Trade in the country was started not by former communists, but by the royal-noble bastard a century and a half ago. Historical detective Ivan Mironov - and current parallels
When Gorbachev and Shevardnadze ceded to the US a huge shelf in the Bering and Chukchi Seas in the summer of 1990, or when the Putin government gave China important islands in the Amur, they were not original. The forerunner of these "statesmen" was the power of Alexander II, who gave Alaska to America for nothing. Moreover, the swineness of the then “elite” gives the United States today hope to buy Siberia from the Russian Federation.
All this proves that Russian civilization long before 1917 fell victim to the monstrous corruption of the top. They have long oskotinilis and began to trade in our country. The Reds tried to reverse the trend, but failed. And today, "The Russia that we lost," the faux-Orthodox, has returned. With the same manners of the "elite". It will take a new oprichnina to break the destructive trend.
THE COMMUNISTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT
After reading the book-investigation of the historian Ivan Mironov "The Fatal Deal: How Alaska Was Sold", he greatly regretted that he had not read it while working on the study "Inferior Race". My book is dedicated to how the leaders of tsarist Russia literally stole the country and missed excellent chances for its development, leading the empire to the catastrophe of 1917. The book by I. Mironov perfectly complements the "Inferior Race", there is an intersection of plots.
Based on archival documents and statistics from tsarist times, Ivan brilliantly proved that Alaska, owned by the Russian-American Company, was by the 1860s a profitable colony that brought a stable income. Moreover, Alaska would become even more profitable: after all, in the 1890s, rich deposits of gold and then oil would be discovered there. During the Crimean War, Alaska was protected by diplomatic means - the warring parties pledged not to attack each other's colonies. However, the government of Alexander II (a liberal and a reformer) shamefully sold Alaska for 7.2 million of the then dollars, and this money (I. Mironov proves this) did not get into the country's budget, enriching the dirty businessmen under the throne. And this is a real sensation! The mechanism of the deal is painfully reminiscent of the machinations with state property under Yeltsin and Putin. Even then, the young United States skillfully used the venality of the Russian leaders.
At the same time, there was no threat of losing Alaska from the American conquest as of 1867. The United States had just emerged from the devastating and bloody Civil War of 1861-1865. Their fleet of those times was not adapted for operations in Arctic waters. The Americans did not try to conquer Canada - what can we say about Alaska? The Russians could well hold out until the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway and the creation of bases for the steam armored fleet on Far East. If the Yankees tried to tear Alaska away from us, then we would have a reason to recapture it back at the beginning of the 20th century. The loss of Alaska meant the loss of Russian control over the northern part Pacific Ocean. And at the same time, this sale led the Americans to become insolent and began to lay claim to our Far East.
A REFLECTED HYPOTHESIS
All this refutes the miserable hypothesis of some liberals and "Orthodox patriots" that tsarist Russia had an elite that was impeccably honest and devoted to the country. And all the troubles, they say, are due to the fact that this noble nobility was slaughtered by evil communists and brought to power a breed of dishonorable and greedy creatures. Which then destroyed the USSR, abandoned communism - and staged a reign of corruption here. Nothing like this! The royal elite behaved no less swine than the current post-Soviet "aristocrats" of Pilezh, Rollback and Betrayal.
On the contrary, our hypothesis is confirmed: in our country, all sorts of “liberal reformers” who seek to make the country “part of the civilized world” and fit it into the world capitalist system always turn out to be vile thieves.
TWO SCAM
Ivan Mironov, on the basis of archival documents, shows how Alaska was deliberately made unprofitable, trying to quickly turn it off to the United States. The government of Alexander II spent money on lobbying (bribes) for the deal in America.
Who pushed the deal? First, the anointed of God himself, Alexander. Secondly, his brother is a mafia Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, a pro-Western type of liberal, a great friend of the banker Frenkel and curator of the Navy. Thirdly, the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Ingushetia Reitern, a monetarist. Fourthly, the Russian ambassador to the then USA, the Belgian Stekl, through whose hands a lot of money flowed.
At the same time, Alaska was sold without an advance payment: the money was received only in 1868, and even then not in full: 7 million 35 thousand dollars instead of 7.2 million. Despite the fact that Stekl spent 100 thousand dollars on lobbying for the deal in America. $ 7 million was only 3% of the then budget revenues Russian Empire. But they did not enter the country either. They went back to the West to pay for the supply of railway equipment at obviously inflated prices.
