Emigration from a continuing Tsarist Russia

So let's assume that Tsarist Russia doesn't collapse during WW1 and instead manages to hang on just long enough that the Germans implode first, manages to ride out the social turmoil caused by the war (with Poland and Finland becoming autonomous subjects of the Tsar and considerable political reforms for the rest of the empire). Let's further assume that the Tsarist regime is able to replicate German average growth rates over the period between 1913-1989, resulting in a PPP GDP per capita of around $6900 by 1989 but that fertility (due to a slower move from the country to the city and to a slower expansion of university level education) looks more like that of a Latin American state, resulting in around 800 million subjects of the Tsar by the mid 80s.

Let's further assume that Tsarism does not devolve into some sort of royalist fascism.

It seems to me that with a relatively successful economy (compared to most of the world, at least), less political barriers to travel and with higher population growth rates that many millions of the inhabitants of this TL's Russia would be emigrating elsewhere in the world, with wide-ranging cultural and geopolitical effects.

So where would the emigrants from the empire go and what effects would they have?

fasquardon
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
If the economy is more successful than wouldn’t that mean that emigration is significantly less and birthrates lower to Western European levels? 800 million does seem plausible without communism and WW2, but that seems to be pushing it.
 
A steady stream of Jews would come out to Israel, perhaps more so than OTL emigration from USSR due to less travel restrictions and effort to rectify antisemitism.
 
A steady stream of Jews would come out to Israel, perhaps more so than OTL emigration from USSR due to less travel restrictions and effort to rectify antisemitism.
If Israel's creation is not butterflied away. Anyway main stream of Jewish emigrants would still flow to USA.
 
If the economy is more successful than wouldn’t that mean that emigration is significantly less and birthrates lower to Western European levels? 800 million does seem plausible without communism and WW2, but that seems to be pushing it.

For poor countries, economic growth increases immigration because more people can afford to emigrate.

As for birthrates, in terms of resource density, population density, levels of literacy in 1900 and gdp in 1900 and 2000, Russia is most comparable to a low-ranking Latin American country. In terms of having Communism from 1922, rapid urbanization between 1930 and 1960 and a rapid rise in literacy before 1950 it is decidedly unlike a Latin American country. Those latter factors (which are almost entirely due to policy choices) combined with the impact of WW2 entirely explains why the Soviet Union plummeted from some of the highest birthrates in the world to a Western European level of birthrates. As such, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that had there been no Bolsheviks in power, population growth was very likely to follow the path of Mexico or Argentina, which means a population in the ballpark of 800 million in the mid 80s and somewhere around 1.5 billion by the current decade.

If Russia grew at the same rate as Turkey, which also started at a similar place in 1900, had similar disasters and a similar rate of economic development over the century, it would have ended up with a population just under 800 million by the mid 80s.

Japan started in a similar position as Russia in 1900, and ended up following a similar demographic trajectory, with an extremely rapid decline in population growth rate, but combined that with a more sustainable economic path. Had Russian demographics followed the Japanese course, it would have ended up with 401 million by 1985. However, not only is Japan the one exception of all the non-Communist states that started and ended the 20th century in similar places, I am very doubtful that Russia would ever be forced down the Japanese path by a superior great power crushing them, completely occupying them to the present day and allowing them access to their larger, richer market as the US did with Japan. Without the Japanese loss in WW2, and the American choices during the Cold War, I do not think Japan would have chosen to do the things they did, which would have led to a different economic and demographic trajectory (though not, I think, a Latin American or Turkish trajectory).

So, with an eye on how similar countries evolved over the 20th century and what conditions inside Russia were actually like, 800 million subjects of the Tsar in 1985 is actually quite a modest population projection.

The impact of the Bolsheviks on the Russian population structure is so colossal it really beggars the imagination.

If Israel's creation is not butterflied away. Anyway main stream of Jewish emigrants would still flow to USA.

I wonder if the US would? If the Russian Jews thrive in proportion the faster growth rates of the general population (adjusting for their being more urbanized and educated and likely to undergo demographic transition earlier, but also assuming that there'd be no Holocaust), I wouldn't be surprised if there were 50-80 million Jews worldwide, with the bulk of those being of "Russian" heritage. If we assume that about half of the world Jewish population will gravitate to the US, that's 25-40 million Jews in the US. Is that enough that the waves of Jewish immigration would provoke more of a backlash than OTL? My gut says a serious backlash is unlikely, but I don't really know anything about the experience of Jews who immigrated to the US before 1950, when the existence of Israel and the Cold War were each things.

fasquardon
 
Last edited:

samcster94

Banned
For poor countries, economic growth increases immigration because more people can afford to emigrate.

