Great Britain buys Alaska: How much stronger does Canada becomes
- Thread starter Historyman 14
- Start date
Canada has to deal with Prime Minister Sarah Palin
Stronger ties with Russia ... Maybe able to be the port of call for Nicholas and his family to flee the revolution.
Will make it richer with oil.
SunDeep
Banned
The thing is though, while the British would probably be happy to purchase Alaska from the Russians, it's hard to see how the Russians would have been willing to sell it to them, during the height of the Great Game in Central and Eastern Asia between their empires.
It makes Canada slightly richer but that's about it. It adds less than a million people and assuming history continues fairly normally doesn't really affect US/Canada relations. There will probably be some US naval bases if WWII still occurs. It may make Canada a bit more conservative politically.
Alaska is resource rich but because of the good relationship the US/UK/Canada share its ownership hasn't really had a huge impact on history so far. The US is going to kick themselves for not buying when the gold is discovered and again for the oil but it's not really a big impact. The closer to modern times you get the more ripples it causes.
Alaska is resource rich but because of the good relationship the US/UK/Canada share its ownership hasn't really had a huge impact on history so far. The US is going to kick themselves for not buying when the gold is discovered and again for the oil but it's not really a big impact. The closer to modern times you get the more ripples it causes.
Not necessarily, Alaska may be conservative now but that's only because the Republicans there have been willing to compromise with the fact that Alaska is still a union stronghold. It really depends on how Canadian politics evolve as regarding organized labor.
One of the reasons for selling was that Britain was likely to nab it in the next war, so why not sell it for cash instead?
That's interesting, considering Russia approached both the British and the Americans with the offer to purchase Alaska in OTL.
Well, it would certainly make for tidier maps.
I don't know that the extra mineral resources for Canada would make that much difference. There already are considerable oil and natural gas fields on the Canadian side of the existing border, which appear to be significantly more accessible than what is in the North Slope of Alaska (no mountain ranges for pipelines to cross). Maybe the prospect of additional oil and gas from the North Shore would mean that the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline(s), for both oil and natural gas, would be built sometime in the 1970s, with feeder line(s) from the North Slope.
Please don't step on the butterflies.
There are a handful of Russians and Inuit in Alaska. They aren't buying it in modern times, they're buying it in the 19th century. The politics will be determined by the Canadian settlers and others who move there.
Last edited:
They did, but with a strong preference for the Americans.
That being said, if Britain gets it, it's going to be most notable because Canada gets some extra resources, and is a bit richer. There are certainly butterflies because of that, and events that took place in Alaska, but it's not like it's had a massive impact besides its wealth.
Although, I would be curious to see how much that lack of resources affects the US. I know Alaska is quite valuable, but I'm not sure exactly how much so...
It does make the map a hell of a lot nicer looking.
What else goes on there depends on the geopolitical situation in the world moving forward. Perhaps through some sort of butterflies the Anglo-Japanese alliance isn't terminated, so it never gets attacked in a WWII. An analogue to the Alaska Highway might not come about until much later because of that.
Parks Canada gets more to do. I don't know how many national parks will be created in Alaska, but it would definitely add a lot to our already extensive park service. Having the tallest mountain on the continent could be a key feature for tourism promotions by the parks service.
If some sort of Cold War develops iTTL as well, the Canadian Forces probably wouldn't be gutted (as extensively?) after the end of the Second World War (I doubt a Canadian Alaska would butterfly away WWI and the resulting rematch), as we'd need keep more of the navy and air force around for protecting such a large area so near to the enemy.
It might be interesting if some sort of pan-Inuit movement results from having the majority of them being in one country, putting pressure of Greenland to leave their European masters for our confederation. But the Greenlanders have much more extensive ties to Europe than to us, so perhaps not.
What else goes on there depends on the geopolitical situation in the world moving forward. Perhaps through some sort of butterflies the Anglo-Japanese alliance isn't terminated, so it never gets attacked in a WWII. An analogue to the Alaska Highway might not come about until much later because of that.
Parks Canada gets more to do. I don't know how many national parks will be created in Alaska, but it would definitely add a lot to our already extensive park service. Having the tallest mountain on the continent could be a key feature for tourism promotions by the parks service.
If some sort of Cold War develops iTTL as well, the Canadian Forces probably wouldn't be gutted (as extensively?) after the end of the Second World War (I doubt a Canadian Alaska would butterfly away WWI and the resulting rematch), as we'd need keep more of the navy and air force around for protecting such a large area so near to the enemy.
