Would there be much more immigrants in Eastern Europe right now if it wasn't for Communism?

CaliGuy

Banned
Had Eastern Europe avoided Communist rule (for instance, had World War II never happened, or had the Bolshevik Revolution never occurred in Russia), would there have been much more immigration into Eastern Europe during the 20th and 21st centuries and thus much more immigrants in Eastern Europe right now?

Basically, I am curious about this considering that the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Western Europe all have sizable immigrant populations right now whereas Eastern Europe generally doesn't (with the possible exception of Russia, but a lot of the "immigrants" in Russia's case are simply ethnic Slavs from other ex-USSR countries). Indeed, would having a capitalist economy throughout the entire 20th century have caused Eastern Europe to receive much more immigration than it did in our TL?

Also, on a related note, would Eastern Europeans have been (much) more tolerant and supportive of mass immigration right now if it wasn't for them living under Communist rule for half a century or more?
 
The Johnson–Reed Act of 1924 was specifically designed to exclude immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, and it was not until 1965 Hart-Celler act that racial quota's were abolished in US immigration. Basically, the US is going to limit immigration based on national origins unless and until it decides this is incompatible with its evolving understanding of civil rights. In practice, if not under communism, more people from Eastern Europe would immigrate, but given US law and practice, this might be less than you imagine.
 
The Johnson–Reed Act of 1924 was specifically designed to exclude immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, and it was not until 1965 Hart-Celler act that racial quota's were abolished in US immigration. Basically, the US is going to limit immigration based on national origins unless and until it decides this is incompatible with its evolving understanding of civil rights. In practice, if not under communism, more people from Eastern Europe would immigrate, but given US law and practice, this might be less than you imagine.
This is about immigration to Eastern Europe, not emigration from it.
 

Ryan

Donor
The lack of communism would, generally, mean that eastern Europe is richer (which would make it a more attractive target for immigrants) and less conservative (due too no backlash against the left) so assuming everything else is the same, probably yes.

But of course, without ww2 and the nazis discrediting eugenics, racial superiority etc. The idea of preventing immigration from outside of Europe and America might never go out of style, meaning that Europe in general would have far less immigrants.
 
This is about immigration to Eastern Europe, not emigration from it.

Well that will teach me; post in haste, repent at leisure. More people would want to immigrate to Eastern Europe if they enjoyed an economic boom instead of communist repression, but as my US example shows (it's not a dumb mistake, I'm just illustrating a point;)) even generally immigrant friendly countries can throw up major barriers under domestic pressure. Given that the post WWI countries of Eastern Europe were self-consciously ethnic nation state, some might mightily resist immigration. Of course, even with formal barriers, there are always such "solutions" as mass border violations, and "temporary guest workers" that stay for three generations. My one historical lesson would be that countries can pursue contradictory ends with immigration policies, and swiftly and dramatically reverse themselves.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The Johnson–Reed Act of 1924 was specifically designed to exclude immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, and it was not until 1965 Hart-Celler act that racial quota's were abolished in US immigration. Basically, the US is going to limit immigration based on national origins unless and until it decides this is incompatible with its evolving understanding of civil rights. In practice, if not under communism, more people from Eastern Europe would immigrate, but given US law and practice, this might be less than you imagine.
As Pyramus said, this thread is about people immigrating to Eastern Europe--not from Eastern Europe.

The lack of communism would, generally, mean that eastern Europe is richer (which would make it a more attractive target for immigrants) and less conservative (due too no backlash against the left) so assuming everything else is the same, probably yes.

OK. Also, which Third World countries do you think are going to be the largest senders of immigrants to Eastern Europe in this TL?

But of course, without ww2 and the nazis discrediting eugenics, racial superiority etc. The idea of preventing immigration from outside of Europe and America might never go out of style, meaning that Europe in general would have far less immigrants.

There would still be the issue of labor shortages, though; indeed, wasn't that why some Western European countries accepted large numbers of immigrants after the end of World War II?

Well that will teach me; post in haste, repent at leisure. More people would want to immigrate to Eastern Europe if they enjoyed an economic boom instead of communist repression, but as my US example shows (it's not a dumb mistake, I'm just illustrating a point;)) even generally immigrant friendly countries can throw up major barriers under domestic pressure. Given that the post WWI countries of Eastern Europe were self-consciously ethnic nation state, some might mightily resist immigration. Of course, even with formal barriers, there are always such "solutions" as mass border violations, and "temporary guest workers" that stay for three generations. My one historical lesson would be that countries can pursue contradictory ends with immigration policies, and swiftly and dramatically reverse themselves.

Do you think that the Eastern European countries were more ethno-nationalistic than, say, Germany or Italy was?
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
The higher wealth is one significant factor for why Western Europe has more immigrants. But an arguably more important factor is that Western Europe had colonies. White settlers would go to the colonies, and some colonized peoples would go to their colonizer's country. After the end of colonialism, many Western European countries would still take labor from their former colonies. Eastern Europe doesn't have colonies.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The higher wealth is one significant factor for why Western Europe has more immigrants. But an arguably more important factor is that Western Europe had colonies. White settlers would go to the colonies, and some colonized peoples would go to their colonizer's country. After the end of colonialism, many Western European countries would still take labor from their former colonies. Eastern Europe doesn't have colonies.
Eastern Europe would be much wealthier if it didn't have a history of Communism, though.

