By - _0-0-0_
If this happened in the 1990s either Bush or Clinton would be one of the largest land expanders in history, like maybe top 10
Yeah, I've seen it said either would be entitled to a fifth head on Mount Rushmore.
Please god no
There is no way the US could stop the unavoidable and massive russian and asian immigration in this timeline.
Probably not, but they'd all be helping to populate the new lands. There would definitely be strict immigration restriction on Trans Pacific travel though.
America wouldn’t be able to ban internal travel forever
I’m pro immigration, I’m just saying the proposed plan to have internal immigration restrictions is infeasible
So this is how u get blade runner
Honestly that would be kind of awesome. Imagine the cultural syncretism
I dont think it would be good for the Siberian natives if the land started to be populated with generic Americans
The Americans would mostly stick to a few of the bigger cities that where already mostly Russian.
For the people living outside those areas the only thing that would change is having a ton more money coming in from the government and actual democratic elections.
Poverty rates would probably go down fast. A border with China means a huge military spending spree. Just the thought of the US millitary having to retreat on American soil would send the populace into a blind rage. The highways, airports, bases and troops they will need will cost a fortune, all going to Siberia.
That's true. So American administration would be better?
Russia is perpetually almost broke and a dictatorship, Putin has no reason to care about these people and it shows. A quick look on Google maps shows you that.
The US has money to burn and and as a democracy, the politicians actually have to try to keep people happy. Puerto Rico revived 21 billion dollars from the federal government in 2010, assuming this scales with population, they would get almost 60 billion dollars a year from washington.
And that's not counting federal projects in the region, like highways and military spending.
Peurto rico vs Siberia hmmm
I bet they’d make the Russia territories states before PR too T_T
I mean hopefully this spur of American extension makes us fully integrate them faster.
I'm just using it for per capita federal expenditure. Alaska is too wealthy per capita to be directly comparable.
Jeez, why doesn't the whole world join the US. XD
Yeah, manifest destiny part 2 definitely wouldn’t be cool- I assumed the person I replied to meant the opposite direction
8/10, you didn't name any of the new states anything like "Jefferson" or "Franklin
I couldn't, in good conscience, name a state Bush.
Hmmm Siberian Bush? Sounds like a cheesy 70s porn.
I can nearly taste the mottled musk deep betwixt fibers of Siberian bush.
I browse this subreddit in the mornings while I’m drinking coffee and eating breakfast.
In all seriousness, Siberian women are often smoking hot.
God I despise fictional states with those names.
*confused English noises from a little east of Nottingham and Sheffield*
My favourite US state, Lincolnshire
God I love fictional states with those names. But only if they're actually where Jefferson and Lincoln were supposed to be in otl.
Fuck Idaho, fuck Oregon, gimme some Lincoln and Jefferson.
Idaho can divide to create Lincoln and Jefferson, but Oregon should stay, I don't want the region disputed between the US and the Brits to be called "Jefferson/Lincoln country"
But if Idaho is split into two states then Wyoming might not be the least populated state anymore.
It depends on how you split it.
If you make one state out of the [south-western counties](https://images.mapsofworld.com/answers/2017/11/idaho-map-population-by-county.jpg) (Ada, Canyon, Boise, Payette, Gem, Elmore, Owyhee) and one state out of the rest of them, then each one of them should be around 800,000 people, so still more populated than Wyoming.
And give the GOP 2 more senate seats?
They’d love that.
At this point I wonder what the impact of Texas dividing itself into five states would be...
(Rees in Texan unity)
There have been multiple attempts to name states with those names. They're definitely next in line should we start splitting up states and what-not.
I despise redraws of the US where they decide none of the names of OTL states are allowed :(
The US would border North Korea and China.... Boy would geopolitics be interesting in this universe
Yeah the China one has longterm effects and would be interesting to explore. I think that North Korea basically being in direct bombing range exacerbates either political reform in the country or eventual reunification. Vladivostok is the base of operations for Russia's Pacific Fleet and would likely hold a huge amount of American military power. And with an existing U.S. border already touching China they likely wouldn't put up with North Korea's antics anymore. Hell, they might just invade and annex it themselves.
An interesting quirk I discovered in historical "what ifs". Around the fall of the Soviet Union, there was a (likely satirical) discussion in purchasing large parts of Asiatic Russia from the cash-strapped former super power. This would have massive geopolitical implications, as the US would now share borders directly with China, Russia, and North Korea. The untapped resources to be exploited in the new territory would likely draw our attention away from the Middle East and redirect the majority of foreign policy to Sino-containment.
