PC: A Muslim-majority Russia due to massive Russian expansion in the 20th century?

CaliGuy

Banned
Would it have been plausible for Russia to avoid the Bolshevik Revolution during WWI (for instance, by having Kerensky side with Kornilov instead of arming the Bolsheviks) and then to expand so much over the next several decades (into Xinjiang, Afghanistan, Persia, et cetera--possibly as the result of a new, post-WWI war with Britain) that its population would have eventually (due to massive Muslim birth rates) become either majority-Muslim or close to it?

Also, if so, what would the consequences of this have been for Russia? Indeed, how would such significant demographic changes have affected Russia, Russian culture, Russian society, Russian politics, Russian policies (both domestic policies and foreign policies), et cetera?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
This belongs in Before: 1900 TBH. I don't see a Russia annexing Persia and Afghanistan post 1900.
What about if Russia (barely) survives WWI and then becomes a military dictatorship during the Great Depression under someone such as Lavr Kornilov (who survives in this TL), though? True, Russia would have to win a war against Britain to conquer these territories; however, that might be doable if Russia sufficiently industrializes and modernizes by the 1940s or so in this TL.
 
What about if Russia (barely) survives WWI and then becomes a military dictatorship during the Great Depression under someone such as Lavr Kornilov (who survives in this TL), though? True, Russia would have to win a war against Britain to conquer these territories; however, that might be doable if Russia sufficiently industrializes and modernizes by the 1940s or so in this TL.

Winning a war against Britain would be tough for Russia, and ultimately would be a pyrrhic victory. Britain has one of the strongest armies in the world.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Winning a war against Britain would be tough for Russia, and ultimately would be a pyrrhic victory. Britain has one of the strongest armies in the world.
Yes, Britain can create quite a large army given enough time (just like the U.S. could and did in both WWI and WWII in our TL). However, Russia already has a large army right now. Plus, if led by a dictator, Russia would be able to endure much more casualties than Britain could; indeed, would Britain be willing to accept millions of British and British colonial casualties in order to prevent Russia from capturing Persia/Iran?
 
Yes, Britain can create quite a large army given enough time (just like the U.S. could and did in both WWI and WWII in our TL). However, Russia already has a large army right now. Plus, if led by a dictator, Russia would be able to endure much more casualties than Britain could; indeed, would Britain be willing to accept millions of British and British colonial casualties in order to prevent Russia from capturing Persia/Iran?

But now this begs the question of why Russia would want Iran.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
So a Russian lebensraum?
Yep, that's a part of it.

Also, please keep in mind that even a less ambitious Russia might demand the northern parts of Iran and Afghanistan for ethnic reasons; after all, there were a lot of Azeris, Uzbeks, and Tajiks in these territories and thus even a Russia which respects Persian/Iranian and Afghan independence might desire to incorporate these peoples into Russia in order for them to be united with their ethnic brethren:

http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Mid_East_Ethnic_lg.png

Mid_East_Ethnic_lg.png


In addition to this, please keep in mind that right now (in our TL), there are almost as many young Central Asians as there are young Russians. True, a Russia which keeps Ukraine and Belarus would have this problem be somewhat alleviated; however, this effect would be reduced if more Muslims--specifically from Xinjiang, (northern) Afghanistan, (northern) Iran, and the former Ottoman Empire (the six Armenian Vilayets--which included a large Turkish and Kurdish population)--were incorporated into Russia.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Also, for what it's worth, at the time that Russia will expand into these territories, the Muslim population there will be too small to pose a "demographic threat" to Russia. However, this will gradually change once Russia's Muslim population begins going through the demographic transition.
 
In addition to this, please keep in mind that right now (in our TL), there are almost as many young Central Asians as there are young Russians.

...

Interesting, didn't know that.

OTOH, the scenario you proposed avoids the Russian Civil War and communist dictatorship, which means that there will be many more ethnic Russians running around. In addition to that, the Russian birthrate may stay higher and fall much slower without an aggressively secularizing regime. Not to mention the likely avoidance of a WW2-type devastation of western Russia.

So the Muslim population of old and new territories would need to catch up not to OTL's number, but to a far bigger number of ethnic Russian than OTL's.


Then there's the issue of the conquests. Some of these are plausible, some not so much...and having all of them in one scenario?
Even the motives wouldn't be clear for some of them. As far as "Lebensraum" goes, Siberia and the Russian Far East - with their vast tracts of land and natural resources - were already fulfilling this purpose.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Interesting, didn't know that.

Yeah. Indeed, is it OK to reference Anatoly Karlin here? He has a nice graph (in Russian) about this, but I first want to get permission to post this link since I don't want to get in trouble.

OTOH, the scenario you proposed avoids the Russian Civil War and communist dictatorship,

That is absolutely correct.

which means that there will be many more ethnic Russians running around.

