Without Communism, Poles are less likely to work as seasonal workers in Germany, as they could get the same wages at home.
Why?
Without Communism, Poles are less likely to work as seasonal workers in Germany, as they could get the same wages at home.
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.
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.
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 dues to the language barrier, I assume most immigrants from postcolonial states would simply go to Western Europe.
Why what? Why would Poland be richer without Communism?Why?
Why what? Why would Poland be richer without Communism?
This: we must remember that Poles had quite large presence in coal mining communities of Rhur, Pas-de-Calais and Belgium up to interwar period, and worked as a seasonal agricultural workers in Eastern Germany (East Prussian farmers even gave polish language advertisements in newspapers looking for workers even in the 30ties). So i think that migration patterns of Eastern Europe wold be similar to Italian, Spanish and Portugal from OTL minus "colonial based migrations".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.
Fair point, but higher standard of living would still translate to less gastarbeiters. But you're right, the phenomenon would exist, just not to the extent of OTL.The question was directed towards "they would get the same wages as home". Really, why? Just because it wouldnt be communist would not immediately translate to being as rich as Germany.
Hell, the first gastarbeiter were Spanish and Italian. And even today you have large movements of people from Eastern Europe to Western Europe for work.
Why?
Why what? Why would Poland be richer without Communism?
Because a surviving Second "Republic" would be a paranoid military junta fighting against a Ukrainian insurgency and crushing internal dissidents, both democratic and communist. It would have enemies to the north (Lithuania), east (Soviets), west (Germany) and a grudge to bear against its southern neighbor (Czechoslovakia). Now the economy would still improve over time, but to imagine that the country would open its borders and embrace multiculturalism is ridiculous.We can say, I think, that a shared language and/or history makes migration easier. This helps explain, for instance, migration from Francophone Africa to France and Belgium, say, or from Latin America to Spain and Portugal. It is not the only factor, however. Relatively small states, as the example of Sweden underlines, can also become noteworthy destinations for immigrants from far and wide. As for larger states, who is to say that a surviving Second Republic Poland might not become a noteworthy force in the wider world before it becomes a destination for immigrants?
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.
That's a good point in regards to the short-run; however, in the long(er)-run, as the demographic transition begins affecting Eastern Europe more and more, Western Europe might still have to look for guest workers from elsewhere.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.
The language barrier didn't prevent a lot of Latin Americans or Asians from immigrating to the U.S. in our TL, though.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.
Beautiful post!As for language being a barrier for immigrants to central and eastern Europe, I'm skeptical of this. Sweden lacks any substantial colonial presence after the Napoleonic Wars and Swedish influence is largely confined to northern Europe, but Sweden has nonetheless become a significant magnet. Germany is much more influential, granted, but many of the biggest immigrant groups in Germany (Turks and Kurds, for instance) come from regions of the world with historically little German influence. Romanians are now the single largest immigrant groups in both Italy and Spain, a product almost entirely of post-1989 links. The United Kingdom lacked an especially large Polish community before 2004, but choices made by the British government led to a huge boom in Polish migration to the United Kingdom.
We can say, I think, that a shared language and/or history makes migration easier. This helps explain, for instance, migration from Francophone Africa to France and Belgium, say, or from Latin America to Spain and Portugal. It is not the only factor, however. Relatively small states, as the example of Sweden underlines, can also become noteworthy destinations for immigrants from far and wide. As for larger states, who is to say that a surviving Second Republic Poland might not become a noteworthy force in the wider world before it becomes a destination for immigrants?
Why what? Why would Poland be richer without Communism?
In addition to Zajir's graph here, I would like to point out that the blogger Anatoly Karlin previously did some research in regards to the connection between human capital and economic prosperity:The question was directed towards "they would get the same wages as home". Really, why? Just because it wouldnt be communist would not immediately translate to being as rich as Germany.
Hell, the first gastarbeiter were Spanish and Italian. And even today you have large movements of people from Eastern Europe to Western Europe for work.
Beautiful post and graph!Per Angus Maddison in 1950:
Czechslovakia had a GDP/capita of 3501 USD, in 1989 it had one of 8768 USD, a growth of 2,49.
