IOTL, Russia had a larger population in the "European region"(not behind the Ural Mountains) than the "Asian region"(behind Ural mountains) possibly due to government policy. How can the Russian government, with a POD in 1788, start encouraging the people to move beyond the Ural mountains and settle there? How effective will the policy be? How will that change world politics, if any?
AHC: bigger Russian population base in Siberia
- Thread starter mlp
- Start date
whitecrow
Banned
Not sure if this is possible given that the "European region" has, to my knowledge, higher population base to start with, closer to the European trading centers, more hospitable environment (Siberia may not be all frozen tundra like is often portrayed in popular fiction but it does have big temperature extremes between seasons), and likely better transport infrastructure.
Well more instability/trouble in European Russia (another Time of Troubles, perhaps) could encourage more Russians to flee east.
As mentioned. gold rush is good too. I imagine an earlier abolition of serfdom might encourage more population movement as well, though whether serfs would actually move to Siberia of their own accord.
But I think more population in the East would result in a catastrophe for Russia. This is because more population in Siberia will encourage more active Russian colonialism in China, perhaps the annexation of Manchuria during the late 1880s. This is a disaster because it would mean that the tens of millions of Chinese in Manchuria would immediately pour into Siberia and outnumber native Russians, creating a serious demographic problem later on.
As mentioned. gold rush is good too. I imagine an earlier abolition of serfdom might encourage more population movement as well, though whether serfs would actually move to Siberia of their own accord.
But I think more population in the East would result in a catastrophe for Russia. This is because more population in Siberia will encourage more active Russian colonialism in China, perhaps the annexation of Manchuria during the late 1880s. This is a disaster because it would mean that the tens of millions of Chinese in Manchuria would immediately pour into Siberia and outnumber native Russians, creating a serious demographic problem later on.
One needs to look at recent history to see how this would end. The Soviet Union, from its inception, had encouraged the settlement and industrialization of Siberia. And many people went, induced by the higher pay and better accommodations provided. Since 1991, however, when the incentives ended, most cities in Siberia have seen their populations decline by a third to a half. There's no reason for large populations, and no means to support them. The Soviets wasted vast resources building cities and industrial plant to exploit mineral deposits near their extraction site when a railroad could have been built and the ore brought back west much more cheaply.
Pre 1914, Siberia can only support as many people as it can feed, and that's not a whole lot.
Pre 1914, Siberia can only support as many people as it can feed, and that's not a whole lot.
Siberia has what? Forty million people in it already? That should give it a population density similar to Canada. Given it's climate (the good and bad), it seems to have a fairly sizable population.
One idea for an increase in population would be more deportations and less executions during the Stalinist purges.
One idea for an increase in population would be more deportations and less executions during the Stalinist purges.
MarshalBraginsky
Banned
One other problem is that Siberia is often described as a place full of katorgas/gulags because of the high population of convicts that go there.
katchen
Banned
Russian takeover of Outer Mongolia north of Gobi Desert, Heilongkiang and Kirin (a line extending northwest from Vladivostok) and Dzungaria (Sinkiang north of the Tien Shan Mountains. This gives all of Siberia arable land in it's south with the exception of the Farthest East, which cannot be helped, without taking on very many native people. (if done by 1850).
Build at least five PRIVATE Trans-Siberian Railroads, one of which goes all the way to Kamchatka and across the Bering Strait to Alaska and Canada and on to the US. Probably get US railroads to build the lines. At least one line goes through the Lena Valley, opening that vital area up to settlement.
It;'s very important that Ukrainians, Poles and Finns find it easy to get to Siberia and Alaska because they will be the segments of the Russian population who will go. Great Russians are culturally too tied to their native villages to pick up and go unless forcibly exiled. Central Asians may also go. Koreans and Chinese will settle in Siberia whether wanted or not.
AND KEEP RUSSIA CAPITALIST!
Build at least five PRIVATE Trans-Siberian Railroads, one of which goes all the way to Kamchatka and across the Bering Strait to Alaska and Canada and on to the US. Probably get US railroads to build the lines. At least one line goes through the Lena Valley, opening that vital area up to settlement.
It;'s very important that Ukrainians, Poles and Finns find it easy to get to Siberia and Alaska because they will be the segments of the Russian population who will go. Great Russians are culturally too tied to their native villages to pick up and go unless forcibly exiled. Central Asians may also go. Koreans and Chinese will settle in Siberia whether wanted or not.
AND KEEP RUSSIA CAPITALIST!
The 40 mil. range is probably from the 2002 census. The population of Siberia has continued to decline since then. Even a well-established city like Irkutsk has seen a 10% decrease since the Wall came down.
As to Katchen's point, a capitalist Russia would make no difference. The Imperial gov't subsidized colonization in Siberia to an enormous extent for little return, just as the Soviets did. Indeed, back in the late 19th century, with the great strides achieved in Siberia in grain and butter production and the cheap shipping provided by the TSR, Moscow imposed a tariff on Siberian agricultural products to appease European side landowners!
Most of Siberia is unsuitable for agricultural, as much from poor soils as cold climate. Fur is not a renewable resource in terms of mass capture, thus a boom and bust industry like gold mining. It's cheaper to move ores to the workers and factories than move the factories and workers to the ore. All told, Siberia is about as populous as it can be.
katchen
Banned
I'm not so sure about that. The Chinese could do much more with Siberia than the Russians are doing. To begin with, it's actually possible to grow rice in the Ussuri and lower Amur Basins. The Chinese do so on their side of the border. The Chinese could easily settle 50 million people just in Primorye, Khabarovsk and Amur Oblasts--comfortably. And probably another 5-10 million in Chita and another 30 million in Sakha and another hundred million from Irkutsk to Cheylabinsk in the Urals.
