i just counted todays populations for the breakaway countries - 330 million.
my new guesstimate is 400 million people, likely more
No World Wars - is the world richer?
- Thread starter Frrf
- Start date
i just counted todays populations for the breakaway countries - 330 million.
my new guesstimate is 400 million people, likely more
Deleted member 1487
If anything it would be larger earlier; with the tens of millions not killed IOTL there are more people to emigrate; so long as the fertility of Europe is kept up, which reached terminal decline after two world wars and after each one has dropped lower, then the emigration to the US and many other countries will continue. So the US population if anything could end up higher. I think it would remain monochromatic though, as with millions of Europeans still coming over and racism not dealt a blow due to WW2 and the Nazis, there will be less emphasis on letting people from non-European countries in. Eugenics would continue too, which IIRC emphasized people with 'good genes' to have a lot of children. There would be a major push to colonize Africa and Asia still, so while there are still lots of people coming to the US the powers that be in Europe will still try and push emigration to colonial nations, with mixed success.
The ironic things is that the US may end up more German and Russian (and Jewish) than IOTL due to the uninterrupted stream of emigrants coming from those countries due to political and economic reasons. Obviously if they can afford it Russian Jews would want to get out of Russia, which was brutally anti-semitic. Russians themselves would want to seek more economic and political opportunity abroad, though US immigration limitations might keep them out. The German economy was topping off, as it was restricted in expansion by tariffs and the closed colonial systems keeping them out of huge markets all over the world (somewhat their fault for subsidizing agricultural products, which caused some countries to retaliate by putting tariffs on German industrial goods); this meant, as it did pre-1914, that German emigrees of the middle class were limited in their economic opportunities, so sought to gain this in the US. This also ignores the major political issues around the German governmental system, which was getting increasingly more unpleasant, as the SPD was pushing for constitutional reform and to have a true parliamentary system and fair election system, rather than the weighted one. If there is serious political strife, more Germans would try and get out if they couldn't handle it, which I think is distinctly possible, as the conservative, nationalistic middle class was getting organized and pushing for more rights for themselves politically as of 1913.
Deleted member 1487
The Russian economy would top out pretty quick and get stuck in the cheap manufacturing sector; it would be like a European China. IOTL its growth was virtually completely predicated on French investment in rail roads and Russian investment in the military. They weren't really innovating, but rather copying. Already Germany was building factories in Russia to outsource cheap manufacturing and to bring modern goods to Russia via subsidiaries. Russia would be ahead of its position IOTL, but it would still rely heavily on exporting raw materials to Europe (especially Germany) and probably add in the cheap manufacturing of stuff that would be cheaper to use less regulated and lower priced Russian labor for. There were also major political troubles brewing in Russia that would seriously hamper their growth and may ultimately topple the Czar and result in a dictatorship of some kind at some point. As the population grows and gets tired of being subsistence farmers and low wage factory labor, things would get very ugly with the autocratic Czar.
Ultimately Russia would need some pretty painful and sharp course corrections to avoid very serious political and economic troubles. IMHO Russia would end up stuck in the low quality manufacturing and raw material export category ITTL, which levels out their economy and causes major political upheaval that will seriously impact their ability to compete economically, as they aren't viewed as a good investment internationally. International investment was the only way for Russia to continue to economically develop.
Of course then there is the foreign policy objectives of Russia that are going to be seriously problematic in Europe, as Russia is going to want to pick apart A-H, especially as it falters; there is the issue of Serbian expansion and Russian desires to control the Balkans and vassalize/pick apart the Ottomans. So I don't know if war is avoidable in the long run (1920s-30s) if Russia hopes to accomplish these goals, A-H weakens, and Russia is looking to head off domestic trouble with foreign wars. Russia will militarily get considerably stronger by 1920 and 1930, so won't economically top out until some time in the 1940s and 50s IMHO, but by the 1920s the political issues are coming to a head. A-H too is going to have major political issues ITTL in 1917 once Franz Josef dies and Franz Ferdinand has his show down with the Hungarian nobility. The issues with the Czechs is going to get worse, same with the Socialists, not to mention the Ukrainian-Polish issues in Galicia, which would give Russia major Casus Belli if minority suppression there gets worse (it was getting worse IOTL). The Serbian issue might tamp down for a bit in the mid-1910s, but it will come back once Serbia recovers from the Balkan wars and gets hungry for expansion in Bosnia, especially if A-H is looking politically weak.
