Exploring The Significance Of Alaska Day And Its Historical Impact

This Tuesday, Alaskans are celebrating Alaska Day, marking the anniversary of when what became America’s biggest state was officially transferred to U.S. control from the Russian Empire. This pivotal moment in history occurred when the United States purchased Alaska from Russia in March 1867 for $7.2 million. This transaction followed Russia's humiliating defeat in the Crimean War, where they faced off against Britain, France, and the Ottoman Empire. Russian traders had begun their incursions into the region over a century earlier, with permanent settlements emerging in the 1790s.

On October 18, 1867, the territory formally transitioned into U.S. control, although Alaska did not gain statehood until 1959. As we reflect on this significant historical event, we must ponder: how different would American and world history have been if Alaska had remained under Russian control?

To delve deeper into this question, Newsweek consulted several historians, and their insights are both intriguing and illuminating. The consensus suggests that without the U.S. purchase, Alaska could have been a contested territory between the Russian and British empires. Additionally, if the Russians had retained control, Alaska might have served as a Soviet nuclear base during the Cold War, significantly escalating tensions with the United States.

Hostility to the British Empire

In the backdrop of the 1867 purchase, historian Jo Antonson from the Alaska Historical Society pointed out the increasing U.S. presence in the region and Russia's growing hostility toward the British Empire. Antonson stated, “Russia did not want to sell its Alaska claims to the British after it had been so humiliated in the Crimean War. The countries did, however, agree not to fight that war in the Pacific.”

Russia was reluctant to continue investing in Alaska. While the Russian-American Company could have operated trading posts, there would have been increased competition from American traders, whalers, and cod fishermen. This scenario illustrates the complex dynamics that were at play during this transformative period.

Professor Songho Ha, who specializes in early American history at the University of Alaska Anchorage, mentioned that it was not guaranteed that Alaska would have fallen under British control without the 1867 purchase. He suggested that while it is possible, the vastness of the Canadian territory would have made the annexation of Alaska a challenging endeavor. This raises questions about the practicality of an enlarged Canada that included Alaska.

Ha also expressed skepticism regarding the idea that not purchasing Alaska could have led to open warfare between the Russian and British Empires. He believes that both countries may not have viewed Alaska as significant enough to risk starting a war. He noted that if it were indeed that important, Russia would not have sold it at such a low price.

Potential Use as a Base for Soviet Nuclear Weapons

If Alaska had remained Russian, Ha argues, it could have bolstered American nationalism by presenting an external threat. A militarized Russian Alaska might have united Americans against a common enemy, potentially discouraging criticism of the U.S. government.

Both Antonson and Ha concurred that a Russian-dominated Alaska could have been used to store Soviet nuclear weapons during the Cold War, which would have further escalated tensions with the U.S. Antonson emphasized Alaska's importance for its Arctic coastline, which was crucial for Cold War maneuvers.

When asked if Soviet nuclear weapons could have been stationed in Alaska, Ha affirmed this possibility. He speculated that the U.S. would have likely fortified the Canadian-Alaskan border with troops and nuclear weapons as a deterrent, similar to their actions in Japan and Korea.

In the context of the Cold War, the U.S. typically responded forcefully to perceived threats to its territorial integrity. Historically, American military involvement in various conflicts, including wars with Indigenous peoples and interventions in Latin America, illustrates a pattern of aggressive defense strategies.

Current Perspectives on Alaska's Status

In 2014, President Putin remarked that Russia had no interest in reclaiming Alaska, dismissing the notion when asked by an interviewer who suggested that many Russians would be pleased with such a development. He characterized the acquisition as “inexpensive,” referencing the $7.2 million sale and comparing it to other territorial purchases, such as Louisiana from France.

Recently, two Russian officials have revived discussions about the possibility of reclaiming Alaska, particularly in light of sanctions imposed by the West following the Ukrainian invasion. Vyacheslav Volodin, a close ally of Putin, indicated that Russia could assert claims over Alaska in response to these actions, suggesting a tit-for-tat approach to international relations.

In July, two Russians were apprehended after arriving on Alaska's St. Lawrence Island, which is significantly closer to Russia than the rest of Alaska. This situation highlights the ongoing tensions and complex dynamics at play between the U.S. and Russia in the region.

On October 12, Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska, asserted that U.S. forces in the state were effectively keeping Putin in check, preventing any advances by his military toward U.S. territory. This statement underscores the continued importance of Alaska in the context of U.S. national security and foreign relations.