Also, you have a point about colonies; however, please keep in mind that even countries which don't have much of a recent history of colonialism--such as Spain and Germany (Yes, they had colonies, but not very many of them and sparsely populated ones)--have a lot of immigrants nowadays in our TL.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
OK. Also, which Third World countries do you think are going to be the largest senders of immigrants to Eastern Europe in this TL?
Diaspora returning to the motherland, as well as those left outside the borders (e.g. Hungarians left in Slovakia because of Trianon moving to Hungary.

There would still be the issue of labor shortages, though; indeed, wasn't that why some Western European countries accepted large numbers of immigrants after the end of World War II?

The more rural, poor, agrarian, and under-industrialized nature of Eastern Europe would likely mean that labor shortages are much less likely due to lower labor demand and higher birth rates. Also, war deaths probably contributed to the labor shortages of Western Europe. Natalism will also be more popular around the world in a no-WW2 scenario.

Do you think that the Eastern European countries were more ethno-nationalistic than, say, Germany or Italy was?

It's hard not to be ethnonationalist when you know at least one of your neighbors would conquer you and try to erase your culture if they could, and every minority is more loyal their ethnic brethren than to your own state.

But yes, there would almost certainly be more immigration. Probably not much more though, and Eastern Europeans are only going to be slightly more tolerant.
 
Last edited:

CaliGuy

Banned
Diaspora returning to the motherland, as well as those left outside the borders (e.g. Hungarians left in Slovakia because of Trianon moving to Hungary.

Western European diasporas (such as Italians abroad) don't appear to have returned to their (ancestors') homelands en masse after the end of World War II in our TL, though.

The more rural, poor, agrarian, and under-industrialized nature of Eastern Europe would likely mean that labor shortages are much less likely due to lower labor demand and higher birth rates.

Eastern Europe will industrialize--indeed, perhaps rapidly industrialize--during the 20th century in this TL, though. Also, some Eastern European countries--such as Hungary--already had relatively low total fertility rates even before the start of World War II.

Also, war deaths probably contributed to the labor shortages of Western Europe.

Actually, I doubt that it had that much of an impact in Western Europe outside of Germany itself. After all, other than for Germany, Western European World War II casualties were rather mild (in the grand scheme of things).

Natalism will also be more popular around the world in a no-WW2 scenario.

You're forgetting that we had a 30-year-long baby boom after the end of World War II in our TL, though.

It's hard not to be ethnonationalist when you know at least one of your neighbors would conquer you and try to erase your culture if they could, and every minority is more loyal their ethnic brethren than to your own state.

To be honest, I think that you are exaggerating here.

But yes, there would almost certainly be more immigration. Probably not much more though, and Eastern Europeans are only going to be slightly more tolerant.

OK.
 
It would depend on policy and to what extent multiculturalism made headway. Eastern Europe was on a path of economic growth roughly as Southern Europe was doing before communism, so if they welcomed it it would be expected to be around the South European level, still lesser than Western Europe which the migrants would prefer. It might be much greater in Russia if it became rich and maintained rule over Central Asia, the "immigrants" would be central Asian internal migrants.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
It's worth pointing out that a world without World War 2 is a world in which America will stay isolationist, and the world will thus be much less globalized. Tariffs, trade barriers, and state-owned enterprises will be more common. This means less multinational corporations. All of these things would lead to less immigration. Also, the English language will be much less dominant. This means that immigrants will be expected to actually learn their host country's language instead of getting by with English. Can you imagine some Arab or African trying to learn Lithuanian or Polish or Hungarian when they could learn English or French instead and go to the UK or France (or any other Francophone or Anglophone country)? In fact, if they come from a French or British colony then they might already know English or French.
 
It's worth pointing out that a world without World War 2 is a world in which America will stay isolationist, and the world will thus be much less globalized. Tariffs, trade barriers, and state-owned enterprises will be more common. This means less multinational corporations. All of these things would lead to less immigration. Also, the English language will be much less dominant. This means that immigrants will be expected to actually learn their host country's language instead of getting by with English. Can you imagine some Arab or African trying to learn Lithuanian or Polish or Hungarian when they could learn English or French instead and go to the UK or France (or any other Francophone or Anglophone country)? In fact, if they come from a French or British colony then they might already know English or French.

America is not as isolationist as it claims to be and it never was.

Granted, Russia could still succeed if the Feb Revolution happened, but not the Oct one. It would be a democratic republic, if mainly in the control of various socialist factions for a while and have a focus on agriculture at first.