Italy and Romania too are looking like by 1920 they will be in the Russian camp to get some of the sweet A-H scraps that will result from a breakup of the Empire. The Triple Alliance is going to be decreasing in relative power pretty quickly by the 1920s, even as Germany gets stronger, France relatively weaker, and A-H potentially somewhat militarily and industrially stronger. Russia would increase relatively militarily more than the Triple Alliance, while Italy leaving would seriously hurt Germany and A-H politically and in the military calculation. Having Italy and Romania join the Entente Cordialle would tip things seriously for the Entente, while even adding the Ottomans formally to the Triple Alliance to make up for Italy leaving would not seriously help the alliance relative to the Entente.
Britain though might drop out of its agreement with France, undefined as it was, due to Russian increase in strength relative to Germany and the potential flipping of Italy and Romania to the Entente. That might head off war, but if this causes the Great Game to begin anew in Asia and potentially the Middle East, then we might just get ourselves a world war in the 1920s and 30s with a difference alliance line up, as Britain flips to make sure France and Russia don't dominate Europe, even if Germany is still the largest economy in Europe, as Russia would have the much larger army. Having Italy, Russia, France, and Romania (maybe others too) in one alliance is pretty powerful by the 1920s, which I don't think the Germans, A-Hs (who are easily weakened by political and social issues), and potentially the Ottomans (maybe the Bulgarians too) can match. Of course that realization is what got us WW1, as Germany was hoping to head off what it saw as its declining relative strength getting it in a very bad situation by the late 1910's and 20's.
One of the biggest losers of the WWI and WWII aside from Russia was Argentina where before WWI, it was one of the richest countries in the world with per capita of 80% of the US and had the 10th largest GDP size.
WWI was the mother of all economic and political instability in Argentina as the money that the British, French or the German companies supposedly invested in Argentina went to war production instead, thus, stalling the industrial development from private capital. As a result of the post WWI economic environment that brought the Great Depression, the existence of one of the most vibrant democracy in Latin America had stalled by right-wing coup in 1930, who never satisfied the leadership of senile Hipolito Yrigoyen in the midst of Great Depression. Without 1930 coup, Juan Peron would've been just a colonel and there would be no justification for military coups as there would be no precedence in the first place.
World Wars were also the beginning of the end of massive Southern European immigration to Argentina where a lot of them were killed or just stayed due to increasing barriers and costs of getting to Argentina after WWI especially, thus, without World Wars, Argentina would have a population of around 50 million by 2010 instead of 40 million in OTL due to more immigration inflows and demographically speaking, Argentina would have been more Italian (their ATL descendants will speak in Spanish though) than in OTL.
Buenos Aires would be in par with New York, London, Paris, Berlin, Milan, Rome, and Madrid in terms of economic, political, and social affluence.
In conclusion, Argentina without World Wars would have been a lot more affluent than what they have right now and likely have similar GDP per capita of Australia and Canada of $40,000 with at least $ 2 trillion GDP absolute size.
WWI was the mother of all economic and political instability in Argentina as the money that the British, French or the German companies supposedly invested in Argentina went to war production instead, thus, stalling the industrial development from private capital. As a result of the post WWI economic environment that brought the Great Depression, the existence of one of the most vibrant democracy in Latin America had stalled by right-wing coup in 1930, who never satisfied the leadership of senile Hipolito Yrigoyen in the midst of Great Depression. Without 1930 coup, Juan Peron would've been just a colonel and there would be no justification for military coups as there would be no precedence in the first place.
