As per the title, in an ATL without World War II, would there still be OTL levels of mass immigration to countries like Germany, France, and the UK? How much immigration do you guys think would take place without the second world war?
Would mass immigration to Europe still happen without WWII?
- Thread starter Berkeley2017
- Start date
I can't figure out how WW2 not happening would significantly change something to immigration towards Europe.
Immigration happens because of demography, economy, geography, past politics (colonization) and present political crisis.
Sure, some political crisis would not happen or would not happen the way they did (Vietnam, Cambodia, Irak, Syria). But they are marginal in the causes of mass migration.
Immigration happens because of demography, economy, geography, past politics (colonization) and present political crisis.
Sure, some political crisis would not happen or would not happen the way they did (Vietnam, Cambodia, Irak, Syria). But they are marginal in the causes of mass migration.
You're contradicting yourself here.
WWII had an enormous effect on European demography, economy, geography and especially politics, so even by your definition it has a lot to do with post-war immigration.
The first generation of immigrants to Europe, mainly from colonial empires, took place mainly too fill the labour shortage of those countries after WW2. No war, and one would think that wouldn't happen. Equally, the movement within Europe we have seen in the last few decades has in part been caused by EU law on immigration, which as an institution is less likely to the extent that it did without WW2, and equally there wouldn't be former Eastern Bloc countries to drive it, since the Warsaw Pact never existed.
That said, with globalisation and European countries being relatively strong economically, some amount of movement is inevitable. It is also unclear from the post what happens in the absence of WW2, which could drive increased immigration by itself. The continued existence of dictatorships around the continent is likely gonna create quite a few refugees.
In 1930, there were 351M people in Europe, 99M in North Africa and the Middle East, and 117M in the rest of Africa. In 2016, there were 523M Europeans, 566M in NA&ME, and 986M in other Africa. Since 1980, Europe has added 50M, while Africa and the Middle East have added 905M.
If there was no WW II, the population of Europe would be somewhat larger. But Africa and the Middle East wouldn't grow any less; the demographic pressure would be about the same.
However, elite Europeans might be less reflexively supportive of immigration.
If there was no WW II, the population of Europe would be somewhat larger. But Africa and the Middle East wouldn't grow any less; the demographic pressure would be about the same.
However, elite Europeans might be less reflexively supportive of immigration.
It really depends on the dynamics of the war of not having a war, and what sort of governments would be in place in Europe. The post-war reconstruction coupled with the economic integration of the Western European nations and the Marshall Plan led to an unprecedented period of economic growth in Europe (both West and even East) lasting roughly until 1973. Without the war, countries might remain mired in the economic protectionist ideologies that predominated during the interwar period, resulting in lower growth. Also, military spending would probably be a larger part of government spending, dampening or retarding the growth of consumer goods and spending which would lead to the economic rebound in Europe. Without a war, some countries in Europe have far more people, particularly Poland, Germany, the Soviet Union, etc, meaning that Europe as a whole has a much larger labour pool.
Additionally, the by and large made ethnic/religious discrimination as something that quickly was condemned by the international community. If there is no war, there probably would be no The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and no international consensus condemning exclusionary ethnic/religious policies. In the Western World at least, the experience of the war, particularly in Western Europe has put into place laws which allowed multi-ethnic societies to become commonplace by the 1960s. Without the experience of the war, you may have policies in some countries where certain ethnicities are rounded up en masse and deported. The US undertook such a policy aimed at Mexican workers between 1929 and 1936 and even again in 1954 (Operation Wetback), but by the 1960s and 1970s such policies were harshly criticised by civil society. With the rule of law in place, and being more strictly enforced, such wholesale expulsions have become complicated and cumbersome. Without the war, such expulsions might be much more acceptable or palatable to the native populations in countries.
After World War II, West Germany began recruiting workers from from different countries to fill the gap for workers to rebuild after the war. Initially, German refugees from the East were the major source of this movement, but as West Germany's consumer-goods led economy became a world leader, foreigners were sought, and migration agreements with various countries were made. The first were with Italy in 1955, Spain and Greece in 1960. East Germany had also been a source of workers, but in August 1961 with the erection of the Berlin Wall, this movement came to a halt. As a result, agreements with Turkey, Morocco, Portugal, Tunisia and Yugoslavia were signed. Without the War, there might still be a much larger pool of Eastern Europeans to recruit from, particularly if Communism is limited to the Soviet Union. With that being the case, Poland, the Baltics, Balkans are all going to make more sense from a mass recruitment standpoint, at least for several decades.
