European economics without Nazism, WW2 and Stalin going West

Rapid economic development of the Baltics right now is (I'm not sure that Present tense is correct, they're in recession) based on consumer boom fueled by Swedish and Finnish credits. And guess what is collateral? Property built by USSR. Basically they're pawning Soviet assets. So, as impressive as it looks, this is not prediction of their performance IATL.
You also must count property destroyed by USSR, but in general I agree with you, this can't be used for prediction
Estonians demonstrated willingness to sacrifice the advantage of Russian trade for ideological purposes. So, even assuming that "equality" bogeyman is true, wouldn't it be correct to suggest that Estonia would be at same "20% below WE" level it used to be according to most optimistic propagandists? Which places it above Portugal and below Spain.
That can be ascribed to the post-soviet syndrome.
 
You also must count property destroyed by USSR, but in general I agree with you, this can't be used for prediction
Whatever Soviet sins were, wanton destruction of liberated property surely wasn't in the list. Besides, Estonia and Latvia were mostly agrarian countries pre-WWII and did not have industries worth destruction.
 
Once I read that Estonia used to be among the wealthiest countries in Europe and that Czechoslovakia was an economic powerhouse as well then. I even "fear" that they might have been richer than the German Reich then.

But due to the Iron Curtain, economic performance was poor in the East due to the introduction of socialism. And as Nazi Germany used to treat its conquered territories like fiefdoms or colonies (a miracle if they didn't), at least the Eastern nationes were already affected from the loss to freely prosper before the Soviets came in.

So WI Germany kept the rule of law after WW1 and median Europe had neither been affected by the Nazis nor by the Soviets importing communism? How would the individual nations stand at economically, in a sense of a ranking?

You may even remind that the "economic miracle" of Western Europe in OTL had its source in WW2-related things like men dying in action causing a scarcity in the workforces making wages higher etc.

@ Glen: I read the Weimar World timeline carefully, but there was nothing about economics.

This is quite a big issue because of the Depression and how the world leaves it.

In OTL the trade blocs broke down postwar, this excacerbated the tendenct for trade between the rich countries to grow faster than colonial/Third World trade. This sped up the convergence process referred to by Faeelin.

If the trade blocs survive convergence will be slower, as it was in the interwar period.

A range of processes will happen more slowly anyway. The relative decline of Britain will be slower due to having more capital and continental European countries not having had such a jolt to the system. Even with rich country free trade restored these all might face the problem Britain faced OTL of reorientating from colonial to European markets.
 
May be yes, may be no. Baltics were always underdeveloped comparing with Finland, even when they were under the same Russian rule, so I'm not certain how could they magically shoot up to Finnish level ITTL (this "Estonian GDP per capita was equal to Finnish" bogeyman looks like a mythical creature on so many levels, starting with sources for this statement, which are "patriotic Estonian research", i.e. writings of Soviet-trained propagandists).

Well, it was not the "same Russian rule". As a Grand Duchy Finland enjoyed quite impressive economic privileges, including a say in the trade and customs policies (there was, for example, a Finnish Customs Administration) and since 1860 a local currency. Because of the benefits of autonomy Finnish economy could play the European market against the Russian market: by 1900 50% of Finnish GDP came from foreign trade. It is not, for example, a coincidence that a huge part of the "Russian" merchant fleet was in fact built, staffed and financed by Finns.

Finland was indeed very successful in tapping the Soviet market after 1945, but it was because we had practise. In 1809-1917 the Finnish economy had been benefiting from the undeveloped nature of the (comparatively) huge Russian market in very much the same way.

The Baltic provinces did not enjoy similar privileges, but received their marching orders directly from St. Petersburg: thus their comparatively stunted growth. Had there been a Baltic area with an autonomy on par with Finland, it is quite likely it would have prospered too.

When I say prospered, I of course mean comparatively speaking. Finland in 1917 was not rich by any standards, but still a far cry from the impoverished border province it was in 1808. We had a huge gap to bridge to "western" standards, or even those of Sweden. It is kind of telling, that famine was a common occurrence in Finland as late as the 1860s - in some areas on the scale of the Great Famine in Ireland.

