits and Americans would have outnumbered the Russians in Alaska (regardless of who owned it). If there already hadn't been territorial disputes, the discovery of gold would have given the Brits great interest in pressing any claims they felt they could get away with. In the end, it is mostly likely that the Brits would have gained Alaska. Whether through armed conflict or by means of a negotiated settlement is hard to tell.

But, either way, it is unlikely that there would have been much impact on how things sit today. Alaska ends up a Canadian territory or province and most everything else remains the same. Palin gains fame in North Dakota instead.

 

Not near as great than if France wouldn't have made their sale to us. Now that would have been history altering!

 

Meh. Its not like the failure of Mexico to give us the Southwest stopped us from westward expansion. Its not like France could have, nor would have wanted to even try to, keep us from claiming that territory. France couldn't even keep control of Haiti for that matter. And since we didn't seem to have a problem with using relatively minor incidents to go to war with even Great Powers during the 1800s, the only real difference I see is that we get the territory after 1812 instead of before.

Tensions rise slowly in New Orleans till some incident causes us to move in and take over. France having recently been through a devastating war with all of Europe, protests but quickly capitulates (particularly since no other power is going to intervene to help them). End result is that Nappy doesn't have the cash he wanted and we have a couple decades of unfriendly relations with France.