With France, if the economy does grow as it did, there were already Arab Algerians coming to the country in the 1950s in large numbers. This would probably still continue, but I imagine there would be more Poles, Romanians and other Eastern Europeans in the 1950s and 1960s than there were. With the Poles this particularly makes sense as there were Polish workers coming to the country during the 1919-1939 period.
With the Netherlands, if there is no World War II, Indonesia's decolonisation would be completely different. This would alter the arrival of Eurasians and South Moluccans. Also, the arrival of Turks and Moroccans in the 1960s might also not occur in the same fashion if Eastern Europeans arrive in large numbers instead. This is particularly true if migration agreements with Eastern European nations are concluded.
For the United Kingdom, it would be interesting to see if there is still a major economic growth leading to postwar immigration from the Commonwealth. Prior to the War, Britain had large-scale immigration from Ireland. Smaller numbers of migrants from Italy and Eastern Europe also were significant.
Additionally, the by and large made ethnic/religious discrimination as something that quickly was condemned by the international community. If there is no war, there probably would be no The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and no international consensus condemning exclusionary ethnic/religious policies. In the Western World at least, the experience of the war, particularly in Western Europe has put into place laws which allowed multi-ethnic societies to become commonplace by the 1960s. Without the experience of the war, you may have policies in some countries where certain ethnicities are rounded up en masse and deported. The US undertook such a policy aimed at Mexican workers between 1929 and 1936 and even again in 1954 (Operation Wetback), but by the 1960s and 1970s such policies were harshly criticised by civil society. With the rule of law in place, and being more strictly enforced, such wholesale expulsions have become complicated and cumbersome. Without the war, such expulsions might be much more acceptable or palatable to the native populations in countries.
After World War II, West Germany began recruiting workers from from different countries to fill the gap for workers to rebuild after the war. Initially, German refugees from the East were the major source of this movement, but as West Germany's consumer-goods led economy became a world leader, foreigners were sought, and migration agreements with various countries were made. The first were with Italy in 1955, Spain and Greece in 1960. East Germany had also been a source of workers, but in August 1961 with the erection of the Berlin Wall, this movement came to a halt. As a result, agreements with Turkey, Morocco, Portugal, Tunisia and Yugoslavia were signed. Without the War, there might still be a much larger pool of Eastern Europeans to recruit from, particularly if Communism is limited to the Soviet Union. With that being the case, Poland, the Baltics, Balkans are all going to make more sense from a mass recruitment standpoint, at least for several decades.
With France, if the economy does grow as it did, there were already Arab Algerians coming to the country in the 1950s in large numbers. This would probably still continue, but I imagine there would be more Poles, Romanians and other Eastern Europeans in the 1950s and 1960s than there were. With the Poles this particularly makes sense as there were Polish workers coming to the country during the 1919-1939 period.
With the Netherlands, if there is no World War II, Indonesia's decolonisation would be completely different. This would alter the arrival of Eurasians and South Moluccans. Also, the arrival of Turks and Moroccans in the 1960s might also not occur in the same fashion if Eastern Europeans arrive in large numbers instead. This is particularly true if migration agreements with Eastern European nations are concluded.
For the United Kingdom, it would be interesting to see if there is still a major economic growth leading to postwar immigration from the Commonwealth. Prior to the War, Britain had large-scale immigration from Ireland. Smaller numbers of migrants from Italy and Eastern Europe also were significant.
Deleted member 1487
Well in the case of Germany it was the loss of men in WW2 that caused the first waves of immigration as the nation sought 'guest workers' to fill out the jobs of the expanding economy. Without WW2 millions of Germans and Europeans wouldn't die so even if there were still surplus jobs in Germany they could do what they did pre-WW2 and bring in foreign guest workers from Europe to do those jobs (Greeks, Dutch, Italians, Poles, Hungarians, etc. all came to work in Germany in the 1930s during the 'nazi' recovery). In the long run there might be colonial immigration to Europe 'homelands' on a smaller scale, but absent the losses and disruptions of WW2 it is unlikely we'd see anything like OTL 3rd world immigration to Europe. Besides avoiding manpower losses the maintenance of steady birthrates would continue unabated, while trade patterns wouldn't be disrupted during the 1930s-40s recovery, and racism wouldn't drop off like it did post-WW2 out of necessity in the search for labor and success of the left in Europe. It's hard to see a '60s generation in Europe that would be so liberal without WW2 and the horrors of that war and the Nazi regime. Plus colonialism would probably continue longer.
France was arguably the first major European country to become a destination for large-scale migration, the Second Empire and the Third Republic seeing the beginning of large-scae movement from France's poorer neighbours (Belgium, Italy, Spain) to the métropole. (I say "arguably" because large-scale migration from Ireland to the United Kingdom predates this, Ireland now but not then being a separate country.) By the early 20th century, Germany was starting to become a labour importer, becoming a noteworthy destination for migrants from the countries to the east.
