Africa-style poverty in Eastern Europe?

As the tin says, is it possible, with a PoD after 1923, for Eastern Europe to have widespread, "Africa-style" poverty, up to 2018?

I would say this type of poverty is distinguished by high birth rate, large, unorganized settlements that are almost always slums, and those afflicted have unusually low income and work in jobs that require manual labor. There's also rampant disease, famine/drought, corruption, and in some cases, warfare, but these are optional.
 
Colonial legacies aside, much of Eastern Europe is elrctrified and has the ability to make use of its resources, mechanized farming, etc. What's going to change about that?
 
Colonial legacies aside, much of Eastern Europe is elrctrified and has the ability to make use of its resources, mechanized farming, etc. What's going to change about that?
Possibly a post WWII scenario where the USSR intentionally 'de-modernize' the Eastern European puppets/buffer zones in order to create large landscape where it's more difficult to conduct mechanized warfare and live off the land (based on experiences and analysis of the Great Patriotic War), basically a peacetime scorched earth policy.

Not realistic, but it's the only no nuclear possibility I can think of.
 
Colonial legacies aside, much of Eastern Europe is elrctrified and has the ability to make use of its resources, mechanized farming, etc.

This was not the case during 1920', no.

You need to basically freeze levels of development around 1920', but outside of very badly governed (much worse at industrialization than USSR, almost ASB levels of incompetence needed) totalitarianism - it would be hard.
 
Maybe Nazi "victory" which causes Soviet collapse in 41-42, and then Generalplan Ost is started. Until the USA gets the Bomb, and Berlin glows in the dark.

Or WWII with Soviet victory in Eastern Europe like OTL, but somehow harder for the Soviets to win, leaving them near-collapse and forcing them to loot massively Poland, Romania, etc, to survive (taking away food, mineral resources as well as industrial hardware). To the point those countries are ruined. And on top of this, Soviets exploit (or manufacture) ethnic, religious and cultural divides in their new colonies, to gain collaborators to their looting and occupation.

When SU collapses, Eastern Europe is in in similar shape as Africa after decolonization, with countries massively lacking industry and modern infrastructure, while agriculture is in shambles (as it was mismanaged by the Soviets and managed from Moscow, and once the center collapses, the structure falls apart).

And then, nations (as well as ethnic, religious and political groups within nations) hate each other and compete for resources, while entrenched elites and armed forces try to keep their priviledges. Moreover, the Soviet repression of Christianity in those countries caused a fundamentalist religious reaction everywhere (Muslim in Bosnia and Albania, Catholic or Orthodox elsewhere).

So, in the post-Soviet era, you could have Lithuania fighting Poland, Bulgaria fighting Romania, Romania fighting Hungary, both Hungary and Romania fighting Yugoslavia, Albania fighting Greece and Yugoslavia, while Yugoslavia collapses like OTL. Add ethnic and/or religious conflict everywhere.

Also, add Russia trying to keep/restore her influence, while Western Europe and the USA play imperialistic games as well.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
As the tin says, is it possible, with a PoD after 1923, for Eastern Europe to have widespread, "Africa-style" poverty, up to 2018?

I would say this type of poverty is distinguished by high birth rate, large, unorganized settlements that are almost always slums, and those afflicted have unusually low income and work in jobs that require manual labor. There's also rampant disease, famine/drought, corruption, and in some cases, warfare, but these are optional.
Why "Africa style"?
 
The problem with this scenario is that a key factor isn't really possible from the 20's onwards. Even assuming something like Generalplan Ost occurs, and Germany absolutely cannibalizes the region of all claimable resources, there are still somewhat coherently delineated national boundaries ready to be redrawn once the Germans collapse and pull out. Europe was governing Africa for several decades by elevating outnumbered tribes to positions of relative power (so that local elites would be absolutely reliant on colonial muscle), and to an extent deliberately drawing boundaries that conflicted with the tribal group identities that existed among the people. This factor could never be completely mirrored in Eastern Europe (although in some regions it would be close).

A second factor exists when you consider German intentions in the region. They wanted to settle the place and rule Eastern Europe as feudal lords. In order to do this, Germans would need to physically live in the region, and those German overlords would insist on having electricity, plumbing and decent roads. This means that - to whatever extent - the region would have at least a minimal level of modern infrastructure.

A worst case scenario would involve Germany colonising the region for a few decades, and then pulling a Bengal genocide and scorching the Earth when they were forced to pull out. This might come close to satisfying your requirements, but even then I'm not sure.
 

elkarlo

Banned
Possibly a post WWII scenario where the USSR intentionally 'de-modernize' the Eastern European puppets/buffer zones in order to create large landscape where it's more difficult to conduct mechanized warfare and live off the land (based on experiences and analysis of the Great Patriotic War), basically a peacetime scorched earth policy.