World Wars were also the beginning of the end of massive Southern European immigration to Argentina where a lot of them were killed or just stayed due to increasing barriers and costs of getting to Argentina after WWI especially, thus, without World Wars, Argentina would have a population of around 50 million by 2010 instead of 40 million in OTL due to more immigration inflows and demographically speaking, Argentina would have been more Italian (their ATL descendants will speak in Spanish though) than in OTL.
Buenos Aires would be in par with New York, London, Paris, Berlin, Milan, Rome, and Madrid in terms of economic, political, and social affluence.
In conclusion, Argentina without World Wars would have been a lot more affluent than what they have right now and likely have similar GDP per capita of Australia and Canada of $40,000 with at least $ 2 trillion GDP absolute size.
Deleted member 1487
And filled with even more European immigrants. Would that change the character of the culture and potentially the national language?
By the time WWI erupted, Argentina adopted the assimilationist method of integrating immigrants and their descendants like Spanish language education and the mandatory military service, thus no danger of having Argentina becoming an Italian speaking country.
the same has been said about germany in the 1850s, about japan in the 1950s and it's being said today about china
1914 russia may not be the rustbelt or rheinland, but it's not qing-china either. they did manage to produce their own tanks, ships, locomotives and aircraft, those were the highest tech products available at that time.
while their education isnt as great as the one available in thightly settled europe it's not horrible either. russia managed to produce lots of smart people, especially mathematicians who are going to get very important starting in the 1920s.
as long as it has an intact military ethnic tensions are not that big a problem and over time the russian plurality becomes large enough to hold it indefinitely. one has to remember that the baltic republics are only independat because gorbachev asked them if they want it and granted them their wishes.
industrialisation was already taking off and there was no lack of "capitalists" to invest, improve efficiency and expand. imperial russia definitely has the chance to become a hyperpower in the 1960s, meanwhile germany has exhausted all its coal and iron while the world is still dominated by captive markets and protectionism.
russia today is in a crappy situation because of 80 years of worst soviet economic mismanagement. before the war russia exported food, afterwards it imported it until the end. taking the soviet time as a blueprint for an imperial russia with no war simply doesnt work.
I did an estimate of population growth for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland without the wars. I did take into account a falling death rate that halves between 1920 and 1950 due to improvements in healthcare and sanitation. Also, though the birthrate falls, it does not do so as radically as on the continent. Ireland especially maintains a fairly high birthrate (as in OTL).
As for emigration, in 1913 alone, around 400,000 people emigrated from the UK (including Ireland). Around 1/2 of these went to Canada, just under 1/4 to the of the British Empire and around 20% to the USA. From Ireland, around 90% chose the United States as their destination. Emigration from Ireland peaked in the 1850s, declined a bit and rose during the 1880s, but went down until 1913 as economic conditions improved. However, without the war you'd have another 1.5 million Irish emigrating to the United States from 1913-2013.
As for emigration from England, Scotland and Wales, you would an additional number emigrating to following during the 1913-2013 period (keep in mind this assumes that the politicial status quo of 1913 remains in place). Also, unlike other countries in Europe, emigration will not necessarilly go down radically due to the fact that most of the receiving areas are English-speaking. This gives British middle-class immigrants an advantage in a world where borders are relatively open where they can seek job opportunies in Australia or Canada due to lower cost of living etc.