Very true; however, it is also worth keeping in mind that ethnic Slavs weren't the only ones who suffered under Communism. Indeed, if I remember correctly, Kazakhstan lost 38% of its total population as a result of the 1930s forced collectivization.

In addition to that, the Russian birthrate may stay higher and fall much slower without an aggressively secularizing regime.

Were the Bolsheviks particularly hostile to large families, though?

Also, wouldn't this affect both Slavs and non-Slavs? After all, if both large families and religion are more widely accepted in Russia in this TL, wouldn't this effect also be visible on non-Slavs (including Muslims)? Basically, what I mean is that non-Slavic--especially Muslim--fertility could also decrease at a slower rate in this TL.

Not to mention the likely avoidance of a WW2-type devastation of western Russia.

Very true. Indeed, WWII appears to have hurt Slavs more than it hurt non-Slavs.

So the Muslim population of old and new territories would need to catch up not to OTL's number, but to a far bigger number of ethnic Russian than OTL's.

Very true; however, they would have at least a little help in regards to this considering that Kazakhstan wouldn't massively suffer from forced collectivization in this TL and considering that Muslim birth rates might remain high for a longer time period in this TL.

Then there's the issue of the conquests. Some of these are plausible, some not so much...and having all of them in one scenario?

If Russia has a sufficiently ambitious leadership, I could certainly see it trying to expand as much as it can. After all, Germany--its main land-based rival--already had its military power largely destroyed by WWI (and there's no Hitler and Nazis in power in Germany in this TL, so yeah).

Indeed, if Russia makes a major land grab in this TL, its main opponent would probably be Britain (France would probably rely on Russia to ensure that Germany remains down--and thus be unwilling to fight Russian expansionism elsewhere--while the U.S. probably still descends back into isolationism after the end of WWI in this TL). In the 1940s in this TL, Russia can very likely take on Britain. Plus, there is a historical precedent for large-scale, almost non-stop expansion in the 1930s and early 1940s in our TL--specifically Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan.

Even the motives wouldn't be clear for some of them.

Acquiring more natural resources and a better strategic position should be good enough, no? Indeed, Lavr Kornilov or whoever else is in charge of Russia in the 1930s and 1940s in this TL might view countries such as Iran as simply being a larger version of the conquests that Russia made in the late 19th century.

As far as "Lebensraum" goes, Siberia and the Russian Far East - with their vast tracts of land and natural resources - were already fulfilling this purpose.

True--as was Central Asia. However, this might not be enough for Russia--especially considering that Russia will have much more people (due to a lack of Civil War, et cetera--as you yourself have previously mentioned) in this TL. Indeed, even though the U.S. already had a lot of living space, it still started a war with Mexico for additional living space in the late 1840s in our TL. Thus, why exactly can't Russia do the same--but replace Mexico with, say, Iran or Afghanistan?
 
Yeah. Indeed, is it OK to reference Anatoly Karlin here? He has a nice graph (in Russian) about this, but I first want to get permission to post this link since I don't want to get in trouble.

I think it's ok to post a simple graph. But I can't say for certain.
Very true; however, it is also worth keeping in mind that ethnic Slavs weren't the only ones who suffered under Communism. Indeed, if I remember correctly, Kazakhstan lost 38% of its total population as a result of the 1930s forced collectivization.

Some of Kazakhstan's regions which were chiefly inhabited by ethnic Russians also suffered greatly in the 30s, didn't they? It's quite possible ethnic Kazakhs were disproportionately harmed; but I don't know to what extent this is the case.

There is also the civil war itself, in which - I think - it was ethnic Russians and other Slavs who disproportionately suffered?
Were the Bolsheviks particularly hostile to large families, though?

Also, wouldn't this affect both Slavs and non-Slavs? After all, if both large families and religion are more widely accepted in Russia in this TL, wouldn't this effect also be visible on non-Slavs (including Muslims)? Basically, what I mean is that non-Slavic--especially Muslim--fertility could also decrease at a slower rate in this TL.

The Bolsheviks were hostile to religion (which seemed to affect Orthodoxy to a greater extent than it affected Islam; and IIRC, for the first few years they had an axe to grind against Orthodoxy in particular). They also generally tended to promote the urban proletariat and urbanization, while neglecting and screwing over the peasantry - which is always the main demographic for truly large families.

So Muslim fertility will also decrease at a slower rate, but I believe the benefits to ethnic Russians will be greater.
Very true. Indeed, WWII appears to have hurt Slavs more than it hurt non-Slavs.

Very true; however, they would have at least a little help in regards to this considering that Kazakhstan wouldn't massively suffer from forced collectivization in this TL and considering that Muslim birth rates might remain high for a longer time period in this TL.