A lot of Finnish IOTL prosperity originates in extremely close Soviet-Finnish cooperation IOTL (USSR was by far biggest trading partner and Nokia nearly collapsed after USSR went down), when Finland had access to Soviet resources at deeply discounted prices and was receiving decent prices in hard currency for it's industrial exports in USSR. Estonians IOTL showed willingness to sacrifice their economic advantages to satisfy nationalistic pride (killing Russian transit to get rid of Bronze Soldier), so I'm pretty sure this cooperation is ASB in alternate TL.

But if the ATL Baltics were not occupied by the USSR and retained their independence post-1940, would not their attitude towards the Russians -and thus towards trading with Russia - likely be more positive? Maybe they would see Russia more like we Finns do, not as a bloodthirsty enemy, but as a potentially beneficial partner, even if a very overbearing and difficult one at that. National attitudes, even if slow in changing are not set in stone you know.
 
Last edited:
Rapid economic development of the Baltics right now is (I'm not sure that Present tense is correct, they're in recession) based on consumer boom fueled by Swedish and Finnish credits. And guess what is collateral? Property built by USSR. Basically they're pawning Soviet assets. So, as impressive as it looks, this is not prediction of their performance IATL.

On the other hand, the ATL doesn't entail fifty years of stunted Soviet economic growth either. Yet you don't have any discussion of this argument.

I'm not talking about ties with the rest of Europe. Finns enjoyed these ties too and were 20% under West European average GDP per capita by 1938 (see http://www.ggdc.net/Maddison/Historical_Statistics/horizontal-file_03-2007.xls). They started to trade with USSR post-1945 and, everything else being the same, shot to 5-6% advantage over WE average by 1990.

First off: Maddison sucks.

Secondly, your argument is a bit strange. Look at Germany in 1938 to America; yet nobody in their right mind thinks that the standard of living is that different today.

Yet you reject that could happen, indeed find it unlikely for some strange reason.
 
The Baltic areas did not enjoy similar privileges, but received their marching orders from St. Petersburg: thus their comparatively stunted growth.
All humans who ate tomatoes died: thus tomato is a deadly poison. Your line of reasoning does look like this joke to me.

Had there been a Baltic area with an autonomy on par with Finland, it is quite likely it would have prospered too.
Baltic governorates had very special status comparing to other ones. They were comparable to Congress Poland in this regard. Speaking about Poland (and Lithuania), if Russian rule was so stunning, Lithuania should have been prosperous developed nations in 1795 comparing to Latvia and Estonia, who fell under Russian yoke almost a century before that. Surprisingly, it wasn't.

When I say prospered, I of course mean comparatively speaking. Finland in 1917 was not rich by any standards, but still a far cry from the impoverished border province it was in 1808.
Well, are you trying to tell us that 100 years of stunting Russian rule made Finland better off than 5 centuries of enlightened Swedish one (Russia gained control over Finland in 1808 and Swedes ruled it 500+ years before that)?

But if the ATL Baltics were not occupied by the USSR and retained their independence post-1940, would not their attitude towards the Russians -and thus towards trading with Russia - likely be more positive? Maybe they would see Russia more like we Finns do, not as a bloodthirsty enemy, but as a potentially beneficial partner, even if a very overbearing and difficult one at that. National attitudes, even if slow in changing are not set in stone you know.
This is $1 mln question. However, Finns fought two wars with Russia and it did not make them mortal enemies of Russia, willing to starve themselves in order to stick it to Ruskies. And, if Finns remained democratic country as much as it was possible in 1930s Europe, all three Baltic countries turned to dictatorship.

On the other hand, the ATL doesn't entail fifty years of stunted Soviet economic growth either. Yet you don't have any discussion of this argument.
It must be some misunderstanding. I just said that Baltics would likely be on the same level comparing to WE average as they were in 1938.

First off: Maddison sucks.
Give me alternate source. I'm not a economist, yet a lot of stuff in Maddison looks really weird to me too. However, I couldn't find any other distorical GDP data covering whole Earth.

Secondly, your argument is a bit strange. Look at Germany in 1938 to America; yet nobody in their right mind thinks that the standard of living is that different today.
Standard of living is different. Average American car is two sizes bigger than German (Golf vs. Impala, Opel Omega had been considered "small luxury car" during it's brief tenure as Catera), average American home is twice as big as German and German social net considerably lifts standards of living for lower classes.
 