Additional Number of emigrants from Great Britain 1913-2013
1,500,000 to Canada
1,000,000 to Australia
800,000 to United States
700,000 to Rhodesias & Nyasaland
600,000 to Union of South Africa
300,000 to Kenya & Uganda
300,000 to New Zealand
250,000 to the rest of the British Empire
100,000 Elsewhere (1/2 to Argentina)
Population of Great Britain & Ireland
1921 44,796,000
1931 48,995,000
1941 52,015,000
1951 55,221,000
1961 59,211,000
1971 62,867,000
1981 66,743,000
1991 70,855,000
2001 74,772,000
2011 78,275,000
GDP in 2013 = $4.3 trillion
As for emigration, in 1913 alone, around 400,000 people emigrated from the UK (including Ireland). Around 1/2 of these went to Canada, just under 1/4 to the of the British Empire and around 20% to the USA. From Ireland, around 90% chose the United States as their destination. Emigration from Ireland peaked in the 1850s, declined a bit and rose during the 1880s, but went down until 1913 as economic conditions improved. However, without the war you'd have another 1.5 million Irish emigrating to the United States from 1913-2013.
As for emigration from England, Scotland and Wales, you would an additional number emigrating to following during the 1913-2013 period (keep in mind this assumes that the politicial status quo of 1913 remains in place). Also, unlike other countries in Europe, emigration will not necessarilly go down radically due to the fact that most of the receiving areas are English-speaking. This gives British middle-class immigrants an advantage in a world where borders are relatively open where they can seek job opportunies in Australia or Canada due to lower cost of living etc.
Additional Number of emigrants from Great Britain 1913-2013
1,500,000 to Canada
1,000,000 to Australia
800,000 to United States
700,000 to Rhodesias & Nyasaland
600,000 to Union of South Africa
300,000 to Kenya & Uganda
300,000 to New Zealand
250,000 to the rest of the British Empire
100,000 Elsewhere (1/2 to Argentina)
Population of Great Britain & Ireland
1921 44,796,000
1931 48,995,000
1941 52,015,000
1951 55,221,000
1961 59,211,000
1971 62,867,000
1981 66,743,000
1991 70,855,000
2001 74,772,000
2011 78,275,000
GDP in 2013 = $4.3 trillion
RousseauX
Donor
Extrapolating past trends to future trends is one of the biggest mistakes one can make when it comes to economics.
Russia will undergo rapid economic development during its industrialization, whether under Communism or Tsarism, but it's going to run up against the Middle-Income trap at around $16,000 per capita at which point economic growth is going to slow down significantly.
At this point Russia will basically:
1) Remain stuck there
2) Become a petro state like Saudi Arabia or Russia under Putin
3) dramatically reform its extractive political institution and become a truly first world country.
Some combination of 1) and 2) (OTL's result) is pretty likely.
RousseauX
Donor
The difference is that the quality of political institution of the first two compared to Russia and China. Namely corruption and rent seeking tend to halt growth past a certain point. This isn't all that important in the first few decades of industrialization, but will pop up at some point (OTL it tend to happen in the late 60s-early 70s).the same has been said about germany in the 1850s, about japan in the 1950s and it's being said today about china
This is the natural result of industrialization at certain stages, an agarian society which exports food is less advanced than an industrial society importing it
This wasn't unique of Soviet Russia, this was true of most developmental regimes period.
Last edited:
the USA is one of the biggest food exporters today, i wouldnt call it a less advanced economy
.the agrarian sector loses importance because it increases production output while decreasing the need for labor. from wiki for germany:
1900: 1 farmer produces food for 4 people
1950: 1 farmer produces food for 10 people
2004: 1 farmer produces food for 143 people
since 2009 they import more than they export
in a modern economy food production is as industrialized as car production.
RousseauX
Donor
Europe OTOH was a food importer for much of its industrialization all the way up until sometime in the 1950s IIRC and yet food importing Germany was obviously more advanced than food exporting Russia of 1910.the USA is one of the biggest food exporters today, i wouldnt call it a less advanced economy
the agrarian sector loses importance because it increases production output while decreasing the need for labor. from wiki for germany:
1900: 1 farmer produces food for 4 people
1950: 1 farmer produces food for 10 people
2004: 1 farmer produces food for 143 people
since 2009 they import more than they export
in a modern economy food production is as industrialized as car production.
