Technically yes, but I (OP) was reffering only to US and USSR and how they fought it out over proxies, how they accused each other of being evil empires and so on, but were good neighbors on their direct border in the Diomedes and Bering strait.
Ah, Well then, you can factually say that there has never been a major conflict between Russia & the USA in the Bering Strait. Russia meaning both Russia & the USSR.
I do not think it counts as Russia owned Alaska at the time, but there was some conflict with Russia on trading with the natives by Americans before we bought Alaska from them. The trading was mostly in furs but IIRC, it was also in gold & salmon.
This conflict was between Russia & American smugglers or pirates. Some of the confrontations in this conflict were in the strait. I am sure this does not count as those Americans were not representing the USA, at least not officially.
I’ve always had a hard time sussing the “proves the rule” paradigm. But the Aleutians conflict does a fine job of showing just how strategically unimportant that area of the map actually is. All it was for both sides was a waste of resources and manpower. It didn’t get the Japanese close enough to use as a base to attack the allies and when the allies recaptured the islands it only allowed them to throw away valuable bombers attacking unimportant bases in the Kurils.
Um…wow. That’s…quite a response.
Just to be clear, I wasn’t trying to disagree with you or dispute your facts. I’m honestly pretty confused how you could interpret what I posted as “say[ing] there never was a conflict in the Bering Strait” or as ignoring facts.
The “rule” I was referring to, such as it is, is simply the OP’s statement that “the Bering Strait was never a zone of conflict and tension”. That’s certainly been the usual circumstances of the Bering Strait in recorded history.
You pointed out a glaring “exception” to that general “rule” - the Japanese invasion of U.S. Aleutian islands in World War II. In that instance, of course, the Bering Strait was certainly a zone of conflict and tension.
I was simply pointing out that that particular instance when the Bering Strait was a zone of conflict was a pretty good illustration of why it usually isn’t. In doing so, I used* a common idiom, “the exception that proves the rule”. I wasn’t contending that there was a literal rule. I certainly wasn’t contending that there have never been any conflicts in the Bering Strait. And I wasn’t ignoring any facts.
*Or misused, depending on your perspective. The way I used it isn’t the original usage of the phrase, but it’s become a common one.
The distance from Attu &/or Kiska to the Bering Strait is over 1,000 miles.
Now what conflict actually happened in the Bering Strait?