What diasporas could be as big as the British, German and Irish diasporas?

Russian diaspora, perhaps.

If something cut them off from Siberia, I think the ones who headed East would instead go to North America a generation later. An American President with a 'ski' at the end of his name is likely before 1900.

Britain gets Vladivostok, and maybe the rest of Asia east of Baikal north of Manchuria. British-Japanese war is likely at some point, as well as an almost certain earlier opening of Japan.
 

Deleted member 67076

Perhaps the Arab diaspora could be bigger, if the French diaspora is, for if the French settlers discriminate against the Arabs in their own countries and start to overwhelm them, then the Arabs would head out to other parts if the World like the Americas and even Africa if the colonials paid them, since generally Arabs can endure stronger heat than northern Europeans, which is useful in Africa.
The Arab diaspora is already massive, comprising over 15 million people. One doesn't tend to notice them since they assimilate very quickly and for the most part are based in Latin America.

However, you could increase the number if you paradoxically improve the conditions of their homelands, especially pertaining to infrastructure and agriculture. In doing so, you increase the population of the various Arab peoples and generate enough surplus wealth for more people to be able to leave. Most of them would probably go to Latin America as OTL I suspect, given that it was very easy for them to move in as Latin American government weren't that picky with who immigrated.
 
The relatively small size of the French diaspora is noteworthy. Only people on the fringe of Francophone Europe, in Alsace and the Pyrenees, were likely to migrate. WI the impulse to migrate overseas spread more widely in Francophone Europe?
 
So, which countries could have a massive amount of emigration as Britain, Ireland and Germany? My money is on China, Spain, and India, if it wasn't colonized it at least free movement is enabled. What are your ideas?

If we use the same criteria to count the German and Irish diaspora, where usually people are counted as German or Irish by having a single ancestor, then the Spanish and Portuguese certainly have larger diaspora populations. If you count the number of people in Latin America with at least some Spanish ancestry, then at least 250 million people are part of the Spanish diaspora. The difference between people of Spanish descent vs people with other European ancestry in Spanish Speaking America is that being part of the dominant linguistic group they assimilated more quickly than Germans or Italians etc. Also, having in many cases arrived much earlier, their identities have long since disappeared. The same can be said with Portuguese in Brazil where at least half of the population is said to have at least one Portuguese ancestor, making the size of the Portuguese diaspora around 100 million. In Brazil again, the Portuguese identity does not stand out as much due to quick assimilation due to language and culture. The same can be said in Australia, English Canada and the United States where within a generation the English identity fades, whereas an second or third generation Italian will often proudly identify as such.
 
So, which countries could have a massive amount of emigration as Britain, Ireland and Germany? My money is on China, Spain, and India, if it wasn't colonized it at least free movement is enabled. What are your ideas?

Italy's emigration was huge, although not as much as Britain's or Germany's.
 
Italy's emigration was huge, although not as much as Britain's or Germany's.

Italian mass emigration was a later phenomenon than Germany or Ireland's with only 550,000 Italians having left the country between 1789 and 1871, with half of these going to South America (mostly Argentina), though in absolute numbers it was larger. Italy had a massive emigration of 29 million between 1870 and 1985, the difference was that much of this was overwhelmingly male (77%) and temporary in nature, with many in this number being counted more than once. The total net migration out of Italy was nearly 19 million, a huge number by any standard.

Over half of the net (permanent) migration occurred in the 30 years preceding Italy's entry into World War I. The largest periods of net migration were as follows:

Largest periods of Net Migration from Italy
1861-1885 1,900,000
1886-1915 7,937,000
1916-1930 2,607,000
1946-1970 2,992,000

Germany had a net of 6.5 million emigrants to the Americas between 1700 and 1913, and another 2 million between 1914 and 1970. The vast majority went to the United States and came earlier than the Italians, so the number of people with German ancestry will be larger. However, the question is how many have only partial German ancestry, the number seems to be unclear in the United States as in 1980 it stood at 49 million, and jumped to 57 million in 1990 falling to under 43 million in 2000.

In South America there are no official numbers on ethnicity or inquiries to ancestry on census and some of the estimated numbers are vastly overstated and must be taken with a grain of salt. For instance, 250,000 Germans settled in Brazil between 1824 and 1969 and I have seen estimates of 5-7 million people of German ancestry in Brazil. Argentina likewise took in some 200,000 German immigrants between 1857 and 1959 and I see numbers of 3.5 million people with German ancestry listed, again probably a gross exaggeration. Australia too in similar numbers of Germans before 1914, and far more after World War II than either Brazil or Argentina, and people with German ancestry number 900,000 there by comparison.