The fact is that the criminal scam of the tsarist government for the sale of Alaska unfolded simultaneously with another scam: the privatization of state-owned railways in the Russian Empire. Ivan Mironov brilliantly shows this.
ALASKA AND THE PRIVATIZATION SCAM OF THE TIME
In 1867, the Russian Empire was shaken by a scandal over the privatization of the state Nikolaev railroad "Moscow - Petersburg". Belonging to the treasury, the road was quite profitable, gave an excellent income. And so they decided to privatize it, giving it to the Main Society of Russian Railways, created by the largest Jewish bankers (the Pereira brothers, Colignon, etc.) and financiers of Paris, London and St. Petersburg back in 1857.
The society was cunning: it seemed to be private, but the Russian government guaranteed it a 5% return on invested capital. That is, steal, overestimate costs, costs - and the Russians will still provide you with a profit. At the expense of the country. Moreover, the board of the joint-stock company itself was located not in Russia, but in Paris. The tsarist regime promised to give him the roads to own for 99 years, and reserved the right to buy back only after 20 years. In fact, the Russian steel tracks were given under external control.
By the way, this privatization was lobbied by the Minister of Finance of Russia, Mikhail Reitern (Ostsee German), who took his post in 1862 and adhered to the views akin to the current liberals such as Gaidar, Chubais or Nemtsov: the state is “not allowed to have its own enterprises”. And Reitern is a lobbyist for selling Alaska to the United States on the cheap!
The scams started right off the bat. The share capital seemed to have been collected - but the newly-minted joint-stock company ... did not have any money. It turns out that the founders painted the authorized capital for themselves, but did not contribute money. I had to issue bonds, borrow money on the market.
But when this society was just being created, it boastfully promised to cover the whole of Russia with a network of cast-iron highways without any help from the state. In the board of the society, along with Jewish financiers, Russian top dignitaries also sat.
The plans of the Main Society of Railways were grandiose. Complete the construction of the Warsaw Railway, the Dinaburg-Riga line, the Moscow-Nizhny Novgorod and Moscow-Sevastopol routes.
However, by 1867 (by the time of the sale and surrender of Alaska), the Main Society of Russian Railways was actually bankrupt. Undertaking to build four roads, it only completed the Varshavskaya road and the line to Nizhny Novgorod. The Dinaburg-Rizhskaya highway was not completed, and the road to Sevastopol was not even started. Moreover, the construction went on in a peculiar way: the cost of roads amounted to about 100 thousand rubles of that time per mile, more than two times more than that of Kleinmichel, who built the highway between Moscow and St. Petersburg at public expense. (After all, historians believe that under Kleinmichel, the cost price inflated two or three times!) That is, in terms of theft, effective owners outdid even the officials of Nicholas I. And although the Main Society of Russian Railways promised to attract Western capital for construction, in fact it sold its bonds in Russia. That is, everything turned out in a predatory way.
As soon as the Warsaw road started operating, it immediately turned out to be unprofitable - and the state had to pay money to foreign shareholders. In a word, it turned out not to attract capital to Russia, but to pump it out of it. The situation was so egregious that the government of the city terminated the original contract with the company, forcing it to transfer control from Paris to St. Petersburg and introduce four members from the state into its board.
Was compiled new plan railway construction. Now - aimed mainly at the construction of highways leading to ports - for better grain export. The Minister of Railways, Melnikov, proposed building routes in a state-owned way: they say, private capital is overwhelmed, so let's build in a state way, establishing control in every possible way and preventing theft. But Minister of Finance Reitern insisted on continuing the old practice: to give everything into private hands. The government went for unprecedented benefits for the Main Society of Russian Railways: it gave them places for stations in Sevastopol, Moscow and other cities for free, agreed to make Sevastopol a “porto-free” (duty-free zone for the import and export of goods), thereby undermining the revenues of the treasury.
But, nevertheless, the Main Society of Russian Railways turned out to be practically bankrupt and began to take loans from the Russian government for the completion of roads. The company's debts grew to 135 million rubles (92 million - a debt to the state with the country's budget in 1863 of 350 million), while the authorized capital of this company was only 75 million rubles. In 1867, the society decided to improve its position by taking over the most profitable of the state roads - the Moscow-Petersburg road. Moreover, this gang of swindlers did not have money to buy the road from the state. She suggested: we will pay the treasury not in rubles, but ... in company bonds issued under state guarantees.