It might be interesting if some sort of pan-Inuit movement results from having the majority of them being in one country, putting pressure of Greenland to leave their European masters for our confederation. But the Greenlanders have much more extensive ties to Europe than to us, so perhaps not.
Inuit, not Inuits. It's already plural. It's like saying 'Frenchmens' or 'Americanses'.
You do remember that the biggest gold rush was for gold in the Yukon, right? Ie already in Canada.
If gold was discovered pre-Crimea War the British would certainly seize Alaska. The only practical way to access Yukon gold is by sea and Russian Alaska is in the way.
The impact probably wound't be huge, unless it prompts the British to seize Hawaii as a way stop to Australia. The Russians might be pissed off enough that the Crimea War gets protracted, giving the British more problems during the Indian Mutiny and Second Opium War.
I'm not sure how much different it would be from OTL. Alaska would be probably be slightly less developed. Prince Rupert might not develop as a port if Juneau is already in place, the few additional seats in parliament would doubtfully swing any elections. I do agree that post WW2 the military is probably gutted far less severely given that the Russians are right on the Canadian doorstep. There would be (hopefully) less environmental degredation in the Yukon regarding mining activity if it gets attached to Alaska at some point. Canada might be a true energy superpower if we can build the Mackenzie valley pipeline and tie it into the existing Albertan oil infrastructure.
By 2014 I'd guess you have a slightly less developed Alaska and a Canada that was slightly better armed and paid for it by the slight increase in revenue Alaska created.
By 2014 I'd guess you have a slightly less developed Alaska and a Canada that was slightly better armed and paid for it by the slight increase in revenue Alaska created.
If the Russians wouldn't sell to America, would there be any restriction on the Americans selling it to Britain? If I recall correctly the purchase was originally called "Seward's Folly" after Lincoln's Secretary of State; what if after the assassination, a Republican Congress pressured Andrew Johnson to shop the new territory around and see what deal he could get with Britain.
Or perhaps Britain did a bit more sabre-rattling during the Civil War (making noises that they might consider supporting the Confederacy), and Lincoln made a deal to sell them Canada to secure their neutrality.
Unless there was a specific restriction in the original deal between Russia and America, either of these strike me as quite plausible.
I see Americans being the ones who mostly populate it, which could lead to some fun times for the late 18th century, otherwise. Meh small butterflies.
I'm wondering about the population aspect myself. Would an Alaska that's been part of canada since the the 19th century have more or less people than OTL?
Technically is there not a smaller population base to pull people from? More americans in general to settle vs canadians. The neighboring canadian territories are very sparsely populated even by alaskan standards. At the same time Alaska wouldn't be geographically separated from the rest of its country.
Technically is there not a smaller population base to pull people from? More americans in general to settle vs canadians. The neighboring canadian territories are very sparsely populated even by alaskan standards. At the same time Alaska wouldn't be geographically separated from the rest of its country.
I mean, most of Alaska's population is in the panhandle, which borders BC, and might honestly get merged into it (there was a border dispute IOTL with Russia that carried over to the US, ended up getting handled with some acknowledgement to the Oregon dispute). So that's probably somewhat similar.
Wikipedia reports about the financial return of the Alaska purchase:
"Economist David R. Barker (in 2010) has argued that the U.S. federal government has not earned a positive financial return on the purchase of Alaska. According to Barker, tax revenue and mineral and energy royalties to the federal government have been less than federal costs of governing Alaska plus interest on the borrowed funds used for the purchase"
"John M. Miller has taken the argument further (also in 2010), contending that U.S. oil companies that developed Alaskan petroleum resources did not earn profits sufficient to compensate for the risks they have incurred."
In the end
a) Canada would be weaker
b) US would be stronger
c) The Russians were smart
"Economist David R. Barker (in 2010) has argued that the U.S. federal government has not earned a positive financial return on the purchase of Alaska. According to Barker, tax revenue and mineral and energy royalties to the federal government have been less than federal costs of governing Alaska plus interest on the borrowed funds used for the purchase"
"John M. Miller has taken the argument further (also in 2010), contending that U.S. oil companies that developed Alaskan petroleum resources did not earn profits sufficient to compensate for the risks they have incurred."
In the end
a) Canada would be weaker
b) US would be stronger
c) The Russians were smart