Deleted member 93645
How could Russia fully industrialize, to Germany or Britain levels, in the 19th century?
Pain doesn’t end at death. Suffering implodes in those who lost someone. However, that doesn’t necessarily denote that an individual’s death isn’t for the better. When influencing any sort of balance of power, perspective is everything.
Such is the case of Count Karl Ferdinand von Buol, the President and Foreign Minister of the Austrian Empire who much opposed the rise of Russian influence in the Balkans as much as France and Britain did. These superstitions came to the OTL Anglophile statesman in spite of Russian Czar Nicholas I rescuing the Habsburg monarchy from a Hungarian Revolt in 1849 and subsequently Russia’s intervention on Austria’s behalf against Prussia leading to the Punctation of Olmütz in 1850 – both just shortly before his administration. Von Buol had chosen not to side with Austria’s ally Russia during the struggling Crimean War and even maneuvered a Russian withdrawal of parts of the Ottoman Empire. Though fate changed his legacy when – instead of peacefully dying in 1865 Vienna at the 1865 in Vienna and the gray-haired aged of 68 – Felix von Schwarzenberg fell victim to the Third Cholera Pandemic in the August of 1853.
A man once called Von Bach 'quite wonderfully unprincipled'. The Crimean War broke out in Europe just a month after Baron Alexander von Bach assumed Austria’s most prominent leadership role, after Emperor Franz Josef’s ranking of course. Von Bach keenly positioned with neo-Absolutists seeking further centralization and the repression of freedom of press. The Baron believed that the continuity of Austria’s alliance with Russia was necessary to maintain the pacification of the Habsburg Empire. Russia had helped quell Hungary’s revolt half a decade earlier – a debt that still remained unpaid – and further Russian presence in the Balkans should encapsulate Hungary and thereby assure the mollifying of any future rebellion.
Such is the case of Count Karl Ferdinand von Buol, the President and Foreign Minister of the Austrian Empire who much opposed the rise of Russian influence in the Balkans as much as France and Britain did. These superstitions came to the OTL Anglophile statesman in spite of Russian Czar Nicholas I rescuing the Habsburg monarchy from a Hungarian Revolt in 1849 and subsequently Russia’s intervention on Austria’s behalf against Prussia leading to the Punctation of Olmütz in 1850 – both just shortly before his administration. Von Buol had chosen not to side with Austria’s ally Russia during the struggling Crimean War and even maneuvered a Russian withdrawal of parts of the Ottoman Empire. Though fate changed his legacy when – instead of peacefully dying in 1865 Vienna at the 1865 in Vienna and the gray-haired aged of 68 – Felix von Schwarzenberg fell victim to the Third Cholera Pandemic in the August of 1853.
A man once called Von Bach 'quite wonderfully unprincipled'. The Crimean War broke out in Europe just a month after Baron Alexander von Bach assumed Austria’s most prominent leadership role, after Emperor Franz Josef’s ranking of course. Von Bach keenly positioned with neo-Absolutists seeking further centralization and the repression of freedom of press. The Baron believed that the continuity of Austria’s alliance with Russia was necessary to maintain the pacification of the Habsburg Empire. Russia had helped quell Hungary’s revolt half a decade earlier – a debt that still remained unpaid – and further Russian presence in the Balkans should encapsulate Hungary and thereby assure the mollifying of any future rebellion.
Pesigalam
Banned
To the contrary of certain popular Western memes, Russian Empire was like the 4th or 5th most industrialised nation of the 19th century:
(This graph puts it behind the Habsburg Empire, but I've seen other sources placing it ahead)
Even with a POD like earlier freeing of the surfs (this was considered throughout Russia's history at various times) I'm not sure if you could get Russia even more industrialised given restrictions placed on it by geography (e.g.: vast area, so you need a sprawling railway network to connect manufacturing hubs, etc.)
Russia had a factor of 4 population growth in the 19c, even more than Britain, and was the most populous country outside China and India from the late 18c until the breakup of the USSR. France grew by a factor of 1.4, the lowest in Christian Europe, and still managed to expand its share of world manufacturing (though not of European manufacturing). If you measure GDP per capita, for which there's reasonably good data for the late 19c, Russia was poorer than every single Western European country, often by a large margin. Per the Angus Maddison database, its GDP per capita in 1990 dollars in 1900 was $1,237, vs. $4,492 in the UK, $2,985 in Germany, $2,876 in France, and $4,091 in the US.
