AHC: A European country turns another European country into a settler colony (before 1900)

[Deleted member 97083]

With the latest POD possible, prior to 1900, what events might have transpired causing a non-pastoralist European country to conquer another European country and turn it into a settler colony in the style of the US/Canada/Australia?

Historically, semi-nomadic states like the Magyars did conquer land and form a settler colony in Europe, while the Kalmyks were invited peacefully. But for an sedentary agricultural country to do so is an additional challenge.

The Teutonic Order did assimilate a Baltic populace through significant brutality, but as far as I know, the Ostsiedlung was not state sponsored, it was a larger economic and cultural process not associated with any particular state investment; furthermore, the German settlers outside of the Teutonic Order assimilated into the native cultures.

 

[CaliGuy]

With the latest POD possible, prior to 1900, what events might have transpired causing a non-pastoralist European country to conquer another European country and turn it into a settler colony in the style of the US/Canada/Australia?

Have Bismarck get an extremely severe head injury, become the first proponent of Lebensraum im Osten in Germany, and thus go to war with Russia in 1877-1878 once Russia goes to war against the Ottoman Empire. After Germany and the Ottomans win this war, Germany acquires Poland and Lithuania as puppet states and Latvia and Estonia as settler colonies.

As a result of Germany finally having some living space, some of the ethnic Germans who would have otherwise moved to the U.S. move to Latvia and Estonia instead. Also, the massive Germanophobia that results in Russia after this war causes a very large part of the Russian German community to move to Latvia and Estonia as well. Finally, Germany manages to recruit some ethnic Germans from Austria-Hungary to settle in Latvia and Estonia.

 

[CaliGuy]

Have Bismarck get an extremely severe head injury, become the first proponent of Lebensraum im Osten in Germany, and thus go to war with Russia in 1877-1878 once Russia goes to war against the Ottoman Empire. After Germany and the Ottomans win this war, Germany acquires Poland and Lithuania as puppet states and Latvia and Estonia as settler colonies.

As a result of Germany finally having some living space, some of the ethnic Germans who would have otherwise moved to the U.S. move to Latvia and Estonia instead. Also, the massive Germanophobia that results in Russia after this war causes a very large part of the Russian German community to move to Latvia and Estonia as well. Finally, Germany manages to recruit some ethnic Germans from Austria-Hungary to settle in Latvia and Estonia.

Or, alternatively, you could have Bismarck be a bit more aggressive in his war with Austria in 1866 and thus seize Czechia during this war. Then, in 1870-1871, France and Austria will fight Prussia and Russia and lose--thus resulting in France losing Alsace-Lorraine and in Austria-Hungary being broken up.

In the years and decades after 1866, Czechia becomes a German settler colony.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

Have Bismarck get an extremely severe head injury, become the first proponent of Lebensraum im Osten in Germany, and thus go to war with Russia in 1877-1878 once Russia goes to war against the Ottoman Empire. After Germany and the Ottomans win this war, Germany acquires Poland and Lithuania as puppet states and Latvia and Estonia as settler colonies.

As a result of Germany finally having some living space, some of the ethnic Germans who would have otherwise moved to the U.S. move to Latvia and Estonia instead. Also, the massive Germanophobia that results in Russia after this war causes a very large part of the Russian German community to move to Latvia and Estonia as well. Finally, Germany manages to recruit some ethnic Germans from Austria-Hungary to settle in Latvia and Estonia.

I suppose if the brain injury damages Bismarck's emotional empathy but not his overall brain function, and Friedrich Ratzel and Oscar Peschel made a significant impression on Bismarck, then that would be possible.

 

[CaliGuy]

I suppose if the brain injury damages Bismarck's emotional empathy but not his overall brain function, and Friedrich Ratzel and Oscar Peschel made a significant impression on Bismarck, then that would be possible.

In this TL, though, Bismarck would have to come up with the idea of Lebensraum all by himself; after all, Ratzel would only come up with it over 20 years later!

However, this idea itself isn't too implausible; after all, surely one could have concluded back then that if Germany had more living space, less Germans might have emigrated due to the fact that they could get cheap land at home.

Also, please take a look at my post right above this one. After all, Czechia can also become a German settler colony with a PoD of 1866.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

In this TL, though, Bismarck would have to come up with the idea of Lebensraum all by himself; after all, Ratzel would only come up with it over 20 years later!

However, this idea itself isn't too implausible; after all, surely one could have concluded back then that if Germany had more living space, less Germans might have emigrated due to the fact that they could get cheap land at home.

Well, a similar idea was published by Benjamin Franklin in "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc."

Or, alternatively, you could have Bismarck be a bit more aggressive in his war with Austria in 1866 and thus seize Czechia during this war. Then, in 1870-1871, France and Austria will fight Prussia and Russia and lose--thus resulting in France losing Alsace-Lorraine and in Austria-Hungary being broken up.

In the years and decades after 1866, Czechia becomes a German settler colony.

I think OTL Bismarck was unlikely to take Czechia because he only wanted to unite the German states and Czechia is too much friction.

ATL Bismarck who gets a head injury damaging his ability for empathy and then adopts Lebensraum idea, maybe he'd consider it though.

 

[CaliGuy]

Also, for what it's worth, the Baltic states were de facto Russian settler colonies during the Soviet era in our TL. Indeed, given Russia's extremely massive population advantage over the Baltic states, seeing even more ethnic Russian settlement there is very possible--especially if France doesn't fall in 1940 and thus the Soviet Union remains neutral in World War II and doesn't lose 27 million of its own citizens.

 

[CaliGuy]

Well, a similar idea was published by Benjamin Franklin in "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc."

Very interesting! Indeed, thanks for sharing this link!