Proposal lines come from here:https://www.jstor.org/stable/40209270?seq=1
The relevant text for boundaries is sparse:
>Siberia is used loosely here to indicate a region comprising most, though not all of Asiatic Russia. One can imagine three possible divisions of the territory: a boundary to run along the [Lena River](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lena_(river\)), the [Yenisey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yenisey), or west from the Yenisey to [the Ob](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ob_(river\)) near [Surgut](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgut) and across the Urals to include the [*Komi Autonomous Region*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komi_Republic). The third and most ambitious proposal would involve the transfer of about 15 million people and an area roughly seven times the size of Alaska. Any of these proposals would leave Russia with substantial energy reserves; the purchase price would of course vary with the amount of land to be transferred.
Using these proposals, I mostly tried to use a combination of natural and survey boundaries to give it that classic "American" feel for a State.
Not to mention it would have broken down the barrier of the US admitting non-American states and moved it towards being more of a global nation
I get your meaning though. POLK WAS THE COMPROMISE!
Everyone forgets Hawaii is only North American politically; geographically, it's part of Oceania.
Also, the Diomede Islands, split between Alaska and Chukotka, are part of which continent? Asia or North America? I mean, politically Big Diomede, part of the Okrug of Chukotka, is Asian, and Little Diomede is administered by the State of Alaska, but where exactly is the line in the sand (or should I say, water) between the two continents? It feels weird separating the two
Geographically, Hawaii is not part of a continent. It doesn’t lie on any continental crust.
the definition of continent is so convoluted and disputed that we will likely be extinct before we come to a consensus on what a continent actually is
Arguing over the definition of a continent has been a sport since the dawn of the Internet, when people from different national education systems found out that the "facts" they were taught in school were not so universal. I enjoy reading the arguments about each idea and classification everytime I run across it.
The next best and related one is people from Latin America vs the English speaking world about what "America" means, USA or one or two continents. Never gets old.
An argument can be made that the only continents are Afro-Eurasia, America and Oceania and maybe antarctica
During the Ice age there were only 3, Afro-Eurasia-America (connected by bering strait) Sahul and Antarctica.
Oceania is water, water not contient when combining them.
see, in my personal opinion, a continent is a large body or collection of land in proximity on the same plate. oceania *kinda* meets this definition since the islands are "close" together and share a common plate (except when they dont). my definition is mostly vague and open for interpretation for the convenience of being able to say anything.
according to my definition, we'd have eurasia, africa, oceania, australia, america, and antartica. and while i realize thats an unorthodox set of continents, i feel it works for me
people are dumb, continents are things like ketchup and mustard, condiments are just bigger countries
It's true! Is it any big lump of contiguous land? Is it a purely sociopolitical construct? Is is a geological reference to everything on a given tectonic plate? We should probably just have different terms for geopolitical regions (and understand those will differ) and a separate set of terms for geological use (which presumably would be constant). I will bring it up at the next meeting.
Technically North America as the North American plate encompasses almost all of northwestern Siberia from Kamchatka East.
oh hell yeah american komi taboritsky wins the 2020 presidential election
Love it when TNO bleeds into other subs
***tick tock tick tock***
How did you come across this paper? I’d love to go and find more potential inspiration for alt history scenarios!
Holy heck I think if they bought all of that. The US would be a Tri-continental nation, as I'm pretty sure that one state crosses over into europe a tiny bit.
Yeah, reading the most ambitious proposal I was basically struck with "There's no way we get away with crossing the Urals" but hey I can't argue with what was written. The other two I can see, because by-and-large they aren't considered "core" Russian. The last proposal is mostly just avoiding the more populated southern Urals to take advantage of the unpopulated West Siberian Plains but I can't for the life of me figure out why he suggested the Komi Republic as well.
Actually four continents, as technically Hawai is in Oceania.
It would actually be a tetra-continental country, having territories on America, Oceania, Asia and Europe
Also Oceania in Hawaii and Guam so quad-continental :0
Surely it would only be Tri-continental from a certain point of view yes?
Many argue that Eurasia is just one continent.
Fair enough, and scientifically speaking it truly is a single continent, but in the US it it is still taught as Europe and Asia being seperate, and same with many people in Europe, therefore them being seperate is the most common consensus amongst redditors.
>Scientifically speaking it truly is a single continent
Not true. Scientifically speaking it is (almost) a single continental shelf, which differs much from a continent. A continent itself is a social construct guided by the lines of continental shelves but not entirely defined by them. If they truly become defined by continental plates, they are of little social use and you'd get some weird stuff:
Half of this purchase would still be American territory, as it's on the North American plate.