To the contrary of certain popular Western memes, Russian Empire was like the 4th or 5th most industrialised nation of the 19th century:
(This graph puts it behind the Habsburg Empire, but I've seen other sources placing it ahead)
Even with a POD like earlier freeing of the surfs (this was considered throughout Russia's history at various times) I'm not sure if you could get Russia even more industrialised given restrictions placed on it by geography (e.g.: vast area, so you need a sprawling railway network to connect manufacturing hubs, etc.)
Are you sure about that graphic? Though seeing the UK, France and Germany ahead of the US seems correct, I thought that by 1900 the US was well ahead of both Austria and Italy. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
You misunderstood. The total share of GDP is the width of each stripe. So the US is the biggest, Italy is just a narrow slice, the UK is the second biggest, and Germany is the third biggest.
What do we mean by industrialized here? Enough manufacturing output or just in terms of wealth per capita?
I'm no economists, but thinking of The Russian Empire makes me feel like their comparative advantage might not be in manufacturing. I feel like lots of commodity extraction and farming with what were then considered modern technology might be a better way to make Russia wealthy and build a middle class. Some manufacturing and financial services, but only to a smaller degree.
Anyone who knows more about Russia or economics than me have any thoughts?
I'm no economists, but thinking of The Russian Empire makes me feel like their comparative advantage might not be in manufacturing. I feel like lots of commodity extraction and farming with what were then considered modern technology might be a better way to make Russia wealthy and build a middle class. Some manufacturing and financial services, but only to a smaller degree.
Anyone who knows more about Russia or economics than me have any thoughts?
Pesigalam
Banned
That's nice dear.
The GDP per capita of 19th century Russia is however irrelevant to whether or not Russia was the 4th-5th most industrialized nation of the time-period. The GDP per capita of modern People's Republic of China is still very low but I doubt you'd argue that China isn't one of the industrial centers of today's world.
(P.S.: also, having a large & growing population isn't a big motivator for industrialization)
2016 is not 1900. In 2016, China has a GDP per capita of about $15,000, and the US $55,000; subsistence level is $500, and even with non-subsistence agriculture, the large bulk of China's economic production is industrial or related services. In 1900, the UK's GDP per capita was, in today's terms, $6,000, and Russia's was less than $2,000. Even though Russia was well above subsistence, a lot of its economy was still agrarian.
The UK was never the world's highest-GDP country. China remained number 1 until overtaken by the US in the late 19c; Britain overtook it only after the US did. This despite the fact that for many decades the UK had the world's highest manufacturing capacity. The issue is that in an early-industrial setting, having the population without the GDP per capita doesn't give you a lot of resources to industrialize.
The US went from 5.2 million people in 1800 to 76 million in 1900. Somehow, it managed to overtake Britain's GDP per capita in 1906.
Pesigalam
Banned
Way to undermine your own argument
I said "large & growing population isn't a big motivator for industrialization", not that it was the ONLY factor that determines whether a country industrializes or not.
LordKalvert
Banned
Russia had several stumbling blocks to industrialization
1) Poorly organized agriculture which wasted both labor and provided bad yeilds. The scattered plots and inability to use land as collateral prevented the use of advanced machinery and the selling out by bad farmers Russian yields were about one/third what they should have been and they used about three times the labor A strong agrarian sector provides the capital for investment
2) High tariffs particularly on capital goods and raw materials. Cotton was about 40% and iron cost about 3 times what it did in Britain. No wonder they could never develop a textile or metal working industry
3) Extremely bad transportation sector which raised the cost of everything beyond belief
4) Russia really isn't that far behind the other powers in absolute terms if not on a per capita level. About five years of Stalinist level growth would have caught them up
1) Poorly organized agriculture which wasted both labor and provided bad yeilds. The scattered plots and inability to use land as collateral prevented the use of advanced machinery and the selling out by bad farmers Russian yields were about one/third what they should have been and they used about three times the labor A strong agrarian sector provides the capital for investment
2) High tariffs particularly on capital goods and raw materials. Cotton was about 40% and iron cost about 3 times what it did in Britain. No wonder they could never develop a textile or metal working industry
3) Extremely bad transportation sector which raised the cost of everything beyond belief
4) Russia really isn't that far behind the other powers in absolute terms if not on a per capita level. About five years of Stalinist level growth would have caught them up