Post 1800 AHC - Russia excels US Pop. and GDP by 2000.

Deleted member 94708

Population would be quite easy; simply have the USSR struggle on through the present day, with enough reform to keep the economy from imploding and dragging birth rates down as catastrophically as occurred in the 1990's IOTL. That would leave it with a higher population than the US, quite handily, and it would be viewed as "Russia," just as it always was.

Arranging for it to have a larger GDP is dramatically more difficult, as it would require us to dramatically alter the shape of the 19th and 20th centuries. The Russian Empire and the USSR after it both had larger populations than the US did, but neither was larger to the extent of being able to putter along with a third of US GDP per capita and still have a larger overall GDP than it, as is the case with both China and India today. In 1900 US GDP per capita was somewhere between three and four times that of Russia, and its industrial production per capita was significantly higher even than that.

This is superficially similar to the situation Japan faced at the beginning of the 20th century, and it managed to essentially close the gap between its per capita GDP and that of the US by the present, but the details are different. First, Japan was bombed to bedrock in WWII and rebuilt with state-of-the-art industries using US money afterwards, largesse the Russian Empire is unlikely to receive because it would be unlikely to be in a war with the US in the first place. Secondly, Japan was and is fundamentally a fairly small nation; as China is discovering at present, it's only possible to ride the export-oriented growth model to First World living standards if you are yourself small enough for your entire industrial output to be absorbed by the developed world until you can begin to consume more of it internally. Thirdly, it got lucky in that it became the primary staging area and logistics hub for a large US military presence both in-country and scattered across East and Southeast Asia

Russia would thus be in the position of being too large to fully modernize using the model followed by Japan, Korea, or Taiwan, but too small for it to outmatch the GDP of the US with a much lower per capita output, like China soon will. The only scenarios I can envision that allow it to surpass the US in overall GDP size by 2016 all involve a moderate US-screw and Russia-wank.

For example, prevent Mexico from being so much of a basket case following independence while preserving the US drive for continental supremacy. A few indecisive wars later the US has only a small window on the Pacific in the Oregon Country and a domestic party similar to the Know-Nothings which manages to supplant one of the major parties on the back of anti-Mexican (and the attendant anti-Catholic and anti-foreigner) paranoia, and gets some immigration restrictions put in place. Between those and the lack of a third of its land area, the US only has about 200-240 million people in 2016, and a smaller GDP per capita (though not extremely so, perhaps more on the order of 40-45,000 USD per capita rather than OTL's 55,000 USD. Russia, meanwhile, gets kicked a bit harder during the Crimean War, paving the way for more liberal reforms following during Alexander II's longer reign, such that he doesn't get assassinated and Russia in 1900 is roughly as much a constitutional monarchy as OTL's Second Reich was at the same time. Sooner or later there will be a Great War, but if Russia doesn't completely get kicked to pieces the only effect will be for returning veterans to demand better treatment and more participation in the political process. All of these will have the effect of amplifying and accelerating the trends towards industrialization and economic growth which were already present in OTL's Russia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. With an increasing divergence from 1860 on, Russian per capita GDP could conceivably be at half of American levels in 1900, and without American involvement in an alt-Great War, some degree of convergence could continue, though growth rates would inevitably slow.

There'd be an earlier demographic transition, but to counter that, few or none of the demographic catastrophes of the 20th century, such that the population of the area ruled by the Russian Empire could easily be close to 400 million in 2016 (say 380 million). If its per capita GDP makes it to 30-35,000 USD by 2016, then that leaves it with a low-end estimate of GDP of 11.4 trillion USD versus TTL US's high-end estimate of 10.8 trillion USD.

This substantially adheres to the spirit proposed by the OP, but not quite. The problem is that even if Russia modernizes and liberalizes at an excellent, but believable, pace over the period from 1860-1950, its per capita GDP will not converge with that of a US which follows OTL's path of economic development. The more quickly it develops, the sooner it will have a demographic transition. Even assuming that it manages to maintain control over all its territories and weld them into a single national identity, it can't possibly have much more than 400 million people, which would require it to have a per capita GDP of 45,400 USD to match the US's OTL economic output. I don't regard that as possible, not without some sort of ASB-like perfect foresight on the part of those running its government.