That is, the AO-debtor, having a huge debt to the state, would, as it were, buy his property ... in order to pay off the state. Ba! Yes, it was a robbery of the Russian state clean water. In fact, the fucking businessmen bought the road from the state for its own money, the state. This is almost a one-to-one scheme of loans-for-shares auctions that were carried out in the Russian Federation under Yeltsin - by the hands of Chubais - in 1995-1996. Then the Russian oligarchs, for some reason all the Jews, also acquired the pearls of the Russian economy for budget money, which the state kept in their commercial banks. It was then that Berezovsky and Abramovich got hold of Sibneft, Khodorkovsky - Yukos, and Potanin and Prokhorov - Norilsk Nickel. But who would have thought that such transactions were made here in the 1860s!
So: the scheme for the privatization of the Nikolaevskaya road proposed by the Main Society of Russian Railways in 1867 was so fraudulent and impudent that many ministers of the Russian government and members of the Romanov family reared up. But ... both the tsarist Ministry of Finance and a member of the Romanov dynasty, Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich, came out on the side of the scoundrels. Moreover, Tsar Alexander II himself took the side of dubious businessmen! So to speak, a glorious representative of the Romanov dynasty, an Orthodox autocrat - the owner and guardian of the Russian land. An alternative proposal by a group of Russian industrialists (the partnership of Kokorev, Mamontov and Rukavishnikov), who promised payments in real money, was ruthlessly rejected. In June 1868, Alexander II came to the decisive meeting in the Council of Ministers and announced the transfer of the road into the hands of the Main Society ...
In the highest Russian society, it was almost openly said that the tsarist Ministry of Finance was bribed by Jewish bankers from England. That the tsar's mistress, Princess E.M. Dolgorukaya (Princess Yuryevskaya), takes millions of bribes from dirty businessmen in order to influence the Russian emperor in the right direction. That solid sums stick to the paws of the royal brother, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. (I. Dronov. "Strong, sovereign. The life and reign of Alexander the Third" - Moscow, IIPC "Ichthyos", 2006, pp. 186-192; A. Kornilov. "Course of history Russia XIX century" - Moscow, "Astrel", 2004, ss. 543-549).
In those years, a circle of railway tycoons formed - supposedly private investors. They invested money under the guarantee of profits given by the state. That is, in case of losses, the treasury was obliged to cover the businessmen for their losses! So these businessmen built roads at twice the price without even spending their own money: they issued bonds. And at the same time wildly enriched by sharing with the royal officials. That is, the state was brazenly milked.
MONEY FOR ALASKA STAYED IN AMERICA!
Thus, in the scam with the privatization of the railroads and with Alaska, we see the same high-ranking bastards. For the privatization of important highways, both Minister Reitern, beloved by Alexander II, and Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich are taking care of. (At the same time helping the Warsaw banker Frenkel to transport his capital to the West in the bags of the courier mail of the Naval Ministry).
And here is the most interesting thing discovered by Ivan Mironov: the money for the sale of Alaska went to those who privatized the Russian railways! So, 7.035 million dollars were then equal to 11 million 362 thousand Russian rubles. And they practically did not enter Russia!
Mironov quotes archival document Department of the State Treasury (1868): "For the Russian possessions ceded to the North American States in North America received from the said States 11,362,481 rubles. 94 kop. Out of 11,362,481 rubles. 94 kop. spent abroad on the purchase of supplies for the railways: Kursk-Kyiv, Ryazan-Kozlovskaya, Moscow-Ryazanskaya, etc. 10,972,239 rubles. 4 kop. The rest are 390,243 rubles. 90 kop. came in cash…”
Ivan Mironov shows that the money from the sale of Alaska fell into the hands of trustees of the Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich and the Minister of Finance Reitern - von Derviz, a relative of the mistress of Emperor S. Dolgoruky, etc. Thus, a banal "cutting the budget dough" was made.
Looking ahead, we can assume: will we see Skolkovo not the same “modernization”?
FIRE AND SWORD
Thus, the communists are not to blame here. Our leaders began to steal and sell the country long before the creation of the USSR. Moreover, Stalin tried to eradicate corruption. Alas, unsuccessfully, although for a long time he managed to strongly pinch the tail of the mega-robbers of the country.
It is clear that the current anti-Soviet government continues the glorious traditions of tsarist Russia. She steals.
