Met. Platon never gave up the autonomy adopted by his Sobor in 1924-following the decision of the All American Sobor of 1923 electing him as its primate. Neither Metropolitan Platon nor the Metropolia renounced this autonomy as the Karlvosky Synod demanded.
The American Diocese was part of the Karlovsky Synod. The self-declared autonomy of the American Diocese was in direct disobedience to the Synod that appointed, and had authority over, Metropolitan Platon and the American Diocese. In 1935, the American Metropolia once again reunited with ROCOR and recognized the legitimacy of ROCOR on the basis of St. Tikhon's Ukaz 362. Sadly, this union did not last and the Metropolia once again jumped ship in 1946.
Yes, I'm aware of the ROCA narrative.
No, it does not accord with the facts of the time.
Ukase No. 362 http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enuk_ukaz362.html
The Resolutions of His Holiness the Patriarch [Tikhon],
of the Sacred Synod and Supreme Ecclesiastical Council of the Russian Orthodox Church,
20/7 November 1920
With the blessing of His Holiness the Patriarch [Tikhon], the Sacred Synod and the Supreme Ecclesiastical Council united together, have deliberated concerning the necessity, supplementary to the instructions already given in the encyclical letter of His Holiness the Patriarch in case of the cessation of the activity of the diocesan councils, of giving to the diocesan bishops just such instructions in the event of the severance of relations between the diocese and the Supreme Church Administration, or the cessation of the activity of the latter and, on the basis of past decisions, we have resolved:
By an encyclical letter in the name of His Holiness to give the following instructions to the diocesan bishops for their guidance in necessary cases:
1) In the event that the Holy Synod and the Supreme Ecclesiastical Council for any reason whatever terminate their ecclesiastical administrative activity, the diocesan bishop, for instructions in directing his ministry and for the resolution of cases in accordance with rules which go back to the Supreme Church Administration, turns directly to His Holiness the Patriarch or to that person or institution indicated by His Holiness the Patriarch.
2) In the event a diocese, in consequence of the movement of the war front, changes of state borders, etc., finds itself completely out of contact with the Supreme Church Administration, or if the Supreme Church Administration itself, headed by His Holiness the Patriarch, for any reason whatsoever ceases its activity, the diocesan bishop immediately enters into relations with the bishops of neighboring dioceses for the purpose of organizing a higher instance of ecclesiastical authority for several dioceses in similar conditions (in the form either of a temporary Supreme Church government or a Metropolitan district, or anything else).
3) Care for the organization of a Supreme Church Authority is the objective of an entire group of dioceses which find themselves in the position indicated in paragraph 2, is the indispensable obligation of the senior bishop of such a group.
4) In the case of the impossibility of establishing relations with bishops of neighboring dioceses, and until the organization of a higher instance of ecclesiastical authority, the diocesan bishop takes upon himself all the fullness of authority granted him by the canons of the Church, taking all measures for the ordering of Church life and, if it appear necessary, for the organization of the diocesan administration, in conformity with the conditions which have arisen, deciding all cases granted by the canons to episcopal authority, with the cooperation of existing organs of diocesan administration (the diocesan assembly, the diocesan council, et al, or those that are newly organized); in case of the impossibility of constituting the above indicated institutions, he is under his own recognizance.
5) In case the state of affairs indicated in paragraphs 2 and 4 takes on a protracted or even a permanent character, in particular with the impossibility for the bishop to benefit from the cooperation of the organs of the diocesan administration, by the most expedient means (in the sense of the establishment of ecclesiastical order) it is left to him to divide the diocese into several local dioceses, for which the diocesan bishop:
a) grants his right reverend vicar bishops, who now, in accordance with the Instruction, enjoy the rights of semi-independent bishops, all the rights of diocesan bishops, with the organization by them of administration in conformity to local conditions and resources;
b) institutes, by conciliar decision with the rest of the bishops of the diocese, as far as possible in all major cities of his own diocese, new episcopal Sees with the rights of semi-independent or independent bishops.
6) A diocese divided in the manner specified in paragraph 5 forms an ecclesiastical district headed by the bishop of the principle diocesan city, which commences the administration of local ecclesiastical affairs in accordance with the canons.
7) If, in the situation indicated in paragraphs 2 and 4, there is found a diocese lacking a bishop, then the Diocesan Council or, in its absence, the clergy and laity, turns to the diocesan bishop of the diocese nearest or most accessible to regards convenience or relations, and the aforesaid bishop either dispatches his vicar bishop to administer the widowed (i.e. vacant) diocese or undertakes its administration himself, acting in the cases indicated in paragraph 5 and in relation to that diocese in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6, under which, given the corresponding facts, the widowed diocese can be organized into a special ecclesiastical district.
8 ) If for whatever reason an invitation from a widowed diocese is not forthcoming, the diocesan bishop indicated in paragraph 7 undertakes the care of its affairs on his own initiative.
9) In case of the extreme disorganization of ecclesiastical life, when certain persons and parishes cease to recognize the authority of the diocesan bishop, the latter, finding himself in the position indicated in paragraphs 2 and 6, does not relinquish his episcopal powers, but forms deaneries and a diocese; he permits, where necessary, that the divine services be celebrated even in private homes and other places suited therefore, and severs ecclesiastical communion with the disobedient.
10) All measures taken in places in accordance with the present instruction, afterwards, in the event of the restoration of the central ecclesiastical authority, must be subject to the confirmation of the latter.
I know that the Karlovski synod liked to see this ukaz as directed only to and for itself, but such was not the case. For one, it, unlike the Archdiocese of the Aleutians and North America, did not exist on Nov 20, 1920.
Even on ROCOR's website it is admitted
...the Patriarch, in 1922, was obliged to issue an order decreeing the shutting down of the Supreme Church Authority Abroad. A few days later, the Patriarch was arrested.http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/enghistory/enhis_rocorshukin.html
In August 1922, a Council of the Bishops of the Church Abroad was held in Yugoslavia , which decreed that the ukase of the Patriarch be executed and the Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority be disbanded...
Archbishop (later Pat.) St. Tikhon himself had instituted the All American Sobor, with the first in 1907 organizing the Archdiocese of the Aleutians and All North America. The second was scheduled for 1918, but was delayed by the Bolshevik revolution until 1919, electing Bp Alexander as its own primate and regularizing its internal and external administration, confirmed by Pat. St. Tikhon in August 1920. All before Ukaz 362, and before the Karlovsky Synod or even its conception in Constantinople in Nov 1920, and therefore independent of its authority, assumed or presumed.
Upon Abp. Platon's return to the US from Russia, on June 7, 1922 Abp. Alexander resigned in favor of Abp. Platon, former primate of the Archdiocese of the Aleutians and North America as successor to Abp. then Pat. St. Tikhon, which was regularized by the All American Sobor of early 1924. At that time there was no Karlovsky Synod to obey, accept its appointments nor recognize its authority-Ukaz 348 disposed of the Synod of the First All-Diaspora, and the Second would not take place until 1938. Unlike the ROCOR, the Metropolia already had its statute.