The agricultural crisis had been brewing for a long time, and Russia’s large-scale land reclamation movement was merely the fuse that ignited it. In the 19th century, agricultural production techniques developed rapidly, especially with the introduction of crop rotation across Europe, which greatly improved land utilization. New farming tools were constantly being developed, marking the dawn of the mechanized agriculture era, allowing a single farmer to cultivate much more land. During this period, agricultural output also began to increase significantly. Grain production in various countries was constantly breaking records. Taking Austria as an example, the growth rate of grain production exceeded 3% for many years. However, population growth during this same period lagged far behind the increase in grain production. The biggest benefit of this agricultural boom was that most people could now afford to fill their stomachs. The increase in related agricultural byproducts also enriched people’s diets. As the population grew, so did the agricultural workforce. Although industrialization and urbanization saw large numbers of rural laborers becoming factory workers, the total number of people involved in agriculture continued to rise, even though their proportion of the total population was declining. Against this backdrop, people began spontaneously engaging in land reclamation in pursuit of greater income. Russia’s large-scale reclamation wasn’t the first of its kind—it was Austria that initially set this trend. Austria’s internal land reforms were incomplete, with the nobility still owning vast amounts of land. To satisfy the growing demand for land, Austria opened up the Balkan Peninsula for development. Compared with 1850, the arable land area in Austria proper had already doubled. With the pie growing larger, the domestic land problem was naturally resolved. When Alexander II launched Russia’s large-scale land reclamation movement, he was essentially following Austria’s successful example. Since the peasants needed land, the solution was simply to increase the supply. More land meant that the tensions surrounding the land issue would naturally be resolved. With this, the surplus in grain production became inevitable. During Austria’s agricultural development, the Austrian government actively guided citizens toward planting cash crops. For example, in Lombardy and Venice, there was a program to replace rice fields with mulberry trees, which led to the development of the silk industry. In Bosnia, vineyards were established, promoting the production of raisins and wine. These planned initiatives aimed to avoid excessive grain production. However, this was merely a drop in the ocean, and total grain output continued to rise. Had it not been for the outbreak of the Russo-Prussian War and Russia’s subsequent civil war, which severely damaged Russian agriculture, this crisis would have erupted several years earlier. With one less major grain exporter, Europe didn’t even experience a grain shortage. Now that Russia had reentered the grain export market, with even greater production capacity than before, the market could no longer absorb it all. There were only three European countries that did not fear being impacted by falling grain prices. Britain was one of them—otherwise, they wouldn’t have dared to ignite this fire. Britain had industrialized early, with its industrial population long surpassing the agricultural population, and agriculture now accounted for a very small portion of its GDP. The smallholder economy had collapsed during the enclosure movement, leading to more concentrated landholdings with greater resilience to risks. As the world’s largest importer of agricultural products, Britain had little reason to fear a crash in grain prices. The other two countries were Belgium and Monaco. The latter, of course, was insignificant. Given its small land area, it resembled a coastal village with virtually no agriculture to speak of. Belgium, also a grain-importing country, was the first industrialized nation on the European continent. With a highly developed industrial sector and a low agricultural output, it did not have to worry about being affected either. Purely from an economic standpoint, Austria would undoubtedly suffer the most from the agricultural crisis. As the largest exporter of agricultural products, Austria would also face the greatest impact. Agricultural workers make up over half of Austria’s total population, making it fair to call Austria an agricultural country. However, as the economy developed, many farmers with smaller landholdings had family members who worked in the cities. These individuals, who farmed and worked as laborers, could not be classified solely as farmers or as workers. In statistical data, they were often counted in both categories. The proportion of the agricultural population varies by province. In the more economically developed region of Bohemia, the agricultural population accounts for less than 40%. However, in the agriculturally dominant region of Hungary, the agricultural population makes up 70–80%. Among these, a significant number are migrant workers. In some densely populated villages, as much as 90% of the young labor