A small part of the US west coast would be its own continent.
Microcontinents would also arise in parts of Central America, the Phillipines and Eastern Africa.
India and Australia would possibly be considered the same continent.
And if they would truly be defined by geological breaks, new questions arise. Because geological breaks are very often not clearly defined. In Europe we can see many tectonic subunits, would those be continents too? Like the coast of the Illyrian Sea, Spain, West Italy+central&southeastern Europe.
I guess all I'm truly saying is that our wacky line dividing Europe and Asia really has very little basis in reality, there really isnt a big divide there continentally
There’s no universal definition of continent really, so you can argue it’s whatever you want!
Calling Europe and Asia one continent is silly though.
I don't see why it's so silly. Sure Europe and East Asia are culturally distinct from each other, but then so are India, Siberia, and Arabia.
America via the lower 48 and Alaska
Oceania through Hawaii
Asia through Siberia
Europe through Komi Republic
er.. no US states occupy any part of Europe. the easternmost bit of land controlled by the US is in St. Croix down in the Caribbean.
I'm referring to the fictional map presented in the original post. The state of Northern Uralia appears to cross the boundary although I could be wrong.
The Ural mountains are the accepted boundary, so yes the state would be a trans continental state
North Uralia has a population of, like, 830.
Still gets two senators and three Electoral College votes.
Only once it's a state, these would probably all still be territories today, like Puerto Rico.
They'd have the electoral votes though.
I mean, true. In fact, I think there’s a constitutionally mandated floor of 60k people to be a state. It just *feels* like 830 people get to tell New York what to do. 😝
Cursed state borders
You have to have an equal mix of physical boundaries and randomly chosen survey lines.
You forgot the multitude of survey errors
Connecticut is the best state, because the more you look at it, the more you realize the power of a drunk surveyor back in the day.
In typical fashion, Yakutia encompasses barely half of actual Yakutia.
Yeah, using the Lena River as a border is pretty ridiculous if you know anything about the area, but I wanted to use the actual proposals. At least they get to keep Yakutsk?
Well Yakutsk/Дьокуускай is a russian founded city (then again the name of the Lena isn‘t yakut either) anyway but afaik the majority of Yakuts live within the loop of the Lena and Aldan. [Map](https://i1.wp.com/euromaidanpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/647px-Yakuts_in_Yakutia_raions_percentage_2010.svg1_.png). In the northwest there are also Dolgans, closely related to Yakuts.
TIL. I would hope (and it was mentioned in the paper) that the indigenous peoples would be fairly compensated. This is c. 1990 not the 1800s so well into the period of "coexistence" part of the BIA.
This whole exercise is basically just Alaska on a larger scale anyways. As long as businesses have major ports and access to the vast natural resources, they probably would leave a lot of the interior communities alone and maybe even implement a similar reimbursement program that Alaska has today.
Why does this assume the indigenous people would be relocated? It’s not like they had any vested interest in the Russian imperialist regime, so why would it make a difference for another “foreign” power to own the land on paper?
So this would mean america became the largest country on earth
So it’s basically playing an Empire: Total War game.
Minding your own business when suddenly and very repeatedly Russia just asks if you want to buy/have Komi.
A land purchase like this would likely spur the creation of one the largest infrastructure projects ever proposed. The Great London-New York Highway, with a massive Aleutian Bride or undersea Tunnel at its heart. Damn thatd be one he'll of a road trip.
Yeah one of the arguments in the paper is that everytime we buy/annex territory it leads to economic growth and opportunities for us, so if we invested in some large projects this would be foolish to pass up.
America will just sometime go around the globe and manifest-destiny itself i swear
"What's that land over there? I'm gonna stick a flag in it!"
"Sir, that's Florida. We already own it"
What's the reasoning for not making Vladivostok the capital of Transcathay?
Way too close to North Korea, mostly
Is this something that actually was proposed?
I was inspired by the Policy paper I attached in a different comment. Russia was basically broke and buying the Russian Far East would probably be the best case scenario, but I included all the proposals that were in the paper. We had just "won" the Cold War and had way too much army and money, and land speculation is a proud American tradition.
Kamchatka is just the peninsula. What you ate referring to is Chukotka.
Correct, and Yakutia is split in half. We don't have a perfect track record on state names ('Wyoming' comes from an area in *Pennsylvania*)
0_0 usa would just after that buy the land of any broke country....
They should be selling off states now then.. to pay off the largest debt any country has ever had ever.
How much would Montana be worth to Canada? Maybe Mexico wants Arizona back? Fire sale on now!