True.
If Russia has a sufficiently ambitious leadership, I could certainly see it trying to expand as much as it can. After all, Germany--its main land-based rival--already had its military power largely destroyed by WWI (and there's no Hitler and Nazis in power in Germany in this TL, so yeah).

Indeed, if Russia makes a major land grab in this TL, its main opponent would probably be Britain (France would probably rely on Russia to ensure that Germany remains down--and thus be unwilling to fight Russian expansionism elsewhere--while the U.S. probably still descends back into isolationism after the end of WWI in this TL). In the 1940s in this TL, Russia can very likely take on Britain. Plus, there is a historical precedent for large-scale, almost non-stop expansion in the 1930s and early 1940s in our TL--specifically Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan.


Acquiring more natural resources and a better strategic position should be good enough, no? Indeed, Lavr Kornilov or whoever else is in charge of Russia in the 1930s and 1940s in this TL might view countries such as Iran as simply being a larger version of the conquests that Russia made in the late 19th century.

OTOH, there is vulnerability to overextension - in logistics, difficulty of administering, defensibility of new conquests...

Would Kornilov even be the right leader for this? The man was a moderate, permissive and unconventional kind of nationalist, in at least some ways.
True--as was Central Asia. However, this might not be enough for Russia--especially considering that Russia will have much more people (due to a lack of Civil War, et cetera--as you yourself have previously mentioned) in this TL. Indeed, even though the U.S. already had a lot of living space, it still started a war with Mexico for additional living space in the late 1840s in our TL. Thus, why exactly can't Russia do the same--but replace Mexico with, say, Iran or Afghanistan?

It's hard to imagine that Siberia and the Far East would be full, even after an entire new century of stable colonization.

You have a point with regards to US expansion. Still, challenging a state like 19th century Mexico is one thing; challenging a state like the 20th century British Empire (to say nothing of Japan and other factors) is something else entirely.
 
Also, @Halagaz--what exactly do you propose in regards to a more realistic course for Russian expansionism in this TL?

IMO: Eastern Anatolia, Khiva and Bukhara are quite plausible expansions - almost certain, really. Constantinople, maybe. Mongolia is a possibility. Xinjiang is a bit less likely, but it shouldn't be completely ruled out. Northern Iran is an option, but not an easy one at all. Southern Iran and Afghanistan sound rather implausible.
In general, it depends on a lot of things.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I think it's ok to post a simple graph. But I can't say for certain.

OK; anyway, here is hoping for the best:

https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/births-russia-vs-central-asia.png

births-russia-vs-central-asia.png


Some of Kazakhstan's regions which were chiefly inhabited by ethnic Russians also suffered greatly in the 30s, didn't they? It's quite possible ethnic Kazakhs were disproportionately harmed; but I don't know to what extent this is the case.

Honestly, I don't know who suffered more in Kazakhstan as a result of the 1930s forced collectivizations. Indeed, I wonder if some data is available for this.

There is also the civil war itself, in which - I think - it was ethnic Russians and other Slavs who disproportionately suffered?

Yes, I think that you are correct in regards to this.

The Bolsheviks were hostile to religion (which seemed to affect Orthodoxy to a greater extent than it affected Islam; and IIRC, for the first few years they had an axe to grind against Orthodoxy in particular). They also generally tended to promote the urban proletariat and urbanization, while neglecting and screwing over the peasantry - which is always the main demographic for truly large families.

So Muslim fertility will also decrease at a slower rate, but I believe the benefits to ethnic Russians will be greater.

Good points. :)


OK; good. :)

OTOH, there is vulnerability to overextension - in logistics, difficulty of administering, defensibility of new conquests...

Yes, this is absolutely correct; indeed, this is why Russia would need a period of military and railroad build-up before it can attempt something like this--and this is assuming that Russia makes it out of WWI in one piece, of course.

Would Kornilov even be the right leader for this? The man was a moderate, permissive and unconventional kind of nationalist, in at least some ways.

I honestly don't know; indeed, I mentioned him because Underlankers previously wrote an extremely long and fascinating TL where Kornilov was the leader of a Fascist Russia and the main antagonist in a different World War II.

If you have a different Russian leader/general who is a better fit for this, though, please let me know. :)

It's hard to imagine that Siberia and the Far East would be full, even after an entire new century of stable colonization.

Agreed; however, the Midwest and interior Southern U.S. likewise weren't anywhere near full by the 1840s and yet the U.S. still sparked a war with Mexico for living space.

You have a point with regards to US expansion. Still, challenging a state like 19th century Mexico is one thing; challenging a state like the 20th century British Empire (to say nothing of Japan and other factors) is something else entirely.

Very true; however, the British Empire might not be as formidable as you think it is. After all, didn't Britain significantly demobilize after the end of WWI? (True, it can rebuild its military, but that takes time.)