Deleted member 1487
the USA is one of the biggest food exporters today, i wouldnt call it a less advanced economy
the agrarian sector loses importance because it increases production output while decreasing the need for labor. from wiki for germany:
1900: 1 farmer produces food for 4 people
1950: 1 farmer produces food for 10 people
2004: 1 farmer produces food for 143 people
since 2009 they import more than they export
in a modern economy food production is as industrialized as car production.
Germany as imported food prior to WW1.
Regarding Russia, I found an interesting article regarding what could have been (it is a little biased).
http://www.theglobalist.com/1913-2013-russia-botched-entire-century/
However, although Russia was industrializing, it had a long way to go. In 1913 just under 3 million workers were in the industrial sector, the largest share (31%) in textiles. Food processing accounted for 13%, Metals for 12% and Fuels for 11%.
One thing that is interesting, was the dominance of Germany in Russian trade before 1913, accounting for nearly half of Russia's foreign trade. However, foreign investment came primarily from France, Belgium and Great Britain.
Russian Imports from in 1913
Germany $322 million
UK $85 million
USA $37 million
France $16 million
Russian Exports to in 1913
Germany $226 million
UK $134 million
France $88 million
USA $7 million
Russian Automobile Imports 1913
Germany $6,005,000
USA $291,000
Russia's largest exports in 1913 were grain, forestry products, flax, mineral oils.
http://www.theglobalist.com/1913-2013-russia-botched-entire-century/
However, although Russia was industrializing, it had a long way to go. In 1913 just under 3 million workers were in the industrial sector, the largest share (31%) in textiles. Food processing accounted for 13%, Metals for 12% and Fuels for 11%.
One thing that is interesting, was the dominance of Germany in Russian trade before 1913, accounting for nearly half of Russia's foreign trade. However, foreign investment came primarily from France, Belgium and Great Britain.
Russian Imports from in 1913
Germany $322 million
UK $85 million
USA $37 million
France $16 million
Russian Exports to in 1913
Germany $226 million
UK $134 million
France $88 million
USA $7 million
Russian Automobile Imports 1913
Germany $6,005,000
USA $291,000
Russia's largest exports in 1913 were grain, forestry products, flax, mineral oils.
Maybe, although the limitations of at least aircraft in those days is likely to hold things back for a while.
i was using data from the german agricultural industrial association. it's surprisingly hard to find actual output numbers for something that important. i do know that after the ww1 blockade/hunger weimar and the nazis increased agricultural production so it wouldnt happen again.
the example of the USA still stands, an advanced economy that feeds itself and exports food. industry happens in urban centers where lots of workers are available, the tinly settled inbetween is for agriculture, and an industrializing russia would have plenty non urban settled regions. compare russia and the usa to germany - it doesnt have much of an arable inbetween region for its population size.
France. Leading world economy. Third biggest exporter of agricultural products. Completely different from the "big cities - small agricultural inbetween areas" paradigm you seem to be painting.
Deleted member 1487
I wouldn't call France a world leading economy past 1871; they really fell behind quickly in the industrialization game due to their very unique way of industrializing that left them only semi-industrial by 1914. They were very focused on luxury goods for their economy, rather than industrial ones like Germany or Britain.
If anything France typifies the one great city, several medium cities and tons of agricultural regions outside of the few metropolitan regions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution#France
http://www.erih.net/industrial-history/france.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_France#Industrialization
Last edited by a moderator:
It is easy to imagine how, without the two world wars, the developed world sees the development level of 1970 in 1950. But the world will not have the benefit of the lessons learned from those wars. I can think of two very destructive possibilities.
1. In pursuit of petroleum, a version of the Holocaust erupts against an Islamic group or nation;
2. World War II ended with atomic bombs. Consider the destructive potential of a different war that starts with them.
1. In pursuit of petroleum, a version of the Holocaust erupts against an Islamic group or nation;
2. World War II ended with atomic bombs. Consider the destructive potential of a different war that starts with them.