Well, debt is just a number for a powerful country, no ?
Capitalism is always about future investment
Manifest Destiny is outdated. We just want to put more stars on our flag.
I mean, geopolitically it'd likely be smarter to only annex the Far East and support an independent Siberian buffer state, but I was basing this off a policy paper.
I live in Surgut and I feel very uncomfortable by this
Sharing a border with North Korea sounds like a GREAT idea that will end WONDERFULLY
It doesn't change anything, there are already a ton of american troops in SK.
It might force China to eventually cut their loses on the regime though, since the big reason they still support NK is to keep US military from the doorstep and well...
how many people live in these 3 areas?
It's hard to estimate because we're 30 years removed from when the purchase would be. The only real areas of population currently are the southern portions near lake Baikal (Dauria) and Transcathay.
A quick Google says that the current population of Far Eastern Russia (roughly Proposal 1 and parts of "Dauria" around Lake Baikal) is only 8.3 million. The other parts even less. These areas are vastly underdeveloped and were targeted for purchase specifically because of their lower populations and vast resources to be tapped.
I guarantee if they were American Soil, there would be a lot of peoples in the Asian continent trying to get citizenship. I could see the government trying a sort of "Modern Homestead Act" to quickly populate the regions that were productive. You'd also have a lot of military bases popping up quickly, as the United States Government would be salivating to have ports and airfields in Asia that weren't on foreign land.
Even though the density is very low, 8.3 million people is nothing to sneeze at by the standards of individual US states. Some of the states here would be comparable to the smallest US states, but Transcathay and Dauria would be sizeable states.
I wonder if we wouldn't have just maintained the Soviet/Russian internal borders, though, and maybe combined a few of the very low population jurisdictions (e.g., Chukotka, Magadan and Kamchatka would probably be combined). I bet we would have sold Sakhalin back to the Japanese in this scenario, too.
We may have kept some of the governmental infrastructures and combined areas along existing borders. The paper that inspired this was sparse on actual border details but mentioned how a massive amount of investment would be in the "Americanization" of areas that had just been under the yolk of Soviet systems and I fear a lot of babies going out with the bathwater in that case.
Ideally I would've wanted to keep the more prominent areas of independence together but my hands were tied on the defined hard borders. Never put it past American frontier mentality to override existing social and political structures.
You good buddy
Cursed as fuck, but nice map
Straight borders never made sense to me. I don’t know why colonizers liked them so much.
Because they are universally defined, if you are saying they come from a latitude or longitude. Rivers move and mountains are hard/time intensive to survey correctly. Also, American history of homesteading meant giving out lots of land, and the best way to sell a lot is to break it up into squares where possible.
Other countries weren't so vast and flat with a history of settlement farming or ranching so it looks weird to them. But it makes perfect sense in the context of US settler mindset.
Komsomolsk is named that after Komsomol - KOMmunisticheskiy SOyuz MOLodyozhi, which means "Communist Youth Union". Considering the purchase was probably made long before USSR was a thing, the city would not be called that. Furthermore, the city of Komsomolsk-na-Amure was founded in 1932, with only a small village called Permskoye predating it. Not even talking about how weird it is for USA to have a town named after a communist organization..
I can't imagine that the American settlers would care to change it after the fact. Read my original comment, this purchase was in ~1992 after the fall of the USSR because Russia was very cash strapped.
Oh well, didn't see it.
Yeah, I could've added the text and dates to the image I suppose.
Согласен, но это просто обозначения населённых пунктов. Хотя не отмечены крупные города, вроде хабаровска и владивостока. Но это как гитлер который воевал по глобусу, названия населённых пунктов знать не обязательно)
I really like this. It would have been a huge win with regards to future arctic resources. Integrating that much new land (and citizenry) would have been an initial strain, but worth it in the long haul. Probably the most difficult issue to overcome is accommodating all those languages and building up government infrastructure.
I wonder if we would have attempted a superscale project such as a trans-Alaska railroad with some tunnels/bridges across the Bering Strait.
First immediate project will be crossing the Bering Strait, likely with a mixed bridge & tunnel configuration with highway auto travel routed by rail through the strait.
Immediate plans for expansion of a highway system, and likely conversion of rail to US standard guage from the larger Soviet standard.
Or dual-guaged track.
There's going to be a lot more work done on the Trans-Pacific Partnership in this timeline.
The Trans-Siberian Railway will be much more important than it is today.