There is a lot of potential land in Siberia that could be farmed with a crop such as Quinoa that is adapted to a cool climate and short growing season. Much of Siberia's soils are podzolic, but they are not the muskeg swamp you get in the Canadian North except in West Siberia, and even there, there is good land alngside the Ob, Irtysh and Tobol Rivers and alongside the Yensei. The alluvial soils between the Lena and Vilyuy between Yakutsk and Zhigansk are also reputed to be quite rich.
It's more of a cultural and economic thing with Russians. A. Russians tend to be uncomfortable living outside of Russia and B. Most of Siberia fell into complete neglect after the fall of the USSR and the infrastructure completely deteriorated, though Putin is trying very hard to bring it back, especially with the railroad and road he's trying to build to Alaska that finally made it as far as Yakutsk. The one major exception is the oil and gas patch in the Ob Basin around Surgut and Samlotr and Khanty-Mansysk and then north to Urengoy in the tundra. That area apparently still is growing despite the terrible climate. But people will go anywhere for oil.
And then there's global warming, which is likely to change everything in Siberia. This year, while we're freezing, apparently, Siberia is experiencing record warmth. Permafrost is melting over there, which is making more land arable and making more arable land able to support more varied crops, just as in Alaska. And because of the methane tied up in the permafrost, we are already into a feedback loop that is making the warming self sustaining. Already methane bubbles are being detected coming up from arctic lakes. So Siberia can support more people than it is supporting now and is likely to support even more people. At some point in the future if Russia dosen't make use of it and fill it up, China is likely to, especially if sea levels rise and China loses some of it's best land.
There is a lot of potential land in Siberia that could be farmed with a crop such as Quinoa that is adapted to a cool climate and short growing season. Much of Siberia's soils are podzolic, but they are not the muskeg swamp you get in the Canadian North except in West Siberia, and even there, there is good land alngside the Ob, Irtysh and Tobol Rivers and alongside the Yensei. The alluvial soils between the Lena and Vilyuy between Yakutsk and Zhigansk are also reputed to be quite rich.
It's more of a cultural and economic thing with Russians. A. Russians tend to be uncomfortable living outside of Russia and B. Most of Siberia fell into complete neglect after the fall of the USSR and the infrastructure completely deteriorated, though Putin is trying very hard to bring it back, especially with the railroad and road he's trying to build to Alaska that finally made it as far as Yakutsk. The one major exception is the oil and gas patch in the Ob Basin around Surgut and Samlotr and Khanty-Mansysk and then north to Urengoy in the tundra. That area apparently still is growing despite the terrible climate. But people will go anywhere for oil.
And then there's global warming, which is likely to change everything in Siberia. This year, while we're freezing, apparently, Siberia is experiencing record warmth. Permafrost is melting over there, which is making more land arable and making more arable land able to support more varied crops, just as in Alaska. And because of the methane tied up in the permafrost, we are already into a feedback loop that is making the warming self sustaining. Already methane bubbles are being detected coming up from arctic lakes. So Siberia can support more people than it is supporting now and is likely to support even more people. At some point in the future if Russia dosen't make use of it and fill it up, China is likely to, especially if sea levels rise and China loses some of it's best land.
This just makes me feel like all the pundits who discount global warming as a farce are secretly being funded by the Russians so that we continue to affect the climate and the Russians are the ultimate winners.
MarshalBraginsky
Banned
Would Siberia be a good place to set up a Russian version of the Silicon Valley techno hub though?
Actually, the Amur and Ussuri valleys are the one place where you can practice Russian-style agriculture and colonizing them is key. Prior to the late 19th c. they were also pretty empty as far as China went to fears of flooding are unfounded unless the borders are completely open.
Other than that yes, patchy agriculture was always going to be a problem with Siberia. The other great mainstay after furs and mining was fishing, for example. The rivers are big enough to support commercial fishing and maybe even some kind of long-term aquaculture but try explaining that to 18th c. colonists.
Serfdom and favouring landowners in European Russia is pretty serious problem too. It really slowed down what should have been a 19th c. boom.
Other than that yes, patchy agriculture was always going to be a problem with Siberia. The other great mainstay after furs and mining was fishing, for example. The rivers are big enough to support commercial fishing and maybe even some kind of long-term aquaculture but try explaining that to 18th c. colonists.
Serfdom and favouring landowners in European Russia is pretty serious problem too. It really slowed down what should have been a 19th c. boom.
PoeFacedKilla
Banned
would republican Novgorod uniting Russia make any difference? I know they were full of merchants so maybe they would develop the land better and settle it more.
As for the Ussuri and lower Amur Basins thing, what prevented the Russians from growing rice their and settling it in the 1700?
As for the Ussuri and lower Amur Basins thing, what prevented the Russians from growing rice their and settling it in the 1700?
The agreement with the Qing after the 1680 war.
Novgorod uniting Russia is so far back in history the butterflies are enormous. It's hard to keep Russians out of Siberia, but the exact manner of their arrival and behaviour could be radically different.
And even with the very best realistic ATL income of 1680 war, Russia only gets to keep LEFT bank of Amur under the treaty, not exactly the land where you can grow a lot of rice, and Vladivostok etc will end up being Russian roughly in the same time as OTL.
And that's not the best agricultural land ever.
And that's not the best agricultural land ever.