After a German WWI victory, the United Baltic Duchy adopts an "open borders" policy for Europeans other than Russians

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#1
What if Germany would have won WWI (this would have to be done through US neutrality in WWI due to no resumption of USW; however, if that's not enough, one is probably going to have to figure out a way for Germany to quickly win in the West in 1914) and the United Baltic Duchy that it would have created in Latvia plus Estonia afterwards (with a German King, presumably) would have adopted an "open borders" policy for Europeans other than Russians (who would have been perceived as a security risk) over the last 100 years? (I suppose that Middle Eastern Christians could also be allowed to immigrate to the United Baltic Duchy.) Basically, think of the US's "open borders" policy towards Europeans until 1917. The logic behind such an "open borders" policy would be similar in both cases--as in, the need to get more people to settle there in order to make good use of more of the land there as well as to become stronger as a nation.

Anyway, just how many Europeans would have actually moved to and permanently settled in the United Baltic Duchy over the last 100 years in such a scenario? Also, which countries would most of them have come from? In addition, what effects would this immigration have on the United Baltic Duchy, its culture, its economy, its cities, its politics, et cetera?
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,382
#2
What if Germany would have won WWI (this would have to be done through US neutrality in WWI due to no resumption of USW; however, if that's not enough, one is probably going to have to figure out a way for Germany to quickly win in the West in 1914) and the United Baltic Duchy that it would have created in Latvia plus Estonia afterwards (with a German King, presumably) would have adopted an "open borders" policy for Europeans other than Russians (who would have been perceived as a security risk) over the last 100 years? (I suppose that Middle Eastern Christians could also be allowed to immigrate to the United Baltic Duchy.) Basically, think of the US's "open borders" policy towards Europeans until 1917. The logic behind such an "open borders" policy would be similar in both cases--as in, the need to get more people to settle there in order to make good use of more of the land there as well as to become stronger as a nation.

Anyway, just how many Europeans would have actually moved to and permanently settled in the United Baltic Duchy over the last 100 years in such a scenario? Also, which countries would most of them have come from? In addition, what effects would this immigration have on the United Baltic Duchy, its culture, its economy, its cities, its politics, et cetera?
Almost none. People were migrating west. Poles, Germans, Everyone generally, To larger cities in Western Germany, or alternatively the Americas.

What's the pull factor? The Things driving migration west are stronger.. It's simply not going to happen.

Better opportunities and lifestyle were in the bigger cities in western Europe and Germany. Those persuing the opptunties that large industrial cities are not going to the Baltics.
If not the Americas, peope leaving because eastern european regime is too restrictive ar enot going to the Baltics.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#3
Almost none. People were migrating west. Poles, Germans, Everyone generally, To larger cities in Western Germany, or alternatively the Americas.
Germany isn't actually going to open its doors en masse to the peoples of Eastern Europe in this scenario, though. The US did have open doors--though that rapidly changed after WWI (something that is likely to still be true in this scenario). With the US's doors being largely closed, where else are Eastern Europeans going to go?

What's the pull factor? The Things driving migration west are stronger.. It's simply not going to happen.
Well, what drove Russian migration en masse into Latvia and Estonia between 1945 and 1991?

Better opportunities and lifestyle were in the bigger cities in western Europe and Germany. Those persuing the opptunties that large industrial cities are not going to the Baltics.
So, what made Baltic cities so attractive to Russians in the late Soviet era in real life?

If not the Americas, peope leaving because eastern european regime is too restrictive ar enot going to the Baltics.
But where else are they going to go if the US's doors are going to largely close?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#4
Please keep in mind that, while the Baltic countries were poorer than Northern and Western Europe in the early 20th century, they actually weren't poorer than Southern and Eastern Europe during this time:

 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,382
#5
Germany isn't actually going to open its doors en masse to the peoples of Eastern Europe in this scenario, though. The US did have open doors--though that rapidly changed after WWI (something that is likely to still be true in this scenario). With the US's doors being largely closed, where else are Eastern Europeans going to go?



Well, what drove Russian migration en masse into Latvia and Estonia between 1945 and 1991?



So, what made Baltic cities so attractive to Russians in the late Soviet era in real life?



But where else are they going to go if the US's doors are going to largely close?
Migration within an absolutists totalitarian state is a different case.

With in Germany better prospects are in Western Germany. There was (as far I understand) migration from eastern Germany to Western Germany. How is the Baltics going to really different from Eastern Germany. Poor agricultural areas. The German push in the Batics was driven by overlord exploitation, which is never going to be a mass movement.


Large scale immigration to the US and the Americas went on till 1930.

