Alaska could have changed the fate of the Soviet Union

On October 18, 1867, the treaty to sell Alaska to the United States came into effect. In retrospect, it was clearly a huge mistake to hand over Alaska for those clinking dollars — although in the 19th century, it looked very different.

Russians began to develop Alaska seriously at the end of the 18th century. The main interest and the same as the time of Yermak — hunting fur, i.e., "golden fur." It was this opportunity to easily become rich through adventure and hard work that enabled Russians to conquer Siberia. By the end of the 18th century, the fur resources of Siberia had been exhausted for a hundred years — which prompted ambitious people to look for prey across the ocean.

The Russian-American Company, established in 1799, was responsible for developing Alaska. The company's "essence" was the large number of beavers found there. Beaver pelts were expensive, but decades later, the beaver's fate was similar to that of the sable in Siberia. Due to uncontrolled hunting, by 1830, the beaver population had become very scarce.

As a result, the company's profitability declined significantly during the reign of Nicholas I, and the state had to subsidize it — just to prevent it from going bankrupt. Alaska no longer brought in money, but instead started to consume funds.

Things got even more worrying afterwards. In the 1850s, the Crimean War broke out, destroying the good mood of the national leadership. Alexander II ascended the throne. Moreover, this failed war drained the country's finances. When the new emperor took office, the government was ready to make significant cuts in spending and had extreme doubts about Russia's ability to protect its remote territories. In 1854, Russians successfully repelled an Anglo-French expedition force three times their size landing on the Kamchatka Peninsula. But to achieve similar results in Alaska, new investments in the navy and army would be needed — Russian North America was almost defenseless.

The government believed that rather than trying to defend and develop Alaska for profit, it would be better to sell it. But doing so was not easy either.

Selling at any cost

The only potential buyer was the United States — a young and wealthy country seeking expansion opportunities. Before the Civil War from 1861 to 1865, Americans had already bought Louisiana and taken some territory from Mexico. There was fierce debate in Congress — whether to conquer Cuba. The reason opponents did not stop was not a desire for peace and tranquility, but concern that an opportunistic conquest would strengthen political rivals.

But even Americans who were eager to acquire new territory found it difficult to accept this "huge refrigerator," as it was not connected to American territory in the slightest. Even after the end of the Civil War, when the United States was reunified under a still expansionist government, the situation remained the same.

The "pusher" behind the purchase of Alaska by the United States was Secretary of State William Seward, a fervent supporter of expansion. He gained the president's support. However, both the American society and the Russian society were indifferent to the Alaska deal. One side asked, "What are we going to do with this refrigerator?" while the other opposed the idea of selling imperial land to anyone.

Nevertheless, on March 30, 1867, the treaty was signed — Alaska was sold for 7.2 million gold dollars.

In the Russian Empire, media noise could be ignored, but in the United States, the Congress became an obstacle, because purchasing Alaska had to go through Congress. For this, Seward used all his connections, and the diplomat Edward Stikl, who negotiated the sale of Alaska on behalf of Russia, bribed the Congress with hundreds of thousands of dollars. This made sense — after all, the final price of Alaska turned out to be half higher than what St. Petersburg had expected.

Contrary to popular legend, the money did not cause any unexpected problems — no ship carrying Russian gold sank to the bottom of the sea. These funds were smoothly cashed in and used to purchase high-tech products of the time — railway machinery. Everything seemed fine — the Russian government genuinely believed that selling Alaska was a good deal.

Flags and land

Alaska in the 1860s was a problematic area, like a suitcase without a handle. At that time, it was unclear whether there was gold there — until the end of the 19th century, it was properly explored and mining began. But rumors about the existence of gold had already spread. And these rumors alone were dangerous. Not long ago, Americans had seized Texas from Mexico — a process sparked by American immigrants who came to Mexican territory, changing the cultural balance there. Alaska might also attract prospectors — and naturally become part of the U.S. territory. Without major investment, Russians would not be able to defend it militarily.

But land has its particularity. In one era, it may seem useless, while in another, it may become highly valuable. Once, when sables were hunted to extinction, Siberia was like a suitcase without a handle. But centuries later, it brought so many resources to Russia that it can be certain — without Siberia, the country would be a different one in all possible senses. Even Moscow residents who never leave the Moscow ring road can personally feel this.

If Alaska had remained in Russian hands, many things could have changed — even the course of the Cold War might have been different. Deep-rooted, "historical," and not shocking Russian military bases — unlike the missiles in Cuba. Who knows where such a factor, which would add extra psychological pressure on our main opponent, might lead us.

Regretting the loss of Alaska is meaningless and too late. But we can learn from it — let this story remind those who someday decide to "get rid of toxic assets" and abandon parts of Russian territory. The consequences of this in the information age can already be felt now — for example, today the backbone of Ukrainian infantry is made up of residents from Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk, cities that were the most "Russified" in the territories controlled by Kiev. If we were to directly control them now, the situation would be completely different.

At first glance, the irrational sacredness of Russian land is actually very rational — every lost square meter of land costs us blood, sweat, and regret.

Therefore, it is best not to give it up — especially for money.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7538368160487997979/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking on the 【top/down】 buttons below.