AHQ: How useful was Russia's land?

[stevej713]

This question is more complex than the title makes it sound. On one hand, there are many people who have said over the years that Russia is nothing but forest and tundra. This certainly wasn't true of the Russian Empire, which controlled the breadbasket of Ukraine and territories as diverse as the Caucasus and Central Asia. The former Russian Empire also contains a large amount of Chernozem, which is a particularly fertile type of soil.

On the other hand, there have been some (most notably Adolf Hitler) who argued that Russia actually was a wonderland of resources ripe for the taking, and that the only thing holding Russia back was a lack of people to develop the land. This ignores the fact that the USSR's population was more than double that of Germany's, but that's beside the point.

Russia suffers from a continental climate, with hot summers, freezing winters, high winds, and overall unpredictable weather. Shallow soil and fragile river systems have also caused ecological disasters, most notably with the disappearance of the Aral Sea. The fact that most major rivers in Russia flow north into the Arctic also doesn't help.

My question is, with these factors in consideration, what methods could the Russian Empire have used to make its lands more developed and prosperous, akin to the American Midwest? What factors (political, technological, societal) prevented this from happening?

 

[EmptyChair]

My question is, with these factors in consideration, what methods could the Russian Empire have used to make its lands more developed and prosperous, akin to the American Midwest?

Terraforming?
I mean American Midwest's northernmost line is essentially on the same latitude as Russia's southernmost line. And it also has this vast river network Missouri + Mississippi which leads straight to warm water port in Atlantic. American Midwest is basically as much of natural geography jackpot as you can get on this planet.
Much of Russian Empire's territory is tundra, deserts and mountain ranges, most of it can't be interconnected without spending absurd amount of resources - not exactly a beneficial environment.

 

[Silver01]

terraforming is really good way to solve some part of the massive country , but for that you need russia to indsutrilize earlier

but russia conquered those lands not for recourses but buffer , russia was in the edge of the steppe and need it to become militarsitic and expansionist in order to survive

 

[Atamolos]

The OP is somewhat missing the point. The conquest and colonization of Siberia was a means to secure a buffer to invasion from any state in the East as well as a means for a strategic retreat from invasions originating in the West, not to secure additional farmland, of which Russia already has more than enough to support its population. Since Russia has not been successfully threatened from the East since they conquered Siberia nor have they been fully conquered by any western power, I’d say these territories fulfilled their intended purpose perfectly. In other words, Russia’s land was extremely useful

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

The USSR did a great job of obliterating the Aral Sea to irrigate southern Siberia. Predictably, it failed spectacularly. Having the political will doesn't necessarily mean you have the intelligence.

 

[LostInNewDelhi]

The USSR did a great job of obliterating the Aral Sea to irrigate southern Siberia. Predictably, it failed spectacularly. Having the political will doesn't necessarily mean you have the intelligence.

The draining of the Aral was meant to irrigate Uzbekistan's cotton fields, actually. Southern Siberia has the great north-south rivers which seem just fine for farmland, and could probably support an even larger population. OTL a lot of their surplus was sent to other places-- grain from the Lena fed the population of Okhotsk until the conquest of the Amur.

 

[stevej713]

The OP is somewhat missing the point. The conquest and colonization of Siberia was a means to secure a buffer to invasion from any state in the East as well as a means for a strategic retreat from invasions originating in the West, not to secure additional farmland, of which Russia already has more than enough to support its population. Since Russia has not been successfully threatened from the East since they conquered Siberia nor have they been fully conquered by any western power, I’d say these territories fulfilled their intended purpose perfectly. In other words, Russia’s land was extremely useful

No, I think you're missing the point somewhat. My question is not "how much use did Russia get out of the land it conquered", but "of how much potential use is the land Russia conquered"?

The draining of the Aral was meant to irrigate Uzbekistan's cotton fields, actually. Southern Siberia has the great north-south rivers which seem just fine for farmland, and could probably support an even larger population. OTL a lot of their surplus was sent to other places-- grain from the Lena fed the population of Okhotsk until the conquest of the Amur.

This is more along the lines of what I'm interested in. When you say parts of Siberia can support a higher population, my question is how much higher? How much grain could Ukraine and the North Caucasus have theoretically produced? Info along those lines are what I'm looking for in a nutshell.

 

[alexmilman]

No, I think you're missing the point somewhat. My question is not "how much use did Russia get out of the land it conquered", but "of how much potential use is the land Russia conquered"?