Not realistic, but it's the only no nuclear possibility I can think of.
Break away areas like Moldova, Romania or the USSR takes anything that can be carried . Leaving it with no manufactureing nor power lines or power turbines
 
Maybe someting on the line of "Twilight of the red tsar"?
Basically Stalin survives a few years longer, starting a new purge and the soviet holocaust, but unlike the TL there is no war between China and Russia
By the time he dies, the URSS has become a pariah state still ruled by hard-liners, who uses its client states as sources of literally everything and are ready to commit every kind of war crime to keep them in check
Even if the URSS falls , the damage on the area would be immense, especially if the soviets decide to use chemical/nuclear weapons in the end
 
Well, it's a little cliché, but let's say the Germans win the battles of Moscow and Leningrad, and Fall Blau succeeds. So, the USSR suffers badly from the loss of Caucasus (Germans might not actually invade Caucasus but will still cut it from Russia and bomb it), Ukraine as well as Moscow and Leningrad. Plus the actual defeats (for example, losses during Fall Blau, Moscow and Leningrad).

In 1944, the Red Army still manages to win, thanks to trans-Ural industry as well as lend-lease (which has to be much higher than OTL). However, the Heer practices scorched earth of its own, leaving western Russia, Caucasus, Ukraine, Belarus and Poland throughly wrecked, in terms of population, industry, infrastructure and agriculture.

Then, as the Red Army rolls in, Soviet food priorities are
1 ) Feeding Russian soldiers and industrial workers well
2 ) Keeping Russian displaced refugees (whose farms and fields were often wrecked) fed
3 ) If possible, feed non-Russian Soviets to some extent (if Ukrainian population is reduced, Stalin will find it convenient, but not too much)
4 ) Everyone else.

After the war, priorities remain the same : having large agricultural exports to get money (and buy industrial tools), feed Russian good workers, "reduce" restive nations and ethnic groups.

So, in 1944-54, every single factory of Eastern Europe is transported to Russia. Industrial workers are deported too. Food is confiscated, so famine hits Poland, Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Romania and Hungary for a decade.

Mass population displacements happen, mostly local workers deported to work in Russian factories or to build canals, railways, roads... As well as Russian peasants getting all the best land available.
There are also non-Russian colonists. For example, "good" Romanians would get a priviledged life... in Poland, while "good" Poles would become priviledged colonists in Hungary, and so on.

At the same time, every country develop atheist and communist elites, as well as militia forces who are loyal because they get priviledges (and often are more brutal to their own people than Russians). Local religions are heavily repressed, too.

When the Soviet Union collapse, all non-Russian countries (whether WP members or former republics) are ruined, and have Russian minorities as well as colonists from neighboring countries who are hated by locals, plus corrupt or fanatically communist native bureaucracy and militia.

So, you might get Yugoslavia-style total wars with genocide everywhere. Between Poland and Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia, Czechia and Slovakia, Hungary and Romania, Hungary and Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia and Albania, Yugoslavia and Romania, various Yugoslavian ethnicities, in Moldova, between western and eastern Ukrainians, etc. All those ethnicities and countries being competing for meagre resources.

You might also get Al-Qaeda style terrorist Christian organizations, initially anti-Soviet and then just targeting everyone of a different religion or disagreeing with them. And hardcore theocracies, for example in Poland.
 
A second factor exists when you consider German intentions in the region. They wanted to settle the place and rule Eastern Europe as feudal lords. In order to do this, Germans would need to physically live in the region, and those German overlords would insist on having electricity, plumbing and decent roads. This means that - to whatever extent - the region would have at least a minimal level of modern infrastructure.

Yes. The goal was to ethnically cleanse many of the natives and enslave the rest for the Germans. Really, it would be very much like South Africa, where the place is actually developed but besides the ruling ethnic group it's a hell for everyone due to the Orwellian laws.
 
Why "Africa style"?


I'm assuming to differentiate from the level of poverty one sees in Moldova to the poverty one sees in South Sudan. Bit crude of OP I'll admit, but I get what he's asking.

I totally agree though that using Africa as a broad brush is silly. Botswana and South Sudan are leagues apart for instance.
 
Most of the newly independent states in eastern Europe carried out substantial land reforms after WWI (Baltic States, Romania, Poland, Yugoslavia). If you could somehow avoid these policies, eastern Europe would be plagued by similar socioeconomic problems and political instability that pre-1949 China faced from having a large number of landless peasants working for a minority of absentee landlords at subsistence wages.
At least in China both landlords and peasants were Han Chinese, in Eastern Europe the ethnic diversity adds another layer of diversity onto economic issues. German-speakers (and Poles to a lesser extent) in the western Russian Empire comprised a large portion of the landowning elite in Belarusian, Ukrainian, Latvian, and Estonian majority areas.
 
Top