AHC: Effects of a slavic majority central Asia by 1899

[Jan Olbracht]

Russian Empire had other Slavs besides Russians-Ukrainians and Poles also settled in Kazakhstan (the latter mostly involuntary during Soviet times, but before 1914 there was migration voluntary migration of Poles from overpopulated villages of Congress Poland to northern Kazakhstan).
Perhaps different model of serfdom's abolition would increase emigration from rural Congress Poland, and Kazakhstan and Siberia would be one of destinations?

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

Russian Empire had other Slavs besides Russians-Ukrainians and Poles also settled in Kazakhstan (the latter mostly involuntary during Soviet times, but before 1914 there was migration voluntary migration of Poles from overpopulated villages of Congress Poland to northern Kazakhstan).

That makes me wonder - what if some tsar (say Nicholas I after he put down the November Uprising) went really mad, and inspired by the story of Jews being resettled to Babylon, ordered that all Catholics and Uniates from former PLC territory, should be forcefully resettled to Kazakhstan. If he succesfully introuced this plan, Slavs would for sure dominate central Asia.

 

[alexmilman]

That makes me wonder - what if some tsar (say Nicholas I after he put down the November Uprising) went really mad, and inspired by the story of Jews being resettled to Babylon, ordered that all Catholics and Uniates from former PLC territory, should be forcefully resettled to Kazakhstan. If he succesfully introuced this plan, Slavs would for sure dominate central Asia.

Putting aside the low probability of the whole schema (*) , its success may result in a slavic dominance in the Northern and Eastern Kazakhstan but not in the “CA” because most of the “stans” were not even conquered by the time you are taking about and would not be for the following few decades. Then, there would be serious practical limitations because, unlike Kazakhstan populated by the nomads, the lands usable for agriculture in the rest of the CA were already populated by the natives. So you would need not only a much earlier conquest (and the trifles like Russian army having the breechloading rifles instead of the flintlock decades ahead of schedule thus making the CW quite different, etc.) but also a genocide of the natives to settle the Poles on their territories.

________
(*) Resettlements had been happening during the earlier periods but their subjects had been mostly nodes forced to move not too far from their native territory (like was the case with the Nogais). Now, in an absence of the railroads forced resettlement of the hundreds thousands or even millions (“all Catholics” means majority of the population in Poland and Lithuania) from the Western part of European Russia to the Southern Siberia would be a completely different story requiring an enormous logistical effort and huge expenses.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

Without railroads moving such masses of people would be impractical, also, these were nobles who rebelled against Tsar, during both November and January uprisings peasants were neutral or hostile towards rebels (and were given land by Alexander II as reward).

Thus encouraging voluntary immigration during second half of 19th century is better idea. If there is no January uprising then peasant question would be solved differently in Congress Poland. Full implementation of Prussian solution wasn't possible, but something close (peasants had to pay compensation for landowners after being given land) would force poor peasants out of villages-some would emigrate to towns, other would emigrate to America, but some may go to Siberia and Kazakhstan if given opportunity.

 

[alexmilman]

Russian Empire had other Slavs besides Russians-Ukrainians and Poles also settled in Kazakhstan (the latter mostly involuntary during Soviet times, but before 1914 there was migration voluntary migration of Poles from overpopulated villages of Congress Poland to northern Kazakhstan).
Perhaps different model of serfdom's abolition would increase emigration from rural Congress Poland, and Kazakhstan and Siberia would be one of destinations?

The alternative you are talking about is emancipation without a land but this model would cause a wave of unrests all over Russian Empire so nobody was going to implement it.

Then, on a purely practical level, a truly mass migration from any European part of the Empire to Siberia (Southern Siberia is Northern and Eastern Kazakhstan) became possible only with the construction of the railroads. Obviously, the data by 1914 reflect a major increase in the numbers during 1906 - 14 when the European part of the empire had an extensive system of the railroads and TransSib was already functioning. But before that the resettles had been moving using much more primitive means (see below the painting “Death of a resettled”, 1889).

And the main road even in its European part looked like that (photo of 1860s).

Of course, the early migrations had been happening in more than one way but mostly from the regions closer to the Asiatic parts of the empire and usually not in one “jump”: first, parts of the the Western Siberia were populated (took at least couple centuries) and then the move into the Eastern Siberia started: again, took well over a century to get a sizable population there and a big part of it was not in the Russian hands until 2nd half of the XIX century.

Mass settlement in the CA outside Northern & Eastern Kazakhstan had its own problems starting with a need to conquer the territories, climate seriously different from European, different agriculture and “the natives problem”. Well, and a railroad through the territory.

 

[alexmilman]

Without railroads moving such masses of people would be impractical, also, these were nobles who rebelled against Tsar, during both November and January uprisings peasants were neutral or hostile towards rebels (and were given land by Alexander II as reward).