By the 1920s, France had already started to attract migrants from Algeria, Arab and Berber both, in addition to some migrants from French Africa and the Caribbean. This non-European immigration was less elsewhere for a variety of reasons.
A lot depends on what, exactly, happens. Do we see a European economic boom roughly paralleling OTL's, for instance? Do we get any Europe-wide economic organization? We could conceivably have had less migration: If central and eastern Europe was in a position to continue to send migrants to West Germany, for instance, then Turkey might not have become a source of guest workers.
Against this, the colonial empires that crashed and burned OTL might be in a position to last longer, potentially establishing more and closer ties between colonies and metropoles. If--to name a non-arbitrary example--Algeria stays part of France for longer, that will create more opportunity for Algerians to move to France. As I noted, the Algerian migration to France started in the 1920s, so there was that.
On top of this, it does not seem as if there is much correlation between a country having been devastated in the Second World War and a country becoming a destination for immigrants from outside of Europe. European countries which suffered from the war only lightly (Denmark, particularly) or not at all (Sweden, Switzerland) also become significant destinations for non-European migrants, to say nothing of the example of countries populated largely by descendants of European migrants like Canada and Australia and the United States which also opened up.
A poorer Europe, one with fewer opportunities, might attract fewer immigrants from outside of Europe, or at least postpone this immigration to later. Compare the onset of mass immigration in northwestern Europe to southern Europe, for instance.
By the 1920s, France had already started to attract migrants from Algeria, Arab and Berber both, in addition to some migrants from French Africa and the Caribbean. This non-European immigration was less elsewhere for a variety of reasons.
A lot depends on what, exactly, happens. Do we see a European economic boom roughly paralleling OTL's, for instance? Do we get any Europe-wide economic organization? We could conceivably have had less migration: If central and eastern Europe was in a position to continue to send migrants to West Germany, for instance, then Turkey might not have become a source of guest workers.
Against this, the colonial empires that crashed and burned OTL might be in a position to last longer, potentially establishing more and closer ties between colonies and metropoles. If--to name a non-arbitrary example--Algeria stays part of France for longer, that will create more opportunity for Algerians to move to France. As I noted, the Algerian migration to France started in the 1920s, so there was that.
On top of this, it does not seem as if there is much correlation between a country having been devastated in the Second World War and a country becoming a destination for immigrants from outside of Europe. European countries which suffered from the war only lightly (Denmark, particularly) or not at all (Sweden, Switzerland) also become significant destinations for non-European migrants, to say nothing of the example of countries populated largely by descendants of European migrants like Canada and Australia and the United States which also opened up.
A poorer Europe, one with fewer opportunities, might attract fewer immigrants from outside of Europe, or at least postpone this immigration to later. Compare the onset of mass immigration in northwestern Europe to southern Europe, for instance.
So, in order to answer this question, we're going to have to determine what exactly happens to Europe without the massive Second World War. Do we see a more limited conflict? Who wins? Do we see no conflict at all? How does Europe, and its component territories, start to evolve? Do we see anything like the European Union form? (The EEC, I would note, was useful to Italy as among other things a way to make the labour migration of its citizens to northwestern Europe easier.)
I would not bet on non-European migration being limited for long. Even in a best-case scenario for Europe, where this is no general war and there is a general slide towards the sort of non-zero sum integration that culminated OTL in the European Union, there would still be factors leading to migration to Europe. There would be Europe's existing ties with non-Europe, for one, and Europe's wealth relative to non-Europe for another. Not counting on below-replacement fertility is also a mistake, especially since interwar Europe had low birth rates. It's entirely possible European demographics might be worse in the long run without anything like OTL's baby boom, muted by the standards of North America though it might be.
I would not bet on non-European migration being limited for long. Even in a best-case scenario for Europe, where this is no general war and there is a general slide towards the sort of non-zero sum integration that culminated OTL in the European Union, there would still be factors leading to migration to Europe. There would be Europe's existing ties with non-Europe, for one, and Europe's wealth relative to non-Europe for another. Not counting on below-replacement fertility is also a mistake, especially since interwar Europe had low birth rates. It's entirely possible European demographics might be worse in the long run without anything like OTL's baby boom, muted by the standards of North America though it might be.
Mass immigration from the Middle East and North Africa to Europe started long before the present crisis.
Many of these immigrants have had little or no connection to the Levant and the Arab-Israeli conflict - for instance, Moroccan immigrants to the Netherlands, and Turkish gastarbeiteren in Germany. To which might be added Somali refugees.
