Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
Come on. Jesus.
I mean separately. Japan would have almost certainly attacked in the late 30s/early 40s as they needed resources very badly.
Stalin would have taken Alaska if it belonged to Canada in the 1950s.
Either way, they don't need all of Canada.
Or maybe a victorious Germany gets there. But there's no way The Americas survive the 30s-50s without some superpower being part of it.
So now we add history fail to the geography fail? Because in case you didn't get the memo before Alaska was purchased by the USA it WAS Russian! So what, now we suppose for some bizarre reason that Canada purchased Alaska instead of the USA doing it when Canada at that time was so small it couldn't even administer the Yukon properly, never mind all of Alaska?
And on top of that, now we also presume that Stalin decides to take back Alaska by military force in the 1950s after just losing some 20-30m people in a war with Germany (which this alternate history assumes that he won) and then he still has the military capability to have an entire army cross the Siberian wilderness where there are no roads and no food, then hop the Bearing Strait, and then continue into Alaska into more literally pure wilderness with again no roads and no food, all in a region that is so hostile his troops would be able to move only for maybe two months in the spring and two months in the fall, and all to capture what, 600,000 square miles of wilderness and trees when he already controls 5 MILLION square miles of pretty much the exact same thing?
And by the way why would he even have to take it by force when he could probably BUY it for just a little more than he received for it in the first place, or are we also conveniently forgetting that the riches of Alaska weren't really fully understood until well into the 1960s which is long after Stalin died? Like the whole thing is laughable.