Why was Alaska sold?

[Dashkova]

I do think that you may be correct, however, that the Soviets came to regret the sale, and this may be the basis of the stories about the sale actually being a lease.

The fallacy of this, however, is that had there been paperwork that indicated a lease, the USSR could probably have gotten the US thrown out Russia in international courts.

Probably but just as likely probably not. In those days not too many, including international courts, were willing to play hard ball with the United States, indeed, the US exercised more control over those same courts than many would like to have admitted.  

[Moonlight_Densetsu]

The Crimean war for territorial expansion right?and this was during Tsar Alexander II time,why would he sell such a huge chunk of land after his father humilated the country trying to gain more land?


TJ

[Dominic_Albanese]

According to some Russian and certainly Soviet historians, Alaska was *not* sold, it was leased to the U.S. (for 100 years, much like the deal between UK/Hong Kong).  This is what was frequently taught in Soviet schools.

Now, it's easy to say, as a westerner and/or American, that of course the Sovs were lying about this, and there are of course plenty of reasons to believe they were!

However, I for one, and probably many more people here also realize that the US government is every bit as disgustingly guilty of lies as the USSR ever was. I've known this all my life but was particularly made aware of it when I married first into a family of a Vietnam/POW MIA (A-4E pilot).

No matter what the US history books say about Alaska, they are every bit as likely to be as false as are the Soviet historians.

I've never commented on any of your messages - regardless of the content - but to imply that the US Government lies as much as the Soviet government seems abit extreme.  Not to say that the U.S. Governemnt doesn't lie - don't all governments?  But that is way too much of a stretch to let stand unchallenged.

dca

[Moonlight_Densetsu]

Dominic your going to start a fight, I am at least interested in what she knows.

[Dashkova]

I've never commented on any of your messages - regardless of the content - but to imply that the US Government lies as much as the Soviet government seems abit extreme.  Not to say that the U.S. Governemnt doesn't lie - don't all governments?  But that is way too much of a stretch to let stand unchallenged.

dca

How do you define a "challenge"?  Simply stating, "well, that seems extreme" isn't much of  a challenge, is it.

I have offered examples of why I believe the two systems were more similar than dissimilar, where are yours to the contrary?

[Belochka]

*IF* (and of *course* it's an IF) there is any truth to the "lease" agreement, it *does* make sense that the late 50s would be a good time to make Alaska "officially" a state, since the centennial of "Seward's Folly", in 1958, was at hand.

The cenntenial would have been in 1967, from the date of acquisition.

The fact that Statehood arrived earlier makes your hypothesis improbable does it not?

Could you please direct us to the specific Soviet reference which claims that a lease was drawn up?

Lisa is perfectly correct in claiming that the Soviets did regret the Imperial descision, but then looking at it another way, the U.S. would have been more than compensated for "Seward's Folly".

[Dashkova]

The cenntenial would have been in 1967, from the date of acquisition.

The fact that Statehood arrived earlier makes your hypothesis improbable does it not?

Could you please direct us to the specific Soviet reference which claims that a lease was drawn up?

Lisa is perfectly correct in claiming that the Soviets did regret the Imperial descision, but then looking at it another way, the U.S. would have been more than compensated for "Seward's Folly".

Actually, it does *not* make my "hypothesis" improbable.  The process of statehood isn't exactly one of "sign me up" and extra time could have been budgeted just in case.

As for sources, oh, what a rich request.  Naturally there aren't going to be many, if any such documentation in English, but as I have time over the next couple weeks, let me see what I can find in Russian.  Maybe nothing!

As I have stated before, and once again must repeat myself  -- PLEASE PAY ATTENTION THIS TIME ALL REACTIONARIES  -- I  was repeating only what was told to me by a number of people attending Soviet schools during the 1950s through 1980s.  I have NEVER said "oh yes, this is how it was", though some of you ARE saying that when offering your own perspective.

Fine. Have at it.

As Rhett Butler would say, far be it from me to interfere with or question any cherished childhood teachings (in this case, Katie Scarlett, about US history).

Have fun now!

[Robert_Hall]

Yes, statehood involves the other states saying...okay and a constituional ammendment  perhaps ? They sure do not come easy.
BTW, Hawaii became a state at the same time,  another monarchy bites the dust at "manifest destiny".