Ireland too as had an estimated 9 to 11 million emigrate since 1700, with the majority going to North America (including the Caribbean), Great Britain, and Australia with smaller numbers going to South Africa, New Zealand, Argentina. Again as the bulk of this emigration was earlier than the Italy's, the number of people claiming an Irish ancestor will be larger. Between 1850 and 1913 alone some 4.5 million Irish emigrated.

Also important is the early emigration from the Iberian Peninsula and England to the Americas shown below and would account for such large diaspora populations.

Emigration from Europe Overseas
Before 1580
Portugal 330,000 (17% of 1580 population)
Spain 139,000 (1.85% of 1580 population)

Emigration from Europe Overseas
1580-1640
Portugal 360,000 (18% of 1600 population)
Spain 188,000 (2.4% of 1600 population)
Britain & Ireland 126,000 (2.6% of 1600 population)
France 4,000 (0.02% of 1600 population)
Netherlands 2,000 (0.1% of 1600 population)

1640-1700
Britain & Ireland 248,000 (4.1% of 1700 population)
Spain 158,000 (3.1% of 1700 population)
Portugal 150,000 (7.1% of 1700 population)
France 23,000 (0.1% of 1700 population)
Netherlands 13,000 (0.68% of 1700 population)

1700-1760
Portugal 600,000 (26% of 1760 population)
Britain & Ireland 372,000 (5.6% of 1760 population)
Spain 193,000 (2.1% of 1760 population)
Germany 97,000 (0.5% of 1760 population)
France 27,000 (0.1% of 1760 population)
Netherlands 5,000 (0.19% of 1760 population)

1760-1820
Britain & Ireland 615,000 (3% of 1820 population)
Portugal 105,000 (3.5% of 1820 population)
Spain 70,000 (0.6% of 1820 population)
Germany 51,000 (0.19% of 1820 population)
France 20,000 (0.07% of 1820 population)
Netherlands 5,000 (0.2% of 1820 population)
 
Italian mass emigration was a later phenomenon than Germany or Ireland's with only 550,000 Italians having left the country between 1789 and 1871, with half of these going to South America (mostly Argentina), though in absolute numbers it was larger. Italy had a massive emigration of 29 million between 1870 and 1985, the difference was that much of this was overwhelmingly male (77%) and temporary in nature, with many in this number being counted more than once. The total net migration out of Italy was nearly 19 million, a huge number by any standard.

Over half of the net (permanent) migration occurred in the 30 years preceding Italy's entry into World War I. The largest periods of net migration were as follows:

Largest periods of Net Migration from Italy
1861-1885 1,900,000
1886-1915 7,937,000
1916-1930 2,607,000
1946-1970 2,992,000

Germany had a net of 6.5 million emigrants to the Americas between 1700 and 1913, and another 2 million between 1914 and 1970. The vast majority went to the United States and came earlier than the Italians, so the number of people with German ancestry will be larger. However, the question is how many have only partial German ancestry, the number seems to be unclear in the United States as in 1980 it stood at 49 million, and jumped to 57 million in 1990 falling to under 43 million in 2000.

In South America there are no official numbers on ethnicity or inquiries to ancestry on census and some of the estimated numbers are vastly overstated and must be taken with a grain of salt. For instance, 250,000 Germans settled in Brazil between 1824 and 1969 and I have seen estimates of 5-7 million people of German ancestry in Brazil. Argentina likewise took in some 200,000 German immigrants between 1857 and 1959 and I see numbers of 3.5 million people with German ancestry listed, again probably a gross exaggeration. Australia too in similar numbers of Germans before 1914, and far more after World War II than either Brazil or Argentina, and people with German ancestry number 900,000 there by comparison.

Ireland too as had an estimated 9 to 11 million emigrate since 1700, with the majority going to North America (including the Caribbean), Great Britain, and Australia with smaller numbers going to South Africa, New Zealand, Argentina. Again as the bulk of this emigration was earlier than the Italy's, the number of people claiming an Irish ancestor will be larger. Between 1850 and 1913 alone some 4.5 million Irish emigrated.