Thus encouraging voluntary immigration during second half of 19th century is better idea. If there is no January uprising then peasant question would be solved differently in Congress Poland. Full implementation of Prussian solution wasn't possible, but something close (peasants had to pay compensation for landowners after being given land) would force poor peasants out of villages-some would emigrate to towns, other would emigrate to America, but some may go to Siberia and Kazakhstan if given opportunity.

Interesting. Payment to the former owners was a model implemented in the Russian Empire but you are implying that in CP it was something different. What was it?

Just out of a curiosity, did CP had predominantly communal model or individual one? At least in Russia the communal model resulted in a mind set which was a major impediment to the mass migrations (even within European Russia to the lands North of the Black Sea).

Couple other considerations:
1. In the Russian Empire a person could not travel without a document from the place of initial residence. In other words, each specific case of migration must be somewhat approved by the authorities. And in the case of a communal system the community leadership could create problems by citing various kinds of obligations. After all, with the communal responsibilities for the taxes losing a well-off member was not a good idea.
2. Travel to “nowhere” was a common model in the earlier times when most of the settlers were Cossacks (officially or not officially), aka the people with more than average inclination to the adventure and taking risks. In more ‘civilized’ times there were reasonably big groups (sometimes in thousands) of the ‘state peasants’ moved Eastward (not all the way from Europe but to the next region to the East) but these moves had been administratively organized with all needed logistics. Between emancipation and Stolypin the resettlements were, as I understand (on this I may be wrong) with only a minimal governmental support even after the TransSib became available. This meant a high risk and a lot of inconveniences. But Stolypin changed a lot in the terms of both financial support and, AFAIK, even providing a supporting infrastructure for the settlers, which resulted in a big jump in the numbers. However, with all these efforts and obvious success migration amounted to a rather small percentage of the Russian agricultural population and it is an open question if it was possible to increase it by an order of magnitude on the available Siberian lands (most of the CA was not attractive to the European peasants).

 

[Jan Olbracht]

Interesting. Payment to the former owners was a model implemented in the Russian Empire but you are implying that in CP it was something different. What was it?

Just out of a curiosity, did CP had predominantly communal model or individual one? At least in Russia the communal model resulted in a mind set which was a major impediment to the mass migrations (even within European Russia to the lands North of the Black Sea).

Couple other considerations:
1. In the Russian Empire a person could not travel without a document from the place of initial residence. In other words, each specific case of migration must be somewhat approved by the authorities. And in the case of a communal system the community leadership could create problems by citing various kinds of obligations. After all, with the communal responsibilities for the taxes losing a well-off member was not a good idea.
2. Travel to “nowhere” was a common model in the earlier times when most of the settlers were Cossacks (officially or not officially), aka the people with more than average inclination to the adventure and taking risks. In more ‘civilized’ times there were reasonably big groups (sometimes in thousands) of the ‘state peasants’ moved Eastward (not all the way from Europe but to the next region to the East) but these moves had been administratively organized with all needed logistics. Between emancipation and Stolypin the resettlements were, as I understand (on this I may be wrong) with only a minimal governmental support even after the TransSib became available. This meant a high risk and a lot of inconveniences. But Stolypin changed a lot in the terms of both financial support and, AFAIK, even providing a supporting infrastructure for the settlers, which resulted in a big jump in the numbers. However, with all these efforts and obvious success migration amounted to a rather small number of the Russian agricultural population and it is an open question if it was possible to increase it by an order of magnitude on the available Siberian lands (most of the CA was not attractive to the European peasants).

Communal model wasn't used in Poland generally (with some exceptions, like pastures). Also, peasants in Congress Poland were given land later than in Russia proper-before January Uprising, when CP still has some degree of autonomy, it was possible to implement different model in CP, while in Russia proper things would go like IOTL.

 

[alexmilman]

Communal model wasn't used in Poland generally (with some exceptions, like pastures). Also, peasants in Congress Poland were given land later than in Russia proper-before January Uprising, when CP still has some degree of autonomy, it was possible to implement different model in CP, while in Russia proper things would go like IOTL.

But what you proposed (payments to the former owner) was exactly the model implemented in the empire. Of course, if somehow emancipation in the CP happens before OTL schedule and before loss of autonomy there probably can be some deviations. But was an autonomy autonomous and powerful enough to implement them?

1. Would AII allow a model significantly different from Russian? After all, the CP was not, for few decades an independent state linked to Russia by union and had to follow the general rules and reforms (as was the case with the military reform which was one of the triggers for the uprising)? He may or most probably he may not based on principle “one size fits all” and potential “bad example” for Russia.

2.The model of the release payments required a very serious long-term financial backup from the government which lasted all the way to the reign of NII. Government was guaranteed payments to the owners and the peasants had to pay their debt to the state. In a reality, even seemingly low 4% rate of the “loan” proved to be ruinous and, IIRC, was gradually lowered and eventually the leftovers were forgiven (not sure about the details, it was a while since I read on the subject). So if the authorities of the CP are permitted to run their own program they end up being responsible for the financial part of it. Unlike Russian government they were not printing their own money and their resources were much more limited. So how would they handle this problem on their own?