As for birthrates, in terms of resource density, population density, levels of literacy in 1900 and gdp in 1900 and 2000, Russia is most comparable to a low-ranking Latin American country. In terms of having Communism from 1922, rapid urbanization between 1930 and 1960 and a rapid rise in literacy before 1950 it is decidedly unlike a Latin American country. Those latter factors (which are almost entirely due to policy choices) combined with the impact of WW2 entirely explains why the Soviet Union plummeted from some of the highest birthrates in the world to a Western European level of birthrates. As such, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that had there been no Bolsheviks in power, population growth was very likely to follow the path of Mexico or Argentina, which means a population in the ballpark of 800 million in the mid 80s and somewhere around 1.5 billion by the current decade.

If Russia grew at the same rate as Turkey, which also started at a similar place in 1900, had similar disasters and a similar rate of economic development over the century, it would have ended up with a population just under 800 million by the mid 80s.

Japan started in a similar position as Russia in 1900, and ended up following a similar demographic trajectory, with an extremely rapid decline in population growth rate, but combined that with a more sustainable economic path. Had Russian demographics followed the Japanese course, it would have ended up with 401 million by 1985. However, not only is Japan the one exception of all the non-Communist states that started and ended the 20th century in similar places, I am very doubtful that Russia would ever be forced down the Japanese path by a superior great power crushing them, completely occupying them to the present day and allowing them access to their larger, richer market as the US did with Japan. Without the Japanese loss in WW2, and the American choices during the Cold War, I do not think Japan would have chosen to do the things they did, which would have led to a different economic and demographic trajectory (though not, I think, a Latin American or Turkish trajectory).

So, with an eye on how similar countries evolved over the 20th century and what conditions inside Russia were actually like, 800 million subjects of the Tsar in 1985 is actually quite a modest population projection.

The impact of the Bolsheviks on the Russian population structure is so colossal it really beggars the imagination.



I wonder if the US would? If the Russian Jews thrive in proportion the faster growth rates of the general population (adjusting for their being more urbanized and educated and likely to undergo demographic transition earlier, but also assuming that there'd be no Holocaust), I wouldn't be surprised if there were 50-80 million Jews worldwide, with the bulk of those being of "Russian" heritage. If we assume that about half of the world Jewish population will gravitate to the US, that's 25-40 million Jews in the US. Is that enough that the waves of Jewish immigration would provoke more of a backlash than OTL? My gut says a serious backlash is unlikely, but I don't really know anything about the experience of Jews who immigrated to the US before 1950, when the existence of Israel and the Cold War were each things.

fasquardon
This all assumes some OTHER atrocity that didn't occur OTL, like a Slavic pseudo fascism develops instead in Russia, some European powers(including possibly Russia) get in a cold war with each other, the U.S. does not have a second civil war in a worse Depression or India ends up fragmented after British rule ends with parts of it under Hindu nationalist rule, of course.
 
If a Tsarist Russia survives I imagine the Russian Emigre scene would be reversed, with those who supported revolution fleeing to the Western World as it were. China might be a better destination now that Im thinking of it, but thats only if they cut their ties to the Russian Empire.
 
Let's further assume that Tsarism does not devolve into some sort of royalist fascism.
Very very very very very big assumption

Socialism will still be a thing, a thing gaining power, and the Tsar will see that and also see that he has one of the most organized socialist parties in the world. The moment he liberalizes the Bolsheviks have more freedom to organize. This was a problem the Tsar faced before WWI and one he will face afterwards.
 
...in the ballpark of 800 million in the mid 80s and somewhere around 1.5 billion by the current decade.

If Russia grew at the same rate as Turkey, which also started at a similar place in 1900, had similar disasters and a similar rate of economic development over the century, it would have ended up with a population just under 800 million by the mid 80s.

Japan started in a similar position as Russia in 1900, and ended up following a similar demographic trajectory, with an extremely rapid decline in population growth rate, but combined that with a more sustainable economic path. Had Russian demographics followed the Japanese course, it would have ended up with 401 million by 1985. However, not only is Japan the one exception of all the non-Communist states that started and ended the 20th century in similar places, I am very doubtful that Russia would ever be forced down the Japanese path by a superior great power crushing them, completely occupying them to the present day and allowing them access to their larger, richer market as the US did with Japan. Without the Japanese loss in WW2, and the American choices during the Cold War, I do not think Japan would have chosen to do the things they did, which would have led to a different economic and demographic trajectory (though not, I think, a Latin American or Turkish trajectory).
With that number of people (800 million, 1.5 billion, 400 million, it does not really matter which number) and no WW2 Russia itself is going to be the biggest and most important market in the world by a large margin, even if it experiences weaker growth like the Soviet Union for whatever reason.
 