This is more along the lines of what I'm interested in. When you say parts of Siberia can support a higher population, my question is how much higher? How much grain could Ukraine and the North Caucasus have theoretically produced? Info along those lines are what I'm looking for in a nutshell.

How about looking from a somewhat different perspective? It was remarked by Karamzin in the early XIX that on the bad land of the Baltic governorships one peasant produces more income than 5 peasants on the best lands in Russia. So it was actually intensive vs. extensive methods of agriculture. Traditional Russian approach was “extensive” and even by 1914 most of the agriculture had been rather backward (most of the modern technology and equipment had been concentrated in the big estates) and still based upon the communal landownership as opposite to the individual farmers and big-scale “industrial” agricultural enterprises. Big migration to Siberia was a way to create the farmers class without destruction of the existing communal agriculture (and resulting disturbances). Unlike community-held lands (and communal responsibility for the taxes) where the parcels had been redistributed on annual basis, farmer was holding his land permanently and was interested in investment into the land.

In that sense territory of the Southern Siberia proved to be quite useful and, without WWI and revolution, its usefulness would probably grow. However, it should not be forgotten that potential agricultural territory had been limited by almost uninhabitable areas of taiga and then tundra: even the Soviets did not manage to penetrate these areas seriously.

The same goes for the Soviet attempt to go “extensive” in Kazakhstan during Khruchev’s rule (few first years of the good harvest and then land was exhausted) or excessive usage of the chemical fertilizers.

Could the areas of Russian Asia be seriously populated much earlier? In OTL the answer is negative: 1st, this hardly could be done before Emancipation of the serfs and 2nd it could not be done without greatly improved communications (railroads to take settlers from European Russia all the way to Siberia). All the way to the CW Eastern Siberia was considered by the government almost exclusively within framework of it being a route for trade with China and after this Amur River remained the only (and quite unreliable) communication route to the Russian Pacific except for the endless dirt road travel by which was slow and quite painful (to be fair, few improved sectors had been constructed before the Trans Siberian RR had been built but they did not change general situation).

So you would need either POD that introduces the better agricultural methods in the European Russia (which decreases a need in agricultural expansion) somewhere in the early XVIII or you need a different Enancipation Reform (and earlier massive RR construction) which would incorporate something like OTL Stolypin reform.

Of course, exploitation of the natural resources located East of Ural is a completely different issue but, again, to a great degree it is subject to the available communications, investments and work force.

 

[alexmilman]

The USSR did a great job of obliterating the Aral Sea to irrigate southern Siberia. Predictably, it failed spectacularly. Having the political will doesn't necessarily mean you have the intelligence.

Aral Sea aside, the part about political will and intelligence is just great, especially within framework of the Russian and Soviet history!

 

[stevej713]

How about looking from a somewhat different perspective? It was remarked by Karamzin in the early XIX that on the bad land of the Baltic governorships one peasant produces more income than 5 peasants on the best lands in Russia. So it was actually intensive vs. extensive methods of agriculture. Traditional Russian approach was “extensive” and even by 1914 most of the agriculture had been rather backward (most of the modern technology and equipment had been concentrated in the big estates) and still based upon the communal landownership as opposite to the individual farmers and big-scale “industrial” agricultural enterprises. Big migration to Siberia was a way to create the farmers class without destruction of the existing communal agriculture (and resulting disturbances). Unlike community-held lands (and communal responsibility for the taxes) where the parcels had been redistributed on annual basis, farmer was holding his land permanently and was interested in investment into the land.

Thank you, this is exactly what I was looking for! Do you have any sources on how agriculture developed in Russia vis-a-vis Europe and America? I'd love to research more into the subject. I'm particularly interested in why agriculture developed differently in Russia and how it could have been different. From your response, it sounds like the reason Russian agriculture was so inefficient was because Russia was so huge, if I'm understanding correctly? Why increase the efficiency of one farm when you can simply make more?

 

[m0585]

Would Russia have been better off, in the long term, not conquering Siberia and focusing on developing European Russia?

 

[Monter]

Would Russia have been better off, in the long term, not conquering Siberia and focusing on developing European Russia?

The fur trade in Siberia was extremely lucrative, bring plenty of revenue for the Russian state, so if anything that means this "mini" Russia would have less resources to invest on its European half.