1890-1900 3.6 million.
1900-1910 8.2 million.
1910-1920 6.3 million
1920-1930 4.2 million
1930-1940 700,000

Immigration to the USA: 1900-1920
 
Likes: Futurist

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,382
#6
Please keep in mind that, while the Baltic countries were poorer than Northern and Western Europe in the early 20th century, they actually weren't poorer than Southern and Eastern Europe during this time:
Simply not enough to drive immigration relatively minor differences are not going to do it.

The Push is from an rural peasantry into cities and the opportunities of Industrialization.

The Baltics is not going to be able to in a very short time frame suddenly have large industrial cties and the various opptnuties for psossible advancement in lifestyle.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#7
Migration within an absolutists totalitarian state is a different case.
How much less Slavic migration into the Baltic states do you think there would have been had Russia not gone Communist but instead remained a country with freedom of movement?

With in Germany better prospects are in Western Germany. There was (as far I understand) migration from eastern Germany to Western Germany.
Yep, the Ostflucht.

How is the Baltics going to really different from Eastern Germany. Poor agricultural areas. The German push in the Batics was driven by overlord exploitation, which is never going to be a mass movement.
Yeah, I was primarily thinking of Southern and Eastern Europeans--as well as perhaps Middle Eastern Christians--moving to the Baltics in large numbers. Agreed that Northern and Western Europe is unlikely to actually have many takers for this.

Large scale immigration to the US and the Americas went on till 1930.

1890-1900 3.6 million.
1900-1910 8.2 million.
1910-1920 6.3 million
1920-1930 4.2 million
1930-1940 700,000

Immigration to the USA: 1900-1920
Yes, but it was much easier before the quotas of the 1920s--especially for Southern and Eastern Europeans. The 1924 quotas were especially severe for them given that they were made based on the 1890 US Census results--when relatively few Southern and Eastern Europeans were already living in the US. Northern and Western Europeans were less affected by these quotas since a lot of their countries already had plenty of immigrants in the US in 1890.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#8
Simply not enough to drive immigration relatively minor differences are not going to do it.

The Push is from an rural peasantry into cities and the opportunities of Industrialization.

The Baltics is not going to be able to in a very short time frame suddenly have large industrial cties and the various opptnuties for psossible advancement in lifestyle.
Do you think that a non-Communist Russia would have likewise experienced significant difficulties in getting people to move to the Baltics in large numbers?
 
Jan 2019
99
Finland
#9
What if Germany would have won WWI (this would have to be done through US neutrality in WWI due to no resumption of USW; however, if that's not enough, one is probably going to have to figure out a way for Germany to quickly win in the West in 1914) and the United Baltic Duchy that it would have created in Latvia plus Estonia afterwards (with a German King, presumably) would have adopted an "open borders" policy for Europeans other than Russians (who would have been perceived as a security risk) over the last 100 years? (I suppose that Middle Eastern Christians could also be allowed to immigrate to the United Baltic Duchy.) Basically, think of the US's "open borders" policy towards Europeans until 1917. The logic behind such an "open borders" policy would be similar in both cases--as in, the need to get more people to settle there in order to make good use of more of the land there as well as to become stronger as a nation.
AFAIK Germany was intending for the Baltic Germans to rule the Baltics as they had under Poland-Lithuania, Denmark, Sweden and Russia. But in any case, it seems like your 'what if' is building on other what ifs upon the other so that it becomes hard to even contemplate without access to your thought process that came up with this scenario in the first place.

Anyway, just how many Europeans would have actually moved to and permanently settled in the United Baltic Duchy over the last 100 years in such a scenario? Also, which countries would most of them have come from? In addition, what effects would this immigration have on the United Baltic Duchy, its culture, its economy, its cities, its politics, et cetera?
Germans mostly, as to numbers, let's say 452 Germans. It would be a society ruled by a German aristocracy as it had been for the past centuries, trying to keep the various Baltic nationalist movements under a lid of oppression as it had been since the mid-late 19th century.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#10
AFAIK Germany was intending for the Baltic Germans to rule the Baltics as they had under Poland-Lithuania, Denmark, Sweden and Russia. But in any case, it seems like your 'what if' is building on other what ifs upon the other so that it becomes hard to even contemplate without access to your thought process that came up with this scenario in the first place.
Honestly, I was trying to come up with a realistic scenario where the Baltics (especially Latvia and Estonia) would have experienced large-scale settler colonialism but one that was not predominantly Russian in character.

Germans mostly, as to numbers, let's say 452 Germans. It would be a society ruled by a German aristocracy as it had been for the past centuries, trying to keep the various Baltic nationalist movements under a lid of oppression as it had been since the mid-late 19th century.
So, there's no realistic way for the United Baltic Duchy to open its doors to all European ethnic groups other than Russians wide open? I was thinking that bringing new ethnic groups (such as Poles and Ukrainians) to settle in the Baltics might serve Baltic German interests due to the Baltic Germans having the opportunity to play off these groups against the local Balts.