With that number of people (800 million, 1.5 billion, 400 million, it does not really matter which number) and no WW2 Russia itself is going to be the biggest and most important market in the world by a large margin, even if it experiences weaker growth like the Soviet Union for whatever reason.

True about the large Russian market.

As for the Soviet Union having "weaker" growth, the Russians/Soviets between 1913 and 1989 grew faster than West Germany between 1913 and 1989 (even though Germany was vastly, vastly less damaged by both World Wars). The Soviets only look bad because they collapsed and because even before then they were generally compared to truly exceptional world leading economies like the US and Japan.

Personally, I think that the assumption I made in the OP is giving a continuing Russian Empire too much credit, and that it would experience enough political turbulence, external disaster and internal mal-investment that it would grow a bit slower than Western Europe over the century. I'd expect a per capita GDP by the mid 80s on the order of $5000 - so the overall economy would be larger but there'd be less pie for each subject of the Tsar, even before whatever inequalities existed were factored in.

Is Latin America really the best analogue? Why not Spain, Portugal or Greece?

Up until 1981, I'd have said all 3 were fair models, after they join the EU, I don't think they make for good models. Unless Russia in this TL joined a common market with the USA in the 80s.

Very very very very very big assumption

True. But I am bored of seeing Nazi Russia/Tsarism must fail tropes bandied about. So here I am assuming that Tsarism can keep on adapting to the changing world well enough to keep power and manage the economy well enough that improvements in per capita standards of living are keeping pace with the improvements in Western Europe, and not falling behind like they did in the Third World.

Socialism will still be a thing, a thing gaining power, and the Tsar will see that and also see that he has one of the most organized socialist parties in the world. The moment he liberalizes the Bolsheviks have more freedom to organize. This was a problem the Tsar faced before WWI and one he will face afterwards.

Honestly, I doubt that the Bolsheviks or the Socialists would be a big problem - the Bolsheviks had a narrow window in 1917 and if they don't get it in TTL, or if the window is there and they miss it, my bet is that they'll moderate before the next chance comes. (Though that moderation doesn't have to be much, if the Bolsheviks are forever saying "our moment isn't quite yet" as they were in OTL before Lenin returned and pushed them into acting, that's moderate enough that they'll never be a threat to anyone.)

The other socialist groups I don't think would be a threat to the regime, most of them were already trying to make peace with Tsarism. The threat from right wing reactionaries who'll do anything to stop the socialists, even if it ruins the country, would be more of a threat, but as I say above, I intentionally want to focus on a Tsarism that, while trying to maximise its own autocratic power, is smart about it and doesn't become fascistic.

______

Getting back to the original question, how about we start by thinking about the emigration of minorities? What does the Polish diaspora, or the Jewish diaspora, or the Uzbek diaspora look like in this sort of scenario?

fasquardon
 
Russian Poland suffered from rural overpopulation. I see significant emigration of Polish peasants to Kazakhstan and Siberia if Russia still keeps Poland.
 
Russian Poland suffered from rural overpopulation. I see significant emigration of Polish peasants to Kazakhstan and Siberia if Russia still keeps Poland.
Would they keep themselfes distinct from surronding populations? or do you think they would assimilate?
 
Propably would switch to Russian language over time, but their Catholic faith would slow down full assimilation.
Maybe there would be assimilation? But assimilation with a twist! Poles would assimilate to russian language and culture while there would be some absorbation of polish language and culture by the Russians. Relgion on the otherhand would be a matter of choice! Therefore there might evolve a catholic russian church?
 
Maybe there would be assimilation? But assimilation with a twist! Poles would assimilate to russian language and culture while there would be some absorbation of polish language and culture by the Russians. Relgion on the otherhand would be a matter of choice! Therefore there might evolve a catholic russian church?
There were Eastern Rite Catholics in Russian Poland untill 1870s, when they were forced to convert to Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Eastern Rite Catholics were seen as traitors of Orthodox Church by Russians, thus severely presecuted. After 1905, when apostasy from Orthodox Church became legal in Russian Empire, most former Eastern Rite Catholics in eastern part of Congress Poland converted to Latin Roman Catholicism (Eastern Rite remained illegal).
 
Top