Most and least multicultural Europes by 2012
- Thread starter Zuvarq
- Start date
I would suggest two possibilities. Either no EU, or a larger earlier more central EU against the Soviets that includes Greece and Turkey and later expands south by 2012. Leading to a less and more multicultural Europe respectively.
A still segregating US would lead to more immigration to Europe.
A still segregating US would lead to more immigration to Europe.
The cold war going hot could lead to either outcome, IMO.
If the war happened early, and if the communists "won", that'd might put the kibosh on mass immigration. I say that because historically communist states don't seem to have had much interstate migration.
OTOH if the war happened later(once both sides had a large number of nukes) this would mean a devastated and depopulated Europe. Presumably the "victor" would seek to rebuild by bringing massive numbers of immigrants. We could see whole regions or even countries where white Europeans are a minority.
Also, what does POD mean?
If the war happened early, and if the communists "won", that'd might put the kibosh on mass immigration. I say that because historically communist states don't seem to have had much interstate migration.
OTOH if the war happened later(once both sides had a large number of nukes) this would mean a devastated and depopulated Europe. Presumably the "victor" would seek to rebuild by bringing massive numbers of immigrants. We could see whole regions or even countries where white Europeans are a minority.
Also, what does POD mean?
Last edited:
So the Soviet Union is forcing arabs and what kind of non-white minorities they have into Europe, or what? Sorry I dont get it?
And by the way, post WW2 europes politcal borders are mostly among ethnical lines. So i dont see the motivation behind the mass moving of populations here?
So the Soviet Union is forcing arabs and what kind of non-white minorities they have into Europe, or what? Sorry I dont get it?
If the Soviets win massively (i.e. take control of all of continental Western Europe and simply bomb Britain out of existence), they could have "fraternal socialist allies" in the Middle East (if Israel didn't nuke them to death) send surplus people to repopulate Europe. Or, more informally, make being a guest worker *very* attractive.
Or if the U.S. wins, perhaps bloodied European countries could be resettled from Latin America, where many people from those countries emigrated in years past? A lot of Italians went to Argentina, for example--maybe their grandkids could see opportunities in an Italy that very much needs new workers.
There's also the former colonies of these European countries. There are leftover Italians in Somalia I believe, while there's the Afrikaans-speaking populations of southern Africa who could help rebuild Holland. Or people who can speak the language who aren't white like, well, most of the people.
Or if you want to get weirder, perhaps the Far East? Post Sino-Soviet split, China might be on the US's side in WWIII. Assuming China doesn't get totally trashed (and thus need to retain population), the bloodied post-war states could have full-blown open borders to allied countries.
Or if they're very desperate, ANY country. You'd have waves of Russians (or other Soviet nationalities) coming in, but they'd be looking for jobs, not riding tanks.
Little Yakutia, in the bombed-out ruins of Amsterdam?
Last edited:
If we go with an earlier POD, things are more fluid.
No French Revolution, or a French Revolution where the Girondins or another federalist party win out.
Regional dialects like Occitan, Breton, etc. aren't "discouraged" in favor of Parisian French.
I believe a similar process took place in Italy, with the Tuscan dialect being pushed on everyone else. No Italian unification, or Italian unification that's different from "Sardinia-Piedmont conquers everyone"?
No French Revolution, or a French Revolution where the Girondins or another federalist party win out.
Regional dialects like Occitan, Breton, etc. aren't "discouraged" in favor of Parisian French.
I believe a similar process took place in Italy, with the Tuscan dialect being pushed on everyone else. No Italian unification, or Italian unification that's different from "Sardinia-Piedmont conquers everyone"?
Max Sinister
Banned
@OP: What exactly do you mean by multicultural? Do the Occitans count? Or the quite assimilated Poles in the Ruhr area? Where do you draw the line?
Non-native cultures in areas where they don't have a continuous history of being there. Without eradicating the people who are already there.
This is considered on a national/regional level.