 

[alexmilman]

Thank you, this is exactly what I was looking for! Do you have any sources on how agriculture developed in Russia vis-a-vis Europe and America? I'd love to research more into the subject. I'm particularly interested in why agriculture developed differently in Russia and how it could have been different. From your response, it sounds like the reason Russian agriculture was so inefficient was because Russia was so huge, if I'm understanding correctly? Why increase the efficiency of one farm when you can simply make more?

Sorry, can’t give you any scientific sources but you can figure out certain things based upon the known facts.

1st, in “Russia proper” the landownership was traditionally predominantly communal and the slots within the communal land had been usually assigned annually so an individual peasant did not have an incentive to put extra effort and money into improvement of land’s quality. Situation absolutely different from one of the American and European farmers.

2nd, rural community had been responsible for paying the taxes so, generally speaking, there was no reason for individual peasant to perform above the average level because he would end up subsidizing those below the level. As a byproduct, this produced a negative attitude toward the greater achievers (paradoxically, as it may sound) and, in general, contributed to the ...er... “conservative attitudes” with a rejection of the new methods, reluctance to get the modern tools, etc.: why bother if you’ll end up being financially responsible for the lazy ones? Only by the end of the XIX class of the rural “industrialists” came into an existence: these people had been buying the nobility estates and creating modern agricultural enterprises; however, their numbers were not too big. On the top of it, even after the emancipation government supported the communal structure because it was making administrative operations easier and because it had a wide support on all levels of the society (objections against Stolypin reforms were coming from all corners). Actually, this mentality made collectivization in Russia much easier than in Ukraine and Siberia where the communal system either did not exist or was not too strong.

3rd, all the way to emancipation the nobles who wanted to introduce the modern methods hardly could do so because there was no free agricultural workers for hire and the serfs had absolutely no interest in adopting the new ways: they were considered as owner’s follies and sabotaged. Basically, any “ initiative from the top” produced the negative attitude. Look at introduction of potato, which is now the most important (on pair with bread) Russian staple: it took few generations (from CII to NI) and severely crushed revolts until potato was commonly accepted. An additional problem was in the nobility itself and specifics of the landownership in Russia. Even after being relieved from a mandatory state service most of the Russian nobility served in the military or civic administration (difference from the British landowners) and were not spending most of the time on their estates (and could not learn the needed skills and knowledge). Second, mayorat system did not exist and all children had been inheriting pieces of land (again, different from Britain). Add to this acquisitions by marriage and you can easily figure out that the results had been messy: instead of a single big estate a noble could own pieces of land spreaded over many governorships and sometimes pieces of a single village could be owned by different nobles with the resulting never ending costly litigations regarding precise borders. Doing something meaningful in such an environment was close to impossible.

4th, IMO, the whole situation had little to do with the size because system was coming into existence when the pool of the agricultural land was quite limited (*) and making the land suitable for agriculture required a collective effort (cutting the forest, etc,). OTOH, in Ukraine with its much better lands individual farmers were historically quite common. As a result, in the late XIX it was a noticeable difference in the terms of entrepreneurship skills between the Russian and Ukrainian settlers in the South of the European Russia (see memoirs of baron Nicholas von
Wrangel).

(*) Even during the reign of Catherine II territories of the lower Volga had been pretty much border lands as the Mennonites had chance to find out.

 

[stevej713]

1st, in “Russia proper” the landownership was traditionally predominantly communal and the slots within the communal land had been usually assigned annually so an individual peasant did not have an incentive to put extra effort and money into improvement of land’s quality. Situation absolutely different from one of the American and European farmers.

Fascinating. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like this system (Obshchina, according to Google?) is essentially the fundamental reason for Russia's relative backwardness by the 19th century. It also helps explains why Russia, despite having little industry, was the first place that instituted a Communist regime. Where and when did this system originate? How similar was it to Russia's neighbors (Lithuania, Poland, Byzantium, etc.)?

 

[alexmilman]

Fascinating. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like this system (Obshchina, according to Google?) is essentially the fundamental reason for Russia's relative backwardness by the 19th century. It also helps explains why Russia, despite having little industry, was the first place that instituted a Communist regime. Where and when did this system originate? How similar was it to Russia's neighbors (Lithuania, Poland, Byzantium, etc.)?