Hungary had a GDP/capita of 2480 USD in 1950 and 6903 USD in 1989, a growth of 2,78
Poland had a GDP/capita of 2447 USD in 1950 and 5683 in 1989, a growth of 2,32
Greece had a GDP/capita of 1915 USD (!) in 1950 and 10111 USD in 1989, a growth of 5,28
Portugal had a GDP/capita of 2086 USD in 1950 and 10371 USD in 1989, a growth of 4,97
Spain had a GDP/capita of 2189 USD in 1950 and 11528 USD in 1989, a growth of 5,29
Three socialist countries which where richer than three capitalist countries in 1950 where poorer in 1989 after 39 years of "socialist development". Most notably Czechslovakia which was leaps and bounds ahead of the others ended up being behind all three.
View attachment 346008
Poland was probably the probably worst performing socialist economy relative to its development level, combined with the huge losses sustained in WW2, it's hard to imagine Poland being poorer in a no WW2/socialism TL
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.
Please keep in mind that Britain isn't wealthier than other Western European countries in spite of having an earlier head start in regards to industrialization, though.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.
What about for Eastern Europe? Where will their own guest workers come from once they begin rapidly industrializing and developing?
What about for Eastern Europe? Where will their own guest workers come from once they begin rapidly industrializing and developing?
Completely agreed. However, the anti-Semitism and resentment of Jews in this TL might not only be due to the belief that Jews are taking natives' jobs, but also due to the very serious possibility that Jews will be able to, on average, become wealthier than the natives after several generations.
Indeed, how do you think that a nativist Western European would feel if some poor Jewish immigrants had grandchildren who were extremely wealthy?
o
That would certainly significantly help in the short-run, but what about the long(er)-run?Natural growth? The USSR alone lost somewhere between 20-40 million people in WWII. Thats a lot of dead and a whole lot more unborn.
Denmark doesn't have very many Jews to begin with, though.I don't necessary think Jews would be super rich, I was reading about the 100 richest families in Denmark this weekend. The vast majority of these was families of Danish ancestry, almost all the rest was of German descend, a single was of partly Jewish descend.
Per Angus Maddison in 1950:
Czechslovakia had a GDP/capita of 3501 USD, in 1989 it had one of 8768 USD, a growth of 2,49.
Hungary had a GDP/capita of 2480 USD in 1950 and 6903 USD in 1989, a growth of 2,78
Poland had a GDP/capita of 2447 USD in 1950 and 5683 in 1989, a growth of 2,32
Greece had a GDP/capita of 1915 USD (!) in 1950 and 10111 USD in 1989, a growth of 5,28
Portugal had a GDP/capita of 2086 USD in 1950 and 10371 USD in 1989, a growth of 4,97
Spain had a GDP/capita of 2189 USD in 1950 and 11528 USD in 1989, a growth of 5,29
Three socialist countries which where richer than three capitalist countries in 1950 where poorer in 1989 after 39 years of "socialist development". Most notably Czechslovakia which was leaps and bounds ahead of the others ended up being behind all three.
Poland was probably the probably worst performing socialist economy relative to its development level, combined with the huge losses sustained in WW2, it's hard to imagine Poland being poorer in a no WW2/socialism TL
That's a good point in regards to the short-run; however, in the long(er)-run, as the demographic transition begins affecting Eastern Europe more and more, Western Europe might still have to look for guest workers from elsewhere.
In addition to Zajir's graph here, I would like to point out that the blogger Anatoly Karlin previously did some research in regards to the connection between human capital and economic prosperity:
As for Mr. Karlin shows, for conventional countries, there is a 0.84 correlation between their levels of human capital and their levels of economic prosperity:
Now, as you can see here, some Eastern European countries--such as Poland, Russia, and Czechia--perform about as well on PISA as various Western European countries do:
In turn, what this suggests is that these countries--or specifically the parts of these countries which are Polish-majority/Russian-majority/Czech-majority--would have levels of economic prosperity and a standard of living which is comparable to that of Western Europe if they didn't have a history of Communist rule.
What do you count as short and long runs? If we count in decades, you might soon reach the point when automation starts to remove the need for a lot of these "guest workers".
"Suggests that it might have" doesnt really fill me with confidence. I have little doubt that Western Europe would still be richer; its sheer financial and economic power is just too great.