force works in the cities. France’s situation is even more severe, with Italy dragging down the numbers, especially in Southern Italy. If you compare urban and rural incomes, you’ll find little difference, and in some cases, urban workers even earn less than farmers. This doesn’t suggest that Italy’s agriculture is highly developed, but rather that the cities’ economies are struggling. Although many Italian cities industrialized early, Italy’s industrial development has been stunted due to limited resources. This is also why Russia has aligned itself with Britain instead of France. The British can withstand agricultural shocks and are willing to allow Russian agricultural products into their market, but the French cannot. France already has a large agricultural population, and when you add the economically weak regions of Italy, a crash in grain prices could wreak havoc, potentially leading to widespread unrest. “The price of grain is of great significance, and any abrupt shock to international markets would inevitably provoke a fierce backlash. Moreover, agriculture is different from industry. Even if there is overproduction in the market, producers won’t immediately adjust. In fact, production might even continue to increase. We can regulate our domestic market and guide our citizens to reduce grain cultivation, but we can’t influence other countries. At best, we can only push Russian farmers into bankruptcy, but we can’t force them to reduce production. Crippling agricultural markets in other countries to establish a monopoly in agricultural exports? Frankly speaking, I don’t see this plan succeeding. The world has too much arable land, and the market for agricultural products is too small. Not to mention others, just understanding the situation in Austrian Africa, everyone should know that if needed, Austria’s grain production capacity can be multiplied at any time. The British, Portuguese, Dutch, and French also don’t lack colonies where they can grow food. If they detect that we are trying to monopolize the international grain export market, resistance will certainly arise.” Obviously, Prime Minister Felix was a rational person. He did not support the grand plan of the Ministry of Agriculture and instead favored the long-term strategy proposed by the Minister of Finance. With a cost advantage in production, Austria is bound to secure an important position in the agricultural export market by slowly wearing down its competitors. As for the potential biggest competitor, the Confederate States of America, they are not a real threat. When it comes to interests, the plantation owners will naturally make the right choice. In the original timeline, the United States did not experience division. After the Civil War, the U.S. lost its dominance in the international cotton market, which led to the development of the grain farming industry. Now, the United States is a wealthy agricultural nation, still dominating the cotton production market. Without experiencing defeat and suppression, no other cotton-producing region can compete with them. Who would give up generous profits in the cotton industry to jump into the giant pit that is the grain export market? Indeed, the international grain export market has become a giant pit. Until a clear winner emerges, the producers in various countries won’t have an easy time in the foreseeable future. If Austria had the same natural advantages as the Americans, it wouldn’t insist on battling in the grain market either. The Ministry of Agriculture’s proposal to crush the agricultural production systems of European countries is actually being pushed by the large aristocrats. On the surface, it seems that the profits from agriculture are no longer enough to satisfy their appetite, and they want to monopolize Europe’s grain supply to gain greater profits. In reality, what they truly desire is to eliminate a series of taxes to increase their income. Everyone knows that monopolizing Europe’s grain supply is a long shot, but reducing taxes is something everyone likes! Beforehand, Franz had received numerous lobbyists who all essentially said that the country had become wealthy enough and no longer needed that small bit of agricultural revenue, so perhaps it was time to... As a representative of the aristocratic class, Franz couldn’t refuse them. However, as emperor, he had to consider the national interest, which is why this agricultural economic conference was held. The final result was that the government cut some taxes to compensate for their losses in this economic turmoil and appease the aristocratic class. However, mindful of the national finances, it did not fully eliminate the taxes. As for the peasant class, they essentially caught a free ride. Otherwise, how could tax cuts and grain price protection, policies that protect their interests, be brought up by the bureaucrats? The reason behind it doesn’t matter—as long as the tangible benefits reach them, that’s what counts. By now, Austrian peasants actually own more land than the aristocrats, holding about 34% of the country’s land. Unknowingly, the aristocracy had become the political spokesperson for the peasant class. This outcome was entirely unexpected for Franz. Seeing that the