I think OTL Bismarck was unlikely to take Czechia because he only wanted to unite the German states and Czechia is too much friction.

ATL Bismarck who gets a head injury damaging his ability for empathy and then adopts Lebensraum idea, maybe he'd consider it though.

Completely agreed with this.

Also, please see my post right above this one.

 

[CaliGuy]

In addition to all of this, a victorious Napoleonic France can turn some of its less populated territories--such as Catalonia--into French settler colonies.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

In addition to all of this, a victorious Napoleonic France can turn some of its less populated territories--such as Catalonia--into French settler colonies.

Was there any precedent for this during Napoleon's life, though?

 

[CaliGuy]

Was there any precedent for this during Napoleon's life, though?

The U.S. already appears to have begun moving westward by this point in time. Thus, Napoleon could claim that France has a Manifest Destiny to expand and to Francify/Gallify the areas surrounding France.

 

[Salvador79]

Finland was a Swedish settler colony.
The Baltic states were Russian settler colonies.
Later than that, but before 1900, there was still German-speaking settlement going on in parts of Eastern Europe, some of it sponsored by the Austrian Empire.

Easiest way to increase all of that might be a more restrictive immigration policy in the US, where most of OTL emigres from Europe moved to.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

The U.S. already appears to have begun moving westward by this point in time. Thus, Napoleon could claim that France has a Manifest Destiny to expand and to Francify/Gallify the areas surrounding France.

I think Napoleon would push for assimilation of the people already there, as opposed to mass settler colonialism. The assimilation efforts would be gradual and targeted at the bourgeois and noble classes rather than the entire population.

Finland was a Swedish settler colony.
The Baltic states were Russian settler colonies.
Later than that, but before 1900, there was still German-speaking settlement going on in parts of Eastern Europe, some of it sponsored by the Austrian Empire.

Those are good examples. However, those weren't as extreme as US/Canada/Australia settler colonies. Didn't the natives of Baltic and Finland become rather wealthy and educated compared to the average citizen in the Russian Empire that conquered them?

I mean something more like Russia's settlement of Siberia or Sweden's settlement of Lapland.

 

[Overlord]

Does Ireland not count?

 

[Brunaburh]

Does Ireland not count?

Not quite, I'd say. But you don't need to do much to make it one.

 

[Overlord]

Not quite, I'd say. But you don't need to do much to make it one.

Well, I think if you asked anyone Irish, they would consider the plantation system put in place there to be a settler colony (heck, I am British and I recognise a settler colony when I see one.)

I don't think it would be a long stretch to get it to eventually be a dominion, if that is the definition of a settler colony... I suppose it depends on the definition you go by. If you go by "Ruled from a foreign power and settled with the populations of said foreign power" Ireland certainly constitutes one OTL.

Outside of Ireland, I think Eastern Europe or the Balkans is the place to look... or smaller regions like the Basque Country... It is a hard question to answer as the definition of settler colony can be so wide... (is the West Bank a settler colony? What about Gibraltar?)

 

[DrakonFin]

Finland was a Swedish settler colony.

Yes and no. It is a bit more complex than that. Only a small part of what is Finland today was programmatically settled by Swedish people on the orders of the Swedish state. Much more land, comparatively, was settled by ethnic Finns, who since the middle ages expanded north with state encouragement. While in the coastal areas some Finns were displaced by Swedish settlers in the 12th and 13th centuries, say, the extent of Swedish-majority settlement has always been pretty limited and generally we can say that in the centuries the areas that are now Finland were a part of Sweden, the areas settled by Finns expanded much more in geographical terms than the areas settled by Swedes. The main dynamic, really, was Finnish farming population either expanding into previously inhabited wilderness or then displacing (semi-)nomadic Sami people, forcing them to withdraw north to give room for the Finns' Swedish-supported expansion. So - Swedish settlement into Finland did not lead to the Finns experiencing decline, in the final accounting, in terms of either population numbers or the size of inhabited area, but the Swedish period was one of mutual growth where we can argue that the Finnish growth was even stronger than the Swedish. If anyone lost, it was the Sami.

 

[Nephi]

The Czech lands certainly were they had quite a few Germans in their borders as a result when they became independent.

 

[Gloss]

I mean the Balkan was pretty much a settle colony for Turks, especially the Southern and Eastern coast.

Same goes for Eastern HRE being affected by Ostsiedlung.

So doesn't OTL already satisfy the conditions?

 

[Brunaburh]

Well, I think if you asked anyone Irish, they would consider the plantation system put in place there to be a settler colony (heck, I am British and I recognise a settler colony when I see one.)

I don't think it would be a long stretch to get it to eventually be a dominion, if that is the definition of a settler colony... I suppose it depends on the definition you go by. If you go by "Ruled from a foreign power and settled with the populations of said foreign power" Ireland certainly constitutes one OTL.

Outside of Ireland, I think Eastern Europe or the Balkans is the place to look... or smaller regions like the Basque Country... It is a hard question to answer as the definition of settler colony can be so wide... (is the West Bank a settler colony? What about Gibraltar?)

I think we are on more or less the same page, but disagree about definitions. I would say that you need the settlers to be the dominant element in the population, and the culture of the dominated element to be minoritised completely. That didn't quite happen in Ireland, there were settlers but they never outnumbered the natives or succeeded in forcing them to adopt their culture. They came very close in Antrim and Down, where religious conversion of the natives was very high, and around Fermanagh where there were points when deadness of the natives was very high. But the Irish Protestant and Catholic cultures hybridised, so you had weird effects like native Irish-speaking prods and the mass retention of a Catholicism that was the main instrument of oppression of Irish popular culture and one of the drivers of anglicisation.

Today Ireland's identity is principally nativist and its population principally Catholic, so I don't think we can call it a successful settler colony.