[Belochka]

Actually, it does *not* make my "hypothesis" improbable.  The process of statehood isn't exactly one of "sign me up" and extra time could have been budgeted just in case.

As for sources, oh, what a rich request.  Naturally there aren't going to be many, if any such documentation in English, but as I have time over the next couple weeks, let me see what I can find in Russian.

The process of obtaining Statehood presupposes that the territory had to be under unfettered U.S. government jurisdiction.  Such a pathway would not involve any land holding that was under leasehold, and thus, belonging to another country.

There were a number of Congressional Bills over decades, which were introduced to bring about Statehood. The first was as early as 1916. The Alaskan people voted for Statehood in 1946. Again all this occurred well within the first century in which the U.S. acquired the land.

If you claim that references are "aren't going to be  many" then please extend the courtesy of supplying just one. Otherwise please do not expouse unsubstantiated claims concerning this matter. Thank you.

[Robert_Hall]

As I read it, this was presented as hearsay from the outset. Not pretending to be "substantiated" other than comments from people who went to school and were told  such.
I am sure we were all told things, no matter when or where we went to classes, that ended up not so true after all.

[Belochka]

As I read it, this was presented as hearsay from the outset.

Hi Robert,

The claim was made that "some Russian and certainly Soviet historians" made these claims. Historians usually publish their assertions, no matter how incorrect they may be. Otherwise how does one learn about them?

I would like to see who these chaps were and what they had to say.

[olga]

I bet the Soviet Union would have had  good use for some Land near the only country that stood in the way of Soviet domination!Thank goodness it was sold.lol

You are fairly young, are you not, TJ? Why is your mind stuck in the Cold War?

[Dashkova]

The process of obtaining Statehood presupposes that the territory had to be under unfettered U.S. government jurisdiction.  Such a pathway would not involve any land holding that was under leasehold, and thus, belonging to another country.

There were a number of Congressional Bills over decades, which were introduced to bring about Statehood. The first was as early as 1916. The Alaskan people voted for Statehood in 1946. Again all this occurred well within the first century in which the U.S. acquired the land.

If you claim that references are "aren't going to be  many" then please extend the courtesy of supplying just one. Otherwise please do not expouse unsubstantiated claims concerning this matter. Thank you.

 

What a RIOT you are...why don't we have any smileys that are LMAO?
I see that you have trouble with reading comprehension so maybe I shouldn't laugh.

Ok (one more time).  I was and am (until I find anything further, if ever) presenting information from others who were TAUGHT about a lease.  

(pay attention now)  I PERSONALLY have not said whether this information that was taught might be true or false.

(Hang in there, almost done!) I have made NO claims that there was definitely a lease.  What I have done is offer information heard from OTHERS who DO believe it.  

Are we clear on this now? So...no more "expousing" (funny that, why not try "espouse") of views. That is not what I am doing.  No, thank YOU.

As for the presupposition comment, well, it's kind of scary that there are still people in the world who have blind trust that everything is always done by the book. It was, of course, WAY easier in the 19th and most of the 20th century to avoid treaties and laws, and on the eve of the Russian Revolution it makes sense that the US would begin to make moves to change the status of Alaska, as any regime change might dispute prior agreements.  The fact that they began that year only strengthens the argument for a lease.

But (don't forget to read this!) that does NOT mean there was one!

There are innumerable threads here that discuss events in ways that completely counter traditional history.  This topic is every bit as valid as the others.

[Dashkova]

Ah, yes, the comment about the Russian/Soviet historians.  This comment was made based on the fact that the lease theory was taught in Soviet schools, by teachers of history, and these teachers if not historians themselves, were taught by historians who believed there was indeed a lease.

Like I said, such documents/books will be in Russian, not English.

And as fascinating as this site is, I don't have a lot of time for it.  However, I will see what I can dredge up over the next couple weeks
AS I HAVE ALREADY STATED!

[Moonlight_Densetsu]

You are fairly young, are you not, TJ? Why is your mind stuck in the Cold War?

My mind is not stuck in the Cold War Darth Olga.Dont you agree the USSR could have had good use for Alaska?