Our conclusion: a new oprichnina, as close to perfection as possible, is needed, which will eradicate corruption with fire and sword and bring a new, honest elite to power. With special mechanisms for its renewal and purification. With special control mechanisms. We will be honest and say: the path to future democracy lies through the stage of oprichnina-sanation dictatorship. Through the destruction of the current "elite" and taking away the loot from it.
For some reason, most people believe that Catherine II sold Alaska to the United States. But this is a fundamentally wrong opinion. This North American territory was transferred to the United States almost a hundred years after the death of the great Russian empress. So, let's figure out when and to whom Alaska was sold and, most importantly, who did it and under what circumstances.
Russian Alaska
The Russians first entered Alaska in 1732. It was an expedition led by Mikhail Gvozdev. In 1799, the Russian-American Company (RAC) was founded specifically for the development of America, headed by Grigory Shelekhov. A significant part of this company belonged to the state. The goals of its activities were the development of new territories, trade, fur trade.
During the 19th century, the territory controlled by the company expanded significantly and at the time of the sale of Alaska to the United States was more than 1.5 million square kilometers. The Russian population grew and numbered 2.5 thousand people. Fur trade and trade gave a good profit. But in relations with local tribes, everything was far from rosy. So, in 1802, the Tlingit Indian tribe almost completely destroyed the Russian settlements. It was possible to save them only by a miracle, because by chance, just at that time, a Russian ship under the command of Yuri Lisyansky, with powerful artillery, sailed not far away, which decided the course of the battle.
However, this was only an episode of the first successful for the Russian-American company. half of XIX century.
Start of problems
Significant problems with overseas territories began to appear during the Crimean War (1853-1856), which was difficult for the Russian Empire. By that time, the income from trade and the extraction of furs could no longer cover the costs of maintaining Alaska.
The first to sell it to the Americans was offered by the Governor General Eastern Siberia Nikolai Nikolaevich Muraviev-Amursky. He did this in 1853, arguing that Alaska is a natural zone of influence of the United States, and sooner or later it will still be in the hands of the Americans, and Russia should concentrate its colonization efforts on Siberia. Moreover, he insisted on the transfer of this territory of the United States, so that it does not fall into the hands of the British, who threatened it from Canada and were at that time in a state of open war with the Russian Empire. His fears were partially justified, since already in 1854 England made an attempt to capture Kamchatka. In this regard, even a proposal was made to fictitiously transfer the territory of Alaska to the United States in order to protect it from the aggressor.
But until then, Alaska needed to be maintained, and the Russian Empire of the second half of the 19th century did not financially pull such a program. Therefore, even if Alexander II knew that in a hundred years oil would be produced there in huge quantities, he would hardly have changed his decision to sell this territory. Not to mention the fact that there was a high probability that Alaska would be taken from Russia by force, and because of the remoteness in the distance, she would not be able to protect this distant territory. So it is quite possible that the government simply chose the lesser of two evils.
Rental version
There is also alternative version, according to which the Russian Empire did not sell Alaska to the United States, but simply leased it to the States. The term of the transaction, according to this scenario, was 99 years. The USSR did not demand the return of these territories when the deadline came, due to the fact that it had abandoned the legacy of the Russian Empire, including its debts.
So, is Alaska still sold or leased? The version about renting out for temporary use has few supporters among serious specialists. It is based on an allegedly preserved copy of the agreement in Russian. But it is generally known that it existed only in English and French. So, most likely, these are just speculations of some pseudo-historians. Anyway real facts, which would allow seriously considering the version of the lease, at the moment is not available.
Why Catherine?
But still, why did the version that Catherine sold Alaska become so popular, although it is clearly erroneous? After all, under this great empress, overseas territories had just begun to be developed, and then there could be no talk of any sale. Moreover, Alaska was sold in the year 1867. Catherine died in 1796, that is, 71 years before this event.
The myth that Catherine sold Alaska was born relatively long ago. True, it refers to the sale of the UK, not the United States. However, this still has nothing to do with the real situation. The postulate was finally fixed in the minds of most of our compatriots that it was the great Russian Empress who made this fatal deal after the release of the song of the Lyube group “Don’t play the fool, America ...”.
Of course, stereotypes are a very tenacious thing, and once they get into the people, a myth can begin to live its own life, and then it is already very difficult to separate truth from fiction without special training and knowledge.
Results
So, in the course of a short study about the details of the sale of Alaska to the United States, we dispelled a number of myths.
