Alternative history; if Russia had not sold Alaska what it still own it?

If Russia hadn’t sold Alaska to the United States…what an interesting question of alternative history. Russia sold Alaska to the United States to prevent the British from getting it. That was a good idea for Britain with Alaska in their royal swag bag could have attacked Russia through Siberia across the Bering Strait.

By the year 1867 Russia promyshlenniki had taken most of the valuable furs that were easily accessible. The United States with its victory over the confederacy was still young and energetic with an expanding economy. Russia ended its own slavery-like institution of serfdom right after the ending of slavery in the U.S.A., and Britain had supported the southern states in the U.S. civil war; since Russia couldn’t very well afford to defend on Eastern and Western frontiers the Tsar probably thought it was better to have an ally with the U.S.A. rather than an opponent or worse- Brits, on the Eastern front.

European history and politics of an alternative nature based on real history is beyond the scope of my comment. I am no expert on European history either. One observes the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 and the growing power of neo-Germany that might have been a concern of Russia that was not misplaced. Germany defeated the Tsar’s Russian army in 1914 rather swiftly in 1914 leading the way to end Russian aristocracy and enabling the rise of the Red Bolsheviki (if I may use that term).

England and Germany were great industrial powers presenting a grim specter to the west of dark clouds of war sometime in the future. France actually made and donated the Statue of Liberty during the 1870s after the loss to Prussia. Alaska was a better gift providing needed cash.Russian entry into World War IRussia entered World War I in the three days succeeding July 28, 1914 — beginning with Austria-Hungary ‘s declaration of war against Serbia , a Russian ally. Via St Petersburg , the Russian Empire sent an ultimatum to Vienna warning Austria-Hungary not to attack Serbia. Following the invasion of Serbia, Russia began to mobilize its very large reserve army. Consequently, on July 31, the German Empire in Berlin demanded Russian demobilization. There was no response; hence, on the same day, Germany declared war on Russia. In accordance with its war plan, Germany ignored Russia and moved first against France by declaring war on August 3, and by sending its main armies through Belgium to surround Paris. The threat to France caused Britain to declare war on Germany on August 4. The main belligerents had been established. (The Ottoman Empire soon joined the Central Powers and fought Russia along their border.) Historians researching the causes of World War I have emphasised the role of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Scholarly consensus has typically minimised Russian involvement in the outbreak of this mass conflict. Key elements were Russia’s defence of Orthodox Serbia , its pan-Slavic roles, its treaty obligations with France, and its concern with protecting its status as a great power. However, historian Sean McMeekin has emphasised Russian plans to expand its empire southward and to seize Constantinople as an outlet to the Mediterranean Sea. [1] Archduke Franz Ferdinand , heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, was assassinated by Bosnian Serbs on 28 June 1914 due to Austria-Hungary’s annexation of the largely Slavic province. Vienna was unable to find evidence that the Serbian state had sponsored this assassination but, one month later, it issued an ultimatum to Serbia , which it knew would be rejected and thus lead to war. Austria-Hungary deemed Serbia to be deserving of punishment for the assassination. Although Russia had no formal treaty obligation to Serbia, it wanted to control the Balkans, and had a long-term perspective toward gaining a military advantage over Germany and Austria-Hungary. Russia had incentive to delay militarization, and the majority of its leaders wanted to avoid war. However, Russia had the support of France and feared that a failure to defend Serbia would lead to the loss of Russian credibility, constituting a major political defeat in its goal of controlling the Balkans. [2] Tsar Nicholas II mobilized Russian forces on 30 July 1914 to threaten Austria-Hungary if it invaded Serbia. Christopher Clark stated: “The Russian general mobilisation [of 30 July] was one of the most momentous decisions of the July crisis “. The first general mobilization occurred before the German government had declared a state of impending war. [3] Germany felt threatened by Russia, responding with its own mobilization and a declaration of war on 1 August 1914. At the outset of hostilities, Russian forces led offensives against both Germany and Austr

I don’t believe the history of Alaska reasonably could have gone another way than it did unless at some earlier time Napoleon and Suvarov and become one force with Tsarina Catherine the Great and Napoleon able to get along and together dominate all of northern Eurasia extending to North America destroying the British in the process and letting Canada join the U.S.A. as five or six new states. In that case Russia would have probably kept Alaska and built a bridge or Causeway long ago affecting global warming earlier by stopping the flow of cool Arctic water south in that part of the world. Instead Napoleon spent his time avoiding a battle with Suvarov (who retired undefeated) and the rest is history.