Also important is the early emigration from the Iberian Peninsula and England to the Americas shown below and would account for such large diaspora populations.

Emigration from Europe Overseas
Before 1580
Portugal 330,000 (17% of 1580 population)
Spain 139,000 (1.85% of 1580 population)

Emigration from Europe Overseas
1580-1640
Portugal 360,000 (18% of 1600 population)
Spain 188,000 (2.4% of 1600 population)
Britain & Ireland 126,000 (2.6% of 1600 population)
France 4,000 (0.02% of 1600 population)
Netherlands 2,000 (0.1% of 1600 population)

1640-1700
Britain & Ireland 248,000 (4.1% of 1700 population)
Spain 158,000 (3.1% of 1700 population)
Portugal 150,000 (7.1% of 1700 population)
France 23,000 (0.1% of 1700 population)
Netherlands 13,000 (0.68% of 1700 population)

1700-1760
Portugal 600,000 (26% of 1760 population)
Britain & Ireland 372,000 (5.6% of 1760 population)
Spain 193,000 (2.1% of 1760 population)
Germany 97,000 (0.5% of 1760 population)
France 27,000 (0.1% of 1760 population)
Netherlands 5,000 (0.19% of 1760 population)

1760-1820
Britain & Ireland 615,000 (3% of 1820 population)
Portugal 105,000 (3.5% of 1820 population)
Spain 70,000 (0.6% of 1820 population)
Germany 51,000 (0.19% of 1820 population)
France 20,000 (0.07% of 1820 population)
Netherlands 5,000 (0.2% of 1820 population)

France is far and away the biggest outlier, with proportionally few emigrants throughout this period. I wonder why? Was it simply a lack of sufficiently attractive destinations?

The obvious WI is a larger French diaspora. What will it take for emigration to take off?
 
France is far and away the biggest outlier, with proportionally few emigrants throughout this period. I wonder why? Was it simply a lack of sufficiently attractive destinations?

The obvious WI is a larger French diaspora. What will it take for emigration to take off?

It's because most parts of France lacked the "push" factor for emigration seen in Germany, South Italy, and other regions of heavy emigration; namely, low standards of living. In fact, many regions of France saw a net increase in population from migration, which is to say that more people immigrated to those parts of France than there were people who emigrated. I can only speak with full confidence about demographics in southeastern France, where in regions like the Dauphiné there was a net influx of immigrants from Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Eastern Europe, and virtually no emigration. There are a few exceptions to this trend; for instance there's a small valley near Grenoble that I forgot the name of that saw 33% of its population leave for the Americas due to endemic poverty. TL;DR If you want more emigration from France, the issue isn't making possible destinations more attractive, the issue is making France less attractive.
 
France is far and away the biggest outlier, with proportionally few emigrants throughout this period. I wonder why? Was it simply a lack of sufficiently attractive destinations?

The obvious WI is a larger French diaspora. What will it take for emigration to take off?

During the absolutist regime, the largest emigration from France was some 180,000 Huguenots who left mostly for Protestant Europe, particularly for the United Provinces, England, Brandenburg and Switzerland. The French colonies in North America gained a reputation for being too cold and uncivilised, and the few who did settle in New France and Lousiana totaled perhaps no more than 15,000 during the entire colonial period. Most of these were migrants during the 17th century. The French government only briefly attempted to send over subsidised migrants to the colonies, first in 1663-1673 to New France and once again in 1763 to French Guiana. The almost 20 million people with French ancestry in North America are almost entirely the descendants of a very small, but highly fertile group of people. Early on the birthrate in French North America was very high, and remained so until around 1960.

In France, the Bourbons saw themselves as primarily a Continental Power and their mindset reflected that. The colonies were secondary, and even within that framework, the West Indies and India were seen as more important than North America. For that reason, the crown was always wary of depopulating France to settle America. France in contrast had a fertility rate that had fallen dramatically by 1800, with 2 children being the average by the mid-19th century, and were it not for immigration from Italy, Spain, and other European countries, France's population would have not grown at all.