I'm thinking once Russia stabilizes, they'll do pretty well for themselves. I doubt there would be alot of nations heading to Eastern Europe. Though one scenario could be WW1 was won by Germany and such Eastern Europe is pretty much everything between Germany and Russia barring the Nordic ations and German-African folk could settle in the area at most. As for Russia itself, well, I can picture Middle Eastern immigrants heading for the Central Asiain territories and most othrs toward in places like Siberia, especially if Russia needs the manpower
 
Without Conmunism we keep the tradition guest worker pattern of Europe, which means that the Middle Eastern immigrants in north and Central Europe are replaced by eastern Central Europeans and in those countries we likely see East European immigrants and in Russia we see Central Asians. Without the Holocaust there will likely be a lot of Jews among the guest workers and we're likely to see a high degree of antisemitism among nativist groups.
 
Most likely not.

Even if we remove 50 years of communism, Eastern Europe is likely still going to be somewhat poorer than the West due to simply not having the same headstart. (Of course, it varies from country to country - Czechoslovakia would definitely be a first world country, and if the Baltics reform back into democracies in time, they can become so too).

And the thing about immigrants is that they prioritize countries based on two factors - whether it is wealthy and whether it is close. For immigrants from, say, North Africa, it would be a hassle to go to a poorer part of Europe when the richer part is also close (and even closer).

Of course, I am talking about emigrants here, not, say, refugees, who follow different sets of logic. If there is a major war somewhere near Eastern Europe (Balkans or Caucasus come to mind), then EE countries can expect visitors.
 
Most likely not.

Even if we remove 50 years of communism, Eastern Europe is likely still going to be somewhat poorer than the West due to simply not having the same headstart. (Of course, it varies from country to country - Czechoslovakia would definitely be a first world country, and if the Baltics reform back into democracies in time, they can become so too).

And the thing about immigrants is that they prioritize countries based on two factors - whether it is wealthy and whether it is close. For immigrants from, say, North Africa, it would be a hassle to go to a poorer part of Europe when the richer part is also close (and even closer).

Of course, I am talking about emigrants here, not, say, refugees, who follow different sets of logic. If there is a major war somewhere near Eastern Europe (Balkans or Caucasus come to mind), then EE countries can expect visitors.

Eastern Europe on average might well be poorer than Western Europe, but there would be at least some nations that would have comparatively higher living standards. Czechoslovakia would be an obvious example, without getting caught behind the Iron Curtain it could have very possibly seen economic development akin to Sweden or the Netherlands.

Generally, I'd say there would be more immigration than IOTL anyway, simply due to there being less travel restrictions and the average standards of living being better than in the "Third World". Depending how Russia develops, non-Russian Eastern Europe might also see Russian and Central Asian immigration for work. For many nations, though, I agree with you - this immigration would not be very significant. There might not be the incentives to move to Latvia or Bulgaria, say, simply because they could be sort of poor-to-decent economically (in the general European context), comparatively distant and poorly known outside Europe. Finland is one example we could use to extrapolate for the Baltic states: despite growing wealthier all through the 20th century, it was just too small, distant and unknown to attract major amounts of immigrants in that timeframe. Language and culture would also be issues, as learning smaller languages or acclimatizing to smaller cultural spheres like Hungary or Poland would not be seen as easy and rewarding as moving to Britain, France or Germany.
 
Eastern Europe would be much wealthier if it didn't have a history of Communism, though.

Also, you have a point about colonies; however, please keep in mind that even countries which don't have much of a recent history of colonialism--such as Spain and Germany (Yes, they had colonies, but not very many of them and sparsely populated ones)--have a lot of immigrants nowadays in our TL.
Czechoslovakia wel ommed numbers of former subjects of Russian empire. Opened schools for them. At peak som 25000 of them lived in Czechoslovakia. One of them gained rank of General and comanded 1st Czechoslovak army in 1938. Number of Greek exulants found they home after Civil war there. Numbers of Vietnamies are living in Czech republik - some 60000 and some 5000 in Slovakia, Afghans omming during their war against Taliban terrorists in 80-ties were comming to study in Czechoslovak universities, many stayed. Cambogians.
Syrians, Lybians etc. However I believe Arabs were
Less popular, heard compliance about arrogance. Not small number for country without colonies.
And I am not talking about numbers of
ukrainians working now in Czech republic, Slovakia and Poland. So Eastern European not accepting immigrants at all is a actually crap.
Immigrants in Eastern Europe are just not making news in west. After all since shit hit the fan in Ukraine Poland gave work to hundred of thousands of Ukrainians. In smaller numbers in Slovakia and Czech republic.
 
A point that is ignored I think is that without Communist travel restrictions a lot of the non-European immigrants in Western Europe would likely be replaced with Eastern Europeans. For example the largest immigrant group in Germany would most likely be Poles rather than Turks simply because of the distances involved and the relatively long tradition of Polish guest/seasonal workers in Germany.
 
A point that is ignored I think is that without Communist travel restrictions a lot of the non-European immigrants in Western Europe would likely be replaced with Eastern Europeans. For example the largest immigrant group in Germany would most likely be Poles rather than Turks simply because of the distances involved and the relatively long tradition of Polish guest/seasonal workers in Germany.
Without Communism, Poles are less likely to work as seasonal workers in Germany, as they could get the same wages at home.

In general, Eastern Europe would receive a bit more immigrants, but due to the language barrier, I assume most immigrants from postcolonial states would simply go to Western Europe.
 
Last edited:
Top