3. Let’s assume that somehow they managed to do something conductive to a noticeable migration. But as soon as the migrants cross into Russia proper they need cooperation of the Russian authorities for whom the big. umbers of poor Polish peasants moving across the Russian territory is a nuisance (the railroads construction is on the early stages and most of them are going in the wrong directions). So the whole thing has to be approved by AII with the appropriate instructions passed down the line. But, just as with the Russian resettlers, government at that time could do little because Russia of AII was in a state of the never-ending crisis in pretty much all areas. Inflation, industrial stagnation, agricultural crisis, revolutionary movements, liberal movements, Slavophiles and a resulting expensive and pointless war, etc.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

But what you proposed (payments to the former owner) was exactly the model implemented in the empire. Of course, if somehow emancipation in the CP happens before OTL schedule and before loss of autonomy there probably can be some deviations. But was an autonomy autonomous and powerful enough to implement them?

1. Would AII allow a model significantly different from Russian? After all, the CP was not, for few decades an independent state linked to Russia by union and had to follow the general rules and reforms (as was the case with the military reform which was one of the triggers for the uprising)? He may or most probably he may not based on principle “one size fits all” and potential “bad example” for Russia.

2.The model of the release payments required a very serious long-term financial backup from the government which lasted all the way to the reign of NII. Government was guaranteed payments to the owners and the peasants had to pay their debt to the state. In a reality, even seemingly low 4% rate of the “loan” proved to be ruinous and, IIRC, was gradually lowered and eventually the leftovers were forgiven (not sure about the details, it was a while since I read on the subject). So if the authorities of the CP are permitted to run their own program they end up being responsible for the financial part of it. Unlike Russian government they were not printing their own money and their resources were much more limited. So how would they handle this problem on their own?

3. Let’s assume that somehow they managed to do something conductive to a noticeable migration. But as soon as the migrants cross into Russia proper they need cooperation of the Russian authorities for whom the big. umbers of poor Polish peasants moving across the Russian territory is a nuisance (the railroads construction is on the early stages and most of them are going in the wrong directions). So the whole thing has to be approved by AII with the appropriate instructions passed down the line. But, just as with the Russian resettlers, government at that time could do little because Russia of AII was in a state of the never-ending crisis in pretty much all areas. Inflation, industrial stagnation, agricultural crisis, revolutionary movements, liberal movements, Slavophiles and a resulting expensive and pointless war, etc.

Head of civil administration of CP, margrave Aleksander Wielopolski, was able to achieve abolition of serfdom (but without giving land to peasants, that came only after January Uprising) and emancipation of Jews in CP, so his power was not that insignificant. Before he mishandled situation and lost trust of AII, he was on the way to achieve more autonomy for CP (to Finland level perhaps).

Also, IOTL Russian Empire invited lots of German immigrants, who settled in various parts of Empire. In case of Poles it would seem more resonable to encourage them to emigrate as far east as possible, prefferebly east of pre partition border of PLC.

 

[alexmilman]

Head of civil administration of CP, margrave Aleksander Wielopolski, was able to achieve abolition of serfdom (but without giving land to peasants, that came only after January Uprising) and emancipation of Jews in CP, so his power was not that insignificant. Before he mishandled situation and lost trust of AII, he was on the way to achieve more autonomy for CP (to Finland level perhaps).

Also, IOTL Russian Empire invited lots of German immigrants, who settled in various parts of Empire. In case of Poles it would seem more resonable to encourage them to emigrate as far east as possible, prefferebly east of pre partition border of PLC.

There was a perception difference between the German settlers and the Poles: Russian government considered the Germans as (a) loyal and (b) generally advanced people while the Poles in general were considered lacking on (a) and the Polish peasants were not considered too much better than their Russian (and Ukrainian) counterparts on (b).
Besides, the Germans had been mostly invited in the earlier times to populate the empty areas and increase population of the empire while shifting the existing people would do nothing in the terms of a general increase. BTW, IIRC, in the 1860s the land shortage did not yet kick in as a major factor because a major jump in population happened later: 74.1 million in 1860, 126.4 million in 1897 and 170.1 million in 1913.

Thanks for the information regarding the earlier emancipation program: freeing serfs without a land surely should not make him too popular among the peasants and popular among the nobility. Small wonder that the nobles went anti-Russian (they’d grave to give away the land) and small wonder that the uprising did not get too much of a popular support outside the cities, especially after the Russian model kicked in.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

Without uprising perception of Poles being not loyal wouldn't be comparable to OTL.

Wielopolski abolished serfdom and emancipated Jews for very reason to keep them away from independence movement. But as Wielopolski as person was really awful and unlikeable (something I've mentioned before-he demanded public execution of conspirators plotting against him, when even Tsar's brother Konstantin Nikolaevich was more lentient towards them) so he ultimately screwed situation.