Firstly, Catherine II did not sell overseas territories to anyone, which only seriously began to be explored under her, and the sale was made by Emperor Alexander II. What year was Alaska sold? Certainly not in 1767, but in 1867.
Secondly, Russian government perfectly understood what exactly it was selling and what mineral reserves Alaska had. But despite this, the sale was regarded as a good deal.
Thirdly, there is an opinion that if Alaska had not been sold in 1867, it would still be part of Russia. But this is too unlikely, given the considerable distances to the central parts of our country and the proximity of the North American claimants to this territory.
Should we regret the loss of Alaska? More likely no than yes. The maintenance of this territory cost Russia much more than it had benefits from it at the time of the sale or could have in the foreseeable future. In addition, it is far from certain that Alaska could have been held and that it would still remain Russian.
In Washington, 150 years ago, an agreement was signed on the sale of Alaska by Russia to America. Why this happened and how to treat this event has been a fierce debate for many years. During the discussion organized by the Foundation and the Free Historical Society, Doctors of Historical Sciences and Yuri Bulatov tried to answer the questions that arise in connection with this event. The discussion was moderated by a journalist and historian. publishes excerpts from their speeches.
Alexander Petrov:
150 years ago, Alaska was ceded (that's what they said then - ceded, not sold) to the United States. During this time, we have gone through a period of rethinking what happened, different points of view were expressed on both sides of the ocean, sometimes diametrically opposed. Nevertheless, the events of those years continue to excite the public consciousness.
Why? There are several points. First of all, a huge territory was sold, which currently occupies a key position in the Asia-Pacific region, largely due to the development of oil and other minerals. But it is important to note that the deal was not limited to the United States and Russia. Such players as England, France, Spain, various structures of these states were involved in it.
The very procedure for the sale of Alaska took place from December 1866 to March 1867, and the money went later. These funds were used to build railways in the Ryazan direction. Dividends on the shares of the Russian-American Company, which controlled these territories, continued to be paid until 1880.
At the origins of this organization, created in 1799, were merchants, and from certain regions - the Vologda and Irkutsk provinces. They organized the company at their own peril and risk. As the song says, "Don't play the fool, America! Catherine, you were wrong. From the point of view of the merchants Shelekhov and Golikov, Catherine II was really wrong. Shelekhov sent a detailed message in which he asked to approve the monopoly privileges of his company for 20 years and give an interest-free loan of 200 thousand rubles - a huge amount of money for that time. The empress refused, explaining that her attention was now drawn to the "midday actions" - that is, to today's Crimea, and she was not interested in a monopoly.
But the merchants were very persistent, one way or another they forced out the competitors. In fact, Paul I simply fixed the status quo, the formation of a monopoly company, and in 1799 granted it rights and privileges. The merchants sought both the adoption of the flag and the transfer of the main department from Irkutsk to St. Petersburg. That is, at first it was really a private enterprise. In the future, representatives of the navy were increasingly appointed to the places of merchants, however.
The transfer of Alaska began with the famous letter from Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich, brother of Emperor Alexander II, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs that this territory should be ceded to the United States. Then he did not accept a single amendment and only strengthened his position.
The deal itself was made in secret from the Russian-American company. After that, the approval of the Governing Senate and the Sovereign Emperor from the Russian side was a pure formality. It is amazing, but true: Konstantin Nikolayevich's letter was written exactly ten years before the actual sale of Alaska.
Yuri Bulatov:
Today, the sale of Alaska is given a lot of attention. In 1997, when the UK handed over Hong Kong to China, the systemic opposition decided to promote themselves: since Hong Kong was returned, we need to return Alaska, which was taken from us. After all, we did not sell it, but gave it up, and let the Americans pay interest for the use of the territory.
Both scientists and the general public are interested in this topic. Let's remember the song that is often sung on holidays: "Don't play the fool America, give back the land of Alyasochka, give back your dear one." There are a lot of emotional, interesting publications. Even in 2014, after the annexation of Crimea to Russia, there was a live broadcast of an interview with our president, in which, in the light of what happened, he was asked the question: what is the prospect of Russian America? He emotionally replied, they say, why do we need America? No need to get excited.
But the problem is that we do not have documents that would allow us to find out what really happened. Yes, there was a special meeting on December 16, 1866, but the phrase "special meeting" in our history always sounds bad. All of them were illegitimate, and their decisions are illegal.