While there was emigration from France in the 19th century, only around 1 million people left the country during the century. One of the largest destinations was South America, with around 1/4th going to Argentina and Uruguay. Another 400,000 went to the United States between 1820 and 1914, but of these numbers one half were temporary migrants. Many were in actuality businessmen, skilled craftsmen, chefs etc. Others went to Egypt, Mexico, Cuba, etc, and these were largely men engaged in commerce. The poor migration was mainly limited to Mediterranean and Southern France along with Corsica. In the 19th century, one-fifth of the emigration was from the Basses-Pyrénées, and perhaps another fifth from Corsica. Corsicans tended to favour Argentina and Tunisia. Even in Algeria, the French had to rely on non-French migrants, mainly from Spain and Italy and even Switzerland to populate the territory.

This contrasts with Spain and Portugal in their colonies. For Spain, the draw of silver and riches attracted many particularly during the first century of colonisation. The Spanish Crown did attempt to limit this flow as it too was afraid of losing potential soldiers for their wars to the New World. Portugal on the other hand had local authorities encourage migration as a way to get rid of poverty and social ills. The country also lacked enough arable land as early as the 15th century, hence the drive to conquer Berberia and the Atlantic Islands as sources of grain. Perhaps because it was such a small power and relatively isolated from Europe's Wars, the crown saw no point in trying to build a large army to compete with much larger kingdoms, and instead pursued a policy of neutrality in wars, meanwhile allying itself with England. The colonies became dumping grounds for the poor, with elites often writing about rounding up the poor to send to Brazil, Mozambique etc, usually paying fares for thousands of settlers in a single voyage. Portuguese texts from the 16th and 17th centuries often speak glowingly of various lands as places where Portugal could settle and send its poor, and often allude to creating new realms for the king. Perhaps the most important period was the gold rush in Brazil, and after it had been discovered in Brazil, mass migration from the Northern Portugal and the Atlantic Islands led to around 600,000 people seeking their fortune in Brazil between 1700 and 1760 alone.
 
Last edited:
That is a good survey of French migration history, immigration and emigration both. I still wonder whether more emigration might have been possible. As contemporary central and eastern Europe shows, simply having fertility rates at replacement or sub-replacement levels is no guarantee that there will not be emigration, even substantial net emigration. What matters is that accessible possibilities for a better life exist.

I can imagine that, had the 19th century gone less well for France, or had things gone better in certain destinations, we might have seen emigration on such a scale that the population would have declined. Something not dissimilar happened in Ireland.
 
I could see Poland conceivably having a larger diaspora. Emigration didn't start in any true numbers until the 1850s and 1860s (mainly Kashubes and Silesians) and then it really picked up from the 1870s through WWI. Could an even more repression crackdown on the Poles after the Third Partitian in 1795 have caused more out migration to the United States and other nations (conceivably France, due to the strong historical ties between Poland and France ... or, possibly, Quebec. New World, low population, Catholic. Hmmmmmm).
 
The first wave of substantial immigration to France, under the Second Empire, came from neighbouring countries (Belgium, Italy, Spain). I can imagine adding Poland to that list, but that might require greater ties between Poland and France, ones stronger than mere sentiment.
 
The first wave of substantial immigration to France, under the Second Empire, came from neighbouring countries (Belgium, Italy, Spain). I can imagine adding Poland to that list, but that might require greater ties between Poland and France, ones stronger than mere sentiment.

Well, it was a bit greater than mere sentiment. Following the Third Partition many Polish rebels, and romantic nationalists fled to France and became involved in the French universities.
 
I mean economic connections. Poles are going to have to think that France is not only a good destination for exiles, but that it's a good place to earn a living, too.

France can offer this. The main obstacle I see is that Germany will be major competition with France as a destination for Polish migrants, as the nearer country with institutional ties to the Prussian territories.
 
I mean economic connections. Poles are going to have to think that France is not only a good destination for exiles, but that it's a good place to earn a living, too.

France can offer this. The main obstacle I see is that Germany will be major competition with France as a destination for Polish migrants, as the nearer country with institutional ties to the Prussian territories.

I imagine that Poles could begin to migrate to France, and many did during the interwar period of the 20th century. Emigration in countries in Europe usually began at a point when population growth rates jumped due to better access to food along with declining mortality rates. This often put pressure on agrarian populations as larger families had less land. This was already the situation in Ireland by the late 18th century and seemed to have become an issue in Eastern and Southern Europe during the second half of the 19th century. For Poles the highest emigration rate was from the Kingdom of Galicia, which was ruled by Austria. Austria was a Catholic Empire and by and large treated its Polish subjects far better than Russia or Prussia (later Germany), conferring them with political rights in the form of an autonomous diet or sejm in 1861. However, the overpopulation in Galicia led to large-scale emigration of all three major groups from the region, Poles, Ukrainians and Jews with some 750,000 emigrating permanently in the thirty years preceding World War I. The Russian-controlled Kingdom of Poland also had large-scale emigration overseas during this period of Poles along with Jews, with the latter being subject to harsh pogroms. The Kaiser's Germany for all its faults controlled 20% of the Polish population, yet Poles were far less likely to emigrate overseas from the German Empire (the same went for Jews) during this period. In fact Poles from the East were increasingly settling in the industrial lands of the Ruhr and Rhineland, while seasonal workers from Russian and Austrian Poland were increasingly coming to work on the estates of Eastern Germany. Though this migration was part of a general Ostflucht where 2 million ethnic Germans too moved westward to Berlin and the industrial Rhineland during the same period. With the large scale industry Germany and even Vienna or the industrial cities of Bohemia as an option, they might be more tempting than Paris or Lyon.
 
I think Japan and Korea could have had much larger diasporas, particularly the former. While there is a sizeable Japanese diaspora in the Western Hemisphere, and notable ethnic Korean populations in China, the former Soviet Union, and the US, I think there was potential for a much larger spread of these ethnic groups across Asia before the second World War. The Japanese had a long history in the Philippines, Taiwan, and the South Pacific, and it's a wonder they didn't leave larger descendant populations there. It would also be interesting to see ethnic Japanese populations in Northern Asia large enough to be recognized as official minorities in China and Russia.
 
I imagine that Poles could begin to migrate to France, and many did during the interwar period of the 20th century. Emigration in countries in Europe usually began at a point when population growth rates jumped due to better access to food along with declining mortality rates. This often put pressure on agrarian populations as larger families had less land. This was already the situation in Ireland by the late 18th century and seemed to have become an issue in Eastern and Southern Europe during the second half of the 19th century. For Poles the highest emigration rate was from the Kingdom of Galicia, which was ruled by Austria. Austria was a Catholic Empire and by and large treated its Polish subjects far better than Russia or Prussia (later Germany), conferring them with political rights in the form of an autonomous diet or sejm in 1861. However, the overpopulation in Galicia led to large-scale emigration of all three major groups from the region, Poles, Ukrainians and Jews with some 750,000 emigrating permanently in the thirty years preceding World War I. The Russian-controlled Kingdom of Poland also had large-scale emigration overseas during this period of Poles along with Jews, with the latter being subject to harsh pogroms. The Kaiser's Germany for all its faults controlled 20% of the Polish population, yet Poles were far less likely to emigrate overseas from the German Empire (the same went for Jews) during this period. In fact Poles from the East were increasingly settling in the industrial lands of the Ruhr and Rhineland, while seasonal workers from Russian and Austrian Poland were increasingly coming to work on the estates of Eastern Germany. Though this migration was part of a general Ostflucht where 2 million ethnic Germans too moved westward to Berlin and the industrial Rhineland during the same period. With the large scale industry Germany and even Vienna or the industrial cities of Bohemia as an option, they might be more tempting than Paris or Lyon.

They were OTL. The communities of Ruhrpolen date to the 19th century, while Polish labour migration to France seems to only have begun after the beginning of the 20th century, Polish immigration only taking off in the interwar period as the Third French Republic compensated for demographic weaknesses by turning to the Polish Second Republic.

I don't know what would make France more attractive. Greater wealth, greater demographic weakesses, both? Conceivably, a Poland that did not have close ties with Germany might see its intra-European migrant flows be less Germany-focused.
 
I think Japan and Korea could have had much larger diasporas, particularly the former. While there is a sizeable Japanese diaspora in the Western Hemisphere, and notable ethnic Korean populations in China, the former Soviet Union, and the US, I think there was potential for a much larger spread of these ethnic groups across Asia before the second World War. The Japanese had a long history in the Philippines, Taiwan, and the South Pacific, and it's a wonder they didn't leave larger descendant populations there. It would also be interesting to see ethnic Japanese populations in Northern Asia large enough to be recognized as official minorities in China and Russia.

Japan's defeat in the Second World led to the repatriation of those diaspora populations to Japan. Had Japan not been so defeated, these would likely have remained.
 
Top