Examples of what I mean:
- Occitans in Brittany: multicultural
- Occitans in Occitania: not multicultural
- Frenchmen in Germany: multicultural
- Frenchmen in France: not multicultural
- Jews in Germany, Poland, etc.: multicultural but not that much
- Jews in Italy, Spain, Ireland, etc.: multicultural
- Arabs in Hungary: multicultural
- Russians in Kaliningrad with no Germans left: not multicultural
- Russians, Germans, and Poles in East Prussia: multicultural
- Indians in England: multicultural
- Poles in Spain: multicultural
- Bangladeshis in Lithuania: multicultural
- Spaniards in Scotland: multicultural
- Englishmen in Turkey/Turks in England: multicultural
Max Sinister
Banned
So, given enough time, they will have a continuous history of "being there". But when? After 100 years?
I'm talking purely in terms of the alternate scenario, and talking on a sense larger than the individual. Let's say that if they weren't there in 1945, excepting the German relocation in the East, that they are considered non-native.
I'm assuming that if Europe is badly depopulated enough then the ruling government/s would resort to bringing in any willing outsiders to repopulate.So the Soviet Union is forcing arabs and what kind of non-white minorities they have into Europe, or what? Sorry I dont get it?
And by the way, post WW2 europes politcal borders are mostly among ethnical lines. So i dont see the motivation behind the mass moving of populations here?
One thing I overlooked: the radiation. Immigrants would either have to be ignorant of the radiation, or forced to move to Europe, or so poor that they had no realistic option of not coming. Of course that probably wouldn't be a "problem" if the nuclear war happens soon after WW2 since knowledge about the threat posed by radiation hadn't filtered into the public consciousness at that time.
Actually, Europeans initially refusing to bring in non-whites may be best for purposes of this scenario. Since it means they'll have to populate the nuked areas with their own nationals or other white Europeans, thus culling the "indigenous" Europeans even further. Eventually they'd have to cave in and resort to using immigrants.
For the most diverse end of the scenario: perhaps more colonies could have received independence on a fairly benevolent note. Relationships between the countries and their peoples would be more amicable.
For the least diverse end of the scenario: If Europe hadn't recovered so quickly, perhaps because of no Marshall Plan or because of a farther westward Soviet push, then they wouldn't have needed migrant workers because everyone would be poorer and more willing to work manual labor.
Or they could have continued to hate Germans and keep them as first forced, then low wage workers. Eventually they'd send them back... or not. But if they don't that still doesn't make it that much more multicultural because Germans were already present in many places, and Germans are just one group.
North Africa could, however, colonize a post-nuclear Europe on their own accord. However, if they are settler colonies, setting up shop at abandoned farmlands, that would make Europe less multicultural because the survivors would be assimilated or displaced. And Kurds, Middle Eastern Christians, etc. probably would not end up in Europe, lowering the number of groups.
For the least diverse end of the scenario: If Europe hadn't recovered so quickly, perhaps because of no Marshall Plan or because of a farther westward Soviet push, then they wouldn't have needed migrant workers because everyone would be poorer and more willing to work manual labor.
Or they could have continued to hate Germans and keep them as first forced, then low wage workers. Eventually they'd send them back... or not. But if they don't that still doesn't make it that much more multicultural because Germans were already present in many places, and Germans are just one group.
When the Europeans invited migrant workers it was assumed they would leave back to their home countries at a point. The Europeans, including the Soviets, were too xenophobic to allow Muslims to literally repopulate their lands. If the situation was so bad to make them resort to that, then governments would collapse.
North Africa could, however, colonize a post-nuclear Europe on their own accord. However, if they are settler colonies, setting up shop at abandoned farmlands, that would make Europe less multicultural because the survivors would be assimilated or displaced. And Kurds, Middle Eastern Christians, etc. probably would not end up in Europe, lowering the number of groups.
I know that was true for the Germans. But weren't the immigrants to the UK expected to be permanent?
Many of them. But Britain had a history of immigration, and most immigrants were Commonwealth citizens and more assimilable.