It is also necessary to find out the reason for the mysterious sympathy for America of the Romanov dynasty and the secret of the sale of Alaska - there is also a secret here. The document on the sale of this territory stipulated that the entire archive that existed at that time in Russian America, undividedly passes to the United States. Apparently, the Americans had something to hide, and they wanted to play it safe.
But the sovereign's word is a golden word, if you decide that you need to sell it, then you need it. No wonder in 1857 Konstantin Nikolayevich sent a letter to Gorchakov. While on duty, the Minister of Foreign Affairs had to report on the letter to Alexander II, although earlier he had avoided this issue in every possible way. The emperor inscribed on his brother's message that "this idea is worth considering."
The arguments that were given in the letter, I would say, are dangerous even now. For example, Konstantin Nikolayevich was the chairman, and suddenly he makes a discovery, saying that Alaska is very far from the main centers of the Russian Empire. The question arises: why should it be sold? There is Sakhalin, there is Chukotka, there is Kamchatka, but for some reason the choice falls on Russian America.
The second point: the Russian-American company allegedly does not make a profit. This is not true, because there are documents that say that there were incomes (maybe not as large as we would like, but they were). Third moment: the treasury is empty. Yes, indeed it was, but 7.2 million dollars did not do the weather. Indeed, in those days, the Russian budget was 500 million rubles, and 7.2 million dollars - a little more than 10 million rubles. Moreover, Russia had a debt of 1.5 billion rubles.
The fourth statement: if there is any military conflict, we will not be able to hold this territory. Here the Grand Duke prevaricates his soul. In 1854 Crimean War was conducted not only in the Crimea, but also in the Baltic and the Far East. In Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, the fleet, led by the future Admiral Zavoyko, repelled an attack by a joint Anglo-French squadron. In 1863, by order of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich, two squadrons were sent: one to New York, where it stood on the roadstead, the other to San Francisco. Thus, we have prevented the transformation civil war in the US in an international conflict.
The last argument is disarming in its naivety: now, if we sell to the Americans, then we will have wonderful relations with them. It was probably better then to sell it to Great Britain, because at that time we did not have a common border with America, and it would have been more profitable to make a deal with the British.
Such arguments are not only frivolous, but also criminal. Today, on their basis, it would be possible to sell any territory. In the West - Kaliningrad region, in the east - the Kuril Islands. Long away? Long away. No profit? No. Is the treasury empty? Empty. There are also questions about retention during a military conflict. Relations with the buyer will improve, but for how long? The experience of selling Alaska to America showed that not for long.
Alexander Petrov:
There has always been more partnership than conflict between Russia and the United States. It is no coincidence, for example, that the historian Norman Saul wrote Distant Friends - Friends at a Distance. For a long time after the sale of Alaska, relations between Russia and the United States were practically friendly. I would not use the word "rivalry" in relation to Alaska.
As for the position of Konstantin Nikolayevich, I would not call it criminal, but untimely and inexplicable. Criminal - this is when a person violates certain norms, rules and those attitudes that existed in the society of that time. Formally, everything was done correctly. But the way the deal was signed raises questions.
What was the alternative then? To provide opportunities for the Russian-American company to continue to operate in the region, to allow it to populate this region with people from Siberia and the center of Russia, to develop these vast areas as part of the continuation peasant reform, the abolition of serfdom. Another matter, would be enough for it forces or not.
Yuri Bulatov:
I doubt that relations between the two countries were friendly, and this is evidenced by the facts and the speed of this transaction.
Here interesting example: in 1863, Russia signed an agreement with the Americans on wiring a telegraph through Siberia with access to Russian America. But in February 1867, a month before the sale of Alaska, the American side canceled this agreement, declaring that they would lead the telegraph across the Atlantic. Of course, public opinion reacted extremely negatively to this. For four years, the Americans were actually engaged in intelligence activities on our territory, and in February 1867 they suddenly abandoned the project.
Photo: Konrad Wothe / Globallookpress.com
If we take the agreement on the transfer of Alaska, then this is a contract between the winner and the vanquished. You read six of his articles, and the wording simply hits your head: America has rights, and Russia must fulfill the specified conditions.
So the top of the Romanov dynasty had mercantile relations with the United States, but not friendly ones. And our society did not know what was happening. The Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Prince Gagarin, Minister of the Interior Valuev, Minister of War Milyutin had no idea at all about the deal and learned about all this from the newspapers. If they were bypassed, then they would be against it. Relations between the two countries were not friendly.