Baltic governorates had very special status comparing to other ones. They were comparable to Congress Poland in this regard. Speaking about Poland (and Lithuania), if Russian rule was so stunning, Lithuania should have been prosperous developed nations in 1795 comparing to Latvia and Estonia, who fell under Russian yoke almost a century before that. Surprisingly, it wasn't.

My point was not to say that Russian rule is or has been somehow inherently economically stunting. I merely want to argue that Finland was able to exploit the developing Russian market more efficiently during the 19th century because Finnish elites had -throught the Grand Duchy- more politico-economic power vis-a-vis St. Petersburg than the Baltic elites that did not have a similar tool at their disposal. A special status within the empire, sure, but still markedly less leeway.

As Finnish historian Osmo Jussila has recently written, Finland markedly and consistently became a separate economic entity with an independent financial apparatus, including its own taxation and budget, gaining more autonomy even as other autonomous areas like Congress Poland saw their rights dwindling away. Geographically, Finland and the Baltic provinces enjoyed similar positions on the "Baltic fringe" of the empire, but in their growing power base Finns had more leverage to turn the opportunity into economic development. You have to remember, that for long Finland had been definitely less well off than those southern areas that could benefit from Baltic trade routes: Tallinn or Riga were financial centers before most of Finland could be even called civilized. In terms of system theory, during Russian rule Finland started to develop the tools that later made it possible to finally rise from the periphery towards the core.

Well, are you trying to tell us that 100 years of stunting Russian rule made Finland better off than 5 centuries of enlightened Swedish one (Russia gained control over Finland in 1808 and Swedes ruled it 500+ years before that)?

No, I am trying to say that 100 years of comparative autonomy and ability to develop a national economy under Russian rule made Finland better off than 5 centuries of being a mere collection of provinces ruled from Stockholm and strip mined for raw materials and cannon fodder. This is of course something of a gross simplification and perhaps needlessly harsh on the Swedish rule, but I think the comparison is not entirely without merit. I quite honestly think that suffering under the Russian yoke during 1809-1917 was, for several reasons, one of the best things that ever happened to the Finnish people.
 
Last edited:
This is $1 mln question. However, Finns fought two wars with Russia and it did not make them mortal enemies of Russia, willing to starve themselves in order to stick it to Ruskies.


Well, Finland did ally with Nazi Germany in a bid to break the Soviet Union for all time, which seems pretty much "mortal enemy." And it was never occupied by the Soviets.

Give me alternate source. I'm not a economist, yet a lot of stuff in Maddison looks really weird to me too. However, I couldn't find any other distorical GDP data covering whole Earth.

I don't know where else you'd turn; I'd suggest looking at European sources; but his Chinese stuff is junk, so I don't trust the rest. And certainly I wouldn't rely on what I think is a bad source just because it's the only one I have...
 
War most certainly played a role.

Yes, it played a role in the _when_: it delayed Indian autonomy. It also played an important role in the _how_, given that in the end the British did not care a lot if they left a mess behind. But its role in the _whether_ was minimal.
 
With World War 2 wouldn't the colonial powers be able to defeat the guerilla movements in the colonies?

You mean without right?
IOTL the colonial powers could easily beat the guerilla movements in the colonies (well, the British could anyway. The French were in a different situation). Its just that to do so would not be a good idea.
They were democratic nations, they had just defeated the big evil of fascism; they couldn't go around acting like fascists and mass murdering anyone who looked at them funny purely because they want to rule themselves.
Its a absolute myth that the British empire 'collapsed', in reality it disbanded.

IMO without the war decolonisation would happen but it would happen in a far more organised, far saner matter. The colonial authorities would be able to work together with the educated, rational thinking people in the colonies to carefully organise a new country and make sure it was implimented right.
There wouldn't be so much of the OTL situation of 'Wait...why are we even fighting these idiots? We WANT to get out of here. Lets leave them to their mess'.
Decolonisation would likely occur earlier for India (and far cleaner) and later elsewhere.
I could well see some places like Malaysia hanging on until very, very recent times not wanting to be independant.
 
Top