Also, it is worth noting that the 1840s U.S. was a (flawed) democracy and thus was unwilling to take large numbers of casualties. In contrast, if Russia is led in this TL as forcefully as it was led during World War II in our TL, then Russia would probably be able to suffer tens of millions of casualties and still keep on fighting.

In addition to this, in regards to Japan, would Japan actually have any desire to prevent Russia from expanding into Mongolia and further westward?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
IMO: Eastern Anatolia,

Plus Galicia, Subcarpathian Ruthenia, and the Memelland in Europe, correct?

Khiva and Bukhara are quite plausible expansions - almost certain, really.

Those two--along with Tuva--were already Russian puppets during this time, no?

Constantinople, maybe. Mongolia is a possibility. Xinjiang is a bit less likely, but it shouldn't be completely ruled out.

OK.

Northern Iran is an option, but not an easy one at all.

Giving Iran an ultimatum which demands the transfer of all Azeri-majority areas in Iran to Russia (or face war) wouldn't work for this?

Southern Iran and Afghanistan sound rather implausible.

In regards to Afghanistan, can't Russia give Afghanistan an ultimatum to withdraw from all of its Tajik-majority and Uzbek-majority areas or face war?

However, Russia could use Afghanistan as an ally in a future war with Britain; in turn, there is that factor to consider (after all, Afghanistan still wanted the Pashtun-majority areas of British India for itself).

As for southern Iran, I agree that it is more difficult; however, it isn't outright impossible if Russia wants an Indian Ocean coastline. Indeed, all of Iran only had around 15 million people in 1950 in our TL; thus, it should be perfectly doable if Russia defeats Britain in a war.

In general, it depends on a lot of things.

Completely agreed.
 
Plus Galicia, Subcarpathian Ruthenia, and the Memelland in Europe, correct?

Right.


Those two--along with Tuva--were already Russian puppets during this time, no?

Yes, but they're probably looking at direct annexation, and soon.
Giving Iran an ultimatum which demands the transfer of all Azeri-majority areas in Iran to Russia (or face war) wouldn't work for this?


In regards to Afghanistan, can't Russia give Afghanistan an ultimatum to withdraw from all of its Tajik-majority and Uzbek-majority areas or face war?

However, Russia could use Afghanistan as an ally in a future war with Britain; in turn, there is that factor to consider (after all, Afghanistan still wanted the Pashtun-majority areas of British India for itself).

As for southern Iran, I agree that it is more difficult; however, it isn't outright impossible if Russia wants an Indian Ocean coastline. Indeed, all of Iran only had around 15 million people in 1950 in our TL; thus, it should be perfectly doable if Russia defeats Britain in a war.

Were there any truly game-changing resources in these areas? If not, it's hard to imagine why Russia would act as a standard-bearer for Tajik and Uzbek unification; especially with how undeveloped Tajik and Uzbek nationalism was; and how limited Russia's understanding and classification of the ethnic groups there.
Azeri areas would make a bit more sense, but only a bit.
 

CaliGuy

Banned

OK.

Yes, but they're probably looking at direct annexation, and soon.

Agreed; after all, the Bolsheviks did this and I don't see why exactly a non-Bolshevik Russia would have acted differently in regards to this.

Were there any truly game-changing resources in these areas? If not, it's hard to imagine why Russia would act as a standard-bearer for Tajik and Uzbek unification; especially with how undeveloped Tajik and Uzbek nationalism was; and how limited Russia's understanding and classification of the ethnic groups there.

How exactly do you define "game-changing" here? Indeed, there are some natural resources in these areas--though I am unsure if this was known about back in the 1930s and 1940s:

AFG_mineral_map_44.jpg


Also, for what it's worth, it appears that Bukhara controlled the Uzbek-majority parts of Afghanistan up to the 19th century:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Turkestan

"At the beginning of the 19th century they belonged to Bukhara; but under the emir Dost Mahommed the Afghans recovered Balkh and Tashkurgan in 1850, Akcha and the four western khanates in 1855, and Kunduz in 1859. The sovereignty over Andkhui, Shibarghan, Saripul, and Maimana was in dispute between Bukhara and Kabul until settled by the Anglo-Russian agreement of 1873 in favour of the Afghan claim."

In turn, this could form the basis for a Russian claim to these areas.

However, as I have previously said, Russia might want Afghanistan as an ally in a future war against the British and thus might not aggressively pursue these territorial claims.

Azeri areas would make a bit more sense, but only a bit.

OK. Also, though, what about going for all of Iran for the natural resources (oil, et cetera) and living space there?:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_industry_mining78.jpg

iran_industry_mining78.jpg


After all, if Hitler managed to sell a war for Lebensraum to the German people in our TL, why can't a non-Bolshevik Russian leader do the same in this TL? Indeed, I can imagine a narrative of how it is Russia's destiny to expand not only to the Pacific Ocean and into Central Asia, but also to the Indian Ocean!
 
Top