If I had to try, while the US develops as OTL, perhaps Russia follows the same path as above until TTL's Great War, then the alliances break down such that they're opposed to Germany and A-H as OTL, but perform better using a more industrialized style of warfare. They receive reparations in the form of first-class German industrial and chemical plants and patents on technology, giving them a competitive advantage going into an interwar period before a vengeful Germany tries for round two and is essentially kicked into scrap by the Russians alone, who decline to implement a Marshall Plan-analogue. They wind up with even more territory in Central and Eastern Europe, 420+ million people, and some of the same reputation the Germans have with regards to the manufacturing of high-quality machinery, capital goods, and chemical feedstocks, and are the economic engine of Europe, having replaced Germany in that role after TTL's WWII. The US is as OTL except that it doesn't participate in either world war and has a more balanced economy and military than IOTL, but more or less the same territory, population, and per capita wealth. That would probably get Russia up to the 45,000 USD GDP per capita it needs, and a GDP of 18.9 trillion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: LeX
This substantially adheres to the spirit proposed by the OP, but not quite. The problem is that even if Russia modernizes and liberalizes at an excellent, but believable, pace over the period from 1860-1950, its per capita GDP will not converge with that of a US which follows OTL's path of economic development. The more quickly it develops, the sooner it will have a demographic transition. Even assuming that it manages to maintain control over all its territories and weld them into a single national identity, it can't possibly have much more than 400 million people, which would require it to have a per capita GDP of 45,400 USD to match the US's OTL economic output. I don't regard that as possible, not without some sort of ASB-like perfect foresight on the part of those running its government.

This is an excellent post in general, but have you accounted for immigration? Britain has gone through the demographic transition, arguably the first to do so, and currently had a fertility rate of below 2 children-per-woman, but the population still grows thanks to immigration. It doesn't seem all that radical to suggest that a liberal, modern Russia with a huge amount of land still to settle won't be an attractive proposition for immigrants if it has the right legislation in place. Especially if America has Trumped itself, if you know what I mean.
 

Deleted member 94708

This is an excellent post in general, but have you accounted for immigration? Britain has gone through the demographic transition, arguably the first to do so, and currently had a fertility rate of below 2 children-per-woman, but the population still grows thanks to immigration. It doesn't seem all that radical to suggest that a liberal, modern Russia with a huge amount of land still to settle won't be an attractive proposition for immigrants if it has the right legislation in place. Especially if America has Trumped itself, if you know what I mean.

The UK is, IMO, the wrong example to look towards here. It and France are the only European nations which held truly world-spanning empires (even France is questionable), from all parts of which significant numbers of people migrated to the Metropole, and thus the only ones with a real tradition of accepting immigrants before WWII. Russia is an Empire, but if we're to fulfill the OP then it must retain virtually all of the territory it has in 1900, so those places will hardly be providing immigrants to Russia. I view Germany as a better model for how immigration into Russia might begin (guest worker programs and the like), but even the notion of people emigrating there in the 1950's is probably too early; at that point Russia will still have tens of millions of its own poor rural peasants to integrate into a formal, urban economy before it even considers allowing mass immigration.

I expect that it will be somewhat like Scandinavia is today in this regard; new to the immigration game and still feeling its way into the rules. On one hand, immigration will allow it to avoid population decline. On the other, it's unused to assimilating new blood, and also, to what culture should they be assimilated, given the Russia itself is multi-ethnic? So yes, in the future immigration would be a going concern in population projections, but immigration up to 2000 probably only had a very negligible impact.
 
This is an excellent post in general, but have you accounted for immigration? Britain has gone through the demographic transition, arguably the first to do so,

France started its demographic transition in the late 18th century. Britain's started a century later.

France started encouraging immigration from neighboring countries in the late 19th century, and even more so after World War I. But this was done out of concerns that its population was growing too slowly and (especially post-WWI) that it had a shortage of manpower. Russia ITTL probably won't be in that situation as it had a very high birth rate in its pre-Soviet period.

I think the key here is to focus on Russia's natural population growth and cutting down on various catastrophes that led to massive death tolls. A Russia that never goes communist and avoids getting involved in the two world wars (or at least isn't fighting on its home soil) most likely is much more populous and prosperous today. Because of that prosperity, it may start to become a magnet for immigration, but probably only in recent decades.
 
I don't pretend that this is a valid reason of any kind, but it is kind of telling that in the era of 1860-1920 there were lots of Russian emigres coming to the US and if there wasn't a closed border policy between the two, the immigration would probably have continued until today. Apart of Lee Harvey Oswald and Edward Snowden, I do not know of any Americans voluntarily moving to the USSR, the Successoe State or even Tsarist Russia (And even Oswald famously returned after a year to go live in - of all places - Dallas. As a Texan, this tells me something about how great his experience in the USSR must have been.) but I digress, the big picture still is:
=> people leaving the geographical Russia (the Empire, the USSR, the Successor State...) because of persecution, war, hardship and discrimination
=> people coming to the US to escape the above. Okay, there was the civil war, but for the main centers of immigration in the North, the war had already shifted to faraway down south by 1862. You still had discrimination, but as long as you weren't black, this was barely a trickle of what it was back home.

So to reverse this trend:
=> in geographical Russia: Less discrimination and pogroms in the 19th century, no persecution of dissidents, less wars, or at least less wars fought on their own territory
=> in the US: a longer and more bloody Civil War, a strong nativist movement resulting in more and stricter Exclusion Acts for immigrants.
 
Top