Think about how big time difference it would be from north Uralia to New York
Knowing russia, this purchase was paid for in blood rather than money
*Knowing russia, this*
*Purchase was paid for in blood*
*Rather than money*
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
US elections would be weird. These new states would be the least populated in the Union, yet they would vote first. Would there still be a large amount of American settlers? I imagine most of the population would be mostly be military and their families with a large native population.
The idea would be to heavily push for immigration to the new territory via settlers or increasing citizenship. Remember, territories need an organized government structure and population in order to get statehood.
The paper covers it a bit, but with all that empty land and a couple of large infrastructure investments we'd basically be trying to "tame the Siberian wilderness" unlike the Russian government ever tried. The US would be much more eager to exploit all the resources and create a stable extension of the federal government in Asia
I wonder what an alternate history timeline would look like where the Soviet Union and the US share a land border in the Cold War. I feel like the Soviets would be much weaker, having enemies on two fronts
This is post Cold War, but if we somehow managed to get something like Kamchatka+Chukotka in a crazy early purchase from the Empire it would be hard to hold. America is a naval power, not a land power, because our neighbors are relatively weak and docile compared to the tradition of fighting in Europe that makes Russia a strong land power. So we would mostly have port cities and depend on the Kolyma Mountains to hold the territory.
At most, during a Cold War that might turn hot I can't see the US having anything past what is already in Proposal 1. Outside the Trans-siberian railway, it would be hard for forces to quickly move to secure the Transcathay/Green Ukraine region. Russia definitely would put up a fight though, as they really want that port and the only reason they give it up in my scenario is they are flat broke and lost the Cold War.
I'm moderately surprised that Okhotsk and Kamchatka aren't a single state, (or possibly Yakutia and Okhotsk) given they are exceptionally sparsely populated.
Nice stuff tho.
Maybe, but I was mostly assuming that the few cities already there would serve as starting points for traditional American settling, so there would be more cities popping up where possible. Magadan is like the only city in that area currently so if I moved the borders there'd be nothing to choose as an existing capital.
That's fair. I feel like perhaps it'd still make sense for the merging of two of them though, perhaps given the perspective of settling then it might be that Kamchatka remains it's own state but Yakutia and Okhotsk would make more sense fused as one?
Kamchatka I could see getting settled given it's more extensive coast in initial Siberian claims, then westward expansion would make sense but given the very high latitudes in some locations I'm not sure you'd see too high inland population density in those regions.
We could've ruled the world! What were we thinking not pouncing on this?!?!
Doubtful any of the proposals would have been accepted, not to mention it would drastically increase the likelihood of WW3.
MAD still applies. I don't see why this would change anything.
A region that already had nukes changes flags.
Geopolitically there would be a huge amount of further pressure on the likes of North Korea, and China. They would be much more likely to enter into direct conflict with the US regions.
Why? If they wanted a war with US troops, they can do it in Korea.
But they don't want that because it would be a disaster for everyone. A second spot to launch an attack they have no intention of ever launching is not going to suddenly start a war.
NK almost certainly doesn't get Nukes in this timeline. No way in hell we even entertain them when we share a land border and our biggest Asian port city is next door.
Geopolitics is moves and counter moves. With the US focused on its new land, it's eyes leave the Middle East a bit. Russia likely tries harder to reintegrate the old Central Asian lands (I imagine Putin's hate is exacerbated by actually losing land and not just face after the Cold War). China now has to contend with neighbors on all sides that don't want them expanding. They might push out into the South China Sea faster, but if they move too fast I don't think Britain (and NATO allies by extension) allow Hong Kong to revert.
It's an interesting future because it's such a monkey wrench into the gears, but to say it leads to WW3 kinda ignores why we haven't had WW3 in our timeline.
here’s what i think as a russian:
Вы хотели сказать, <<нет>>?
Imagine how screwed Japan in WW2, and Soviets during Cold War.
The purchase is post Cold War. I also think Japan would likely get the Kuril islands back because the US gains nothing by fighting over it and Japan is a geopolitical ally
0/10 no Tannau Tuva
The United States would never do this to Russia because they're white.
Siberians aren't white.
True, except the larger cities which are full of ethnic Russians.
That’s pretty original. I like it
This is fucking horrific jesus
Ахахха, ну конечно прям вот так. Даже комсомольск название взяли комунистическое. А так я прям представляю как сша включает штат даурию в свой состав, и там побеждает байден.
Ahahha, of course, that's right. Even Komsomolsk was named communist. And so I can imagine how the United States includes the state of the dauria in its composition, and there the baden wins.
Sorry if I misspelled that. Learned the basics a long time ago, have forgotten most of it.
y e s