IMO there were numerous reasons for the Russian backwardness and communal system was one of them, not a single reason: it was fitting well into the general framework of a strongly centralized government and you have chicken and egg dilemma when trying to find which was primary and which secondary. Look, it was convenient for everybody. For a peasant because it was limiting level of individual responsibility and provided certain safety net while guaranteeing individual land possession (even if specific piece of land could change) and access to the communal land (pasture, etc.). For a landowner (before emancipation) because, if needed, it allowed to operate through a single community representative and simplified distinction between landowner’s own land (on which peasants had to work certain amount of time and income from which went directly to the landowner) and the communal land (which, strictly speaking, also belonged to landowner but was used by the peasants). For government because of the communal responsibility for the taxation and, again, administrative convenience.

I would not go as far as saying that it brought the communists to power (AFAIK, it did not) but when it came to the creation of a strongly centralized socialist state the “communal mentality” did not hurt: AFAIK, establishing the collective farms in the Central Russia was easier than in the areas where tradition of the communal landownership was weaker or did not exist.

 

[JSchafer]

Agricultural education of peasantry, promotion of settling Siberia akin to US Homestead act and drive to the west, investing bottom up rather than trying to modernize Russia from top to bottom would work much better long term. It would also avoid the social pressures that led to the revolution.

 

[LostInNewDelhi]

A theory I read in House of the Dead by Daniel Beer is that the development of the katorga/prison-exile system actually slowed Siberian development-- people wouldn't freely want to live near criminals, the authorities benefit from not having villages nearby for criminals to escape into, and the prisoners themselves don't make very good colonists. The effect was a Siberia divided into little clusters of free villages, cities/trading posts, or prison complexes separated by miles and miles of nothingness. Worse still, some of the societies formed in the wilderness (especially the former prison colonies) were quite dysfunctional-- Sakhalin was wracked with violent feuds until the Japanese annexation.

If we're taking Australia as a model, it may be beneficial to break up the prisons quickly.

 

[alexmilman]

Agricultural education of peasantry, promotion of settling Siberia akin to US Homestead act and drive to the west, investing bottom up rather than trying to modernize Russia from top to bottom would work much better long term. It would also avoid the social pressures that led to the revolution.

Most of your receipts had been impractical in OTL Russia for most of its history and then they did happen (Stolypin reforms). Unfortunately, WWI got in the way of their further development.

 

[JSchafer]

Most of your receipts had been impractical in OTL Russia for most of its history and then they did happen (Stolypin reforms). Unfortunately, WWI got in the way of their further development.

They started too late. Siberia has been turned into a punishment by the governments treatment of it as a place to exile criminals to and that was way before the 20th century. Agricultural practices in Russia were horrid. Absolutely horrid, to the point that Baltic’s in the same country outproduced Russians by factor of 5. Nonsensical hatred of Jews (I have no clue where that even came from) prevented the middle class from investing into themselves and becoming more than middle class. Pogroms prevented investments as well. The fact that Russia didn’t do all it can to mix Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians at least to the point of indistinguishability is a symbol of incompetence.

 

[alexmilman]

A theory I read in House of the Dead by Daniel Beer is that the development of the katorga/prison-exile system actually slowed Siberian development-- people wouldn't freely want to live near criminals, the authorities benefit from not having villages nearby for criminals to escape into, and the prisoners themselves don't make very good colonists. The effect was a Siberia divided into little clusters of free villages, cities/trading posts, or prison complexes separated by miles and miles of nothingness. Worse still, some of the societies formed in the wilderness (especially the former prison colonies) were quite dysfunctional-- Sakhalin was wracked with violent feuds until the Japanese annexation.

If we're taking Australia as a model, it may be beneficial to break up the prisons quickly.

Australia is not Siberia (and neither is Sakhalin) and using examples from different cultures, climate conditions, etc. is not always a good idea.

Unlike the SU and GULAG system, Russian “cartorga” did not have millions prisoners and proved not to be a big obstacle when massive settlement in Siberia started. Can’t comment on the book you are referencing to but a big scale settlement was impossible before 1860s due to the shortage of personally free peasants and after Emancipation Reform it was impractical until construction of the TransSiberian RR connecting European Russia with Siberia. But when the RR was built (and government program helping the settlers introduced), settlement started in the big numbers even if cartorga was still there.

The part about big nothingness between the villages is silly: look at the map and try to imagine how many people would be needed to achieve the same population density as in the Central Russia. Not to mention that a big part of the “nothingness” was taiga, a very dense forest which even GULAG with its massive timber production did not manage to exterminate to a noticeable degree. Of course, settlers were choosing the best places where staring farming would require minimal effort.