I hate the term "mass immigration" it's such an obvious dog whistle and nobody ever says anything. What number qualifies as "mass" anyway? America's taken far more immigrants from Europe than Europe has taken from the third world and no one ever calls it "mass" immigration. I wonder why...
/rant
As to the OP, no WW2 would certainly affect population movements, but that alone wouldn't be determinative as to how much. If you really want to slow "mass" (*ugh*) immigration, your best bet is to make Europe less prosperous or the third world more so. But bags of immigrants (to the UK at least) come from Western Europe, North America, and Australia, so I'm not sure how much it would affect the raw numbers in any event.
/rant
As to the OP, no WW2 would certainly affect population movements, but that alone wouldn't be determinative as to how much. If you really want to slow "mass" (*ugh*) immigration, your best bet is to make Europe less prosperous or the third world more so. But bags of immigrants (to the UK at least) come from Western Europe, North America, and Australia, so I'm not sure how much it would affect the raw numbers in any event.
Making the Third World more prosperous wouldn't necessarily diminish immigration. Very often the people who migrate to richer countries are not the very poorest but actually belong to the better-off classes of their home countries--they are the people who can afford the cost of moving. Greater wealth might mean that more people would be able to move.
That said, I'm not sure this would necessarily be that relevant for Europe, as major immigrant sources like Turkey and North Africa could count as middle-income and also have very good transportation links with Europe.
That said, I'm not sure this would necessarily be that relevant for Europe, as major immigrant sources like Turkey and North Africa could count as middle-income and also have very good transportation links with Europe.
Rubbish. The 1840-1930 immigration wave from Europe to the U.S. was mass immigration, and no one ever said otherwise.
A Google search on "mass immigration in the 19th century" turns up many hits...
"the Italians' mass immigration began in the late 19th century ..."
"Mass Immigration and WW I"
"Mass migration continued until the First World War..."
"Argentina in the Era of Mass Immigration"
"When mass immigration resumed in the 1870s...
"The closing of the door to mass immigration in the 1920s..."
"Throughout the 19th century mass immigration transformed whole countries..."
"The 1880s and 1890s were years of unprecedented technological innovation, mass immigration, and ..."
"...the mass immigration of Chinese laborers..."
"Why didn't Canada receive the same mass immigration that the United States did..."
"Swedish mass-immigration to the U.S. began in earnest in the mid 1840s..."
"In the era of mass immigration, anti-Catholicism often found..."
"...American workers saw the mass immigration as Europe dumping ..."
"...urban population growth was fueled by an unprecedented mass immigration ..."
"...resulting lack of economic opportunity were by far the greatest cause of the mass immigration..."
"Mass Immigration Begins. • From 1840 & 1860, "
"After their first wave of mass immigration in the 1850s..."
"... station opened in New York City to accommodate mass immigration."
"...period of mass immigration, during which five million people left Europe..."
Yeah, and if you remove the caveat "in the 19th century" you'll get nearly 18 times as many results, the vast majority of them from right wing sources (as opposed to nonpartisan academic ones). That's what makes it a dogwhistle - plausible deniability.
We do have an example of mass immigration to first world countries which haven't even pretended to implement these reforms: Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Arabian states. The population of these states are predominantly immigrant guest workers, albeit workers who are rotated out on a regular basis.
I don't see any reason that fascistic European states, or for that matter democratic states with an unashamedly racist majority, couldn't implement a similar system. Although the ratio of citizens to guest workers won't be nearly so tilted towards the latter.
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are never held to the same standards that Western Europe is, and this is a trend that has been ongoing since World War II. After the collapse of Communism, this was extended to include Eastern Europe, which is why Ukraine and Russia or Milosevic's Serbia received more criticism and attention than Saudi Arabia or Gulf States. This is not something that has to do enjoying a high degree of economic development. For better or worse, Europe, the U.S. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are held to a different standard. If a country in Western Europe acted in the same manner that the Saudis or Gulf States do, it would face all sorts of international condemnation and perhaps even sanctions by the EU or even UN. Additionally, the fact that those regimes are strategically important and contain around two-thirds of the world's oil reserves leads to a situation where Western Governments will often ignore human rights abuses there.
Exactly. Would we still see this trend without WW2, without the collapse of fascism and the discrediting of racism and hypernationalism in the West? Even if we did see a similar trend, I'm doubtful that it would be as forceful or all-pervasive.
There's also the example of guest workers, mainly but not only Vietnamese, in the better-off states of Communist Europe (East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia). These migrants did fill useful jobs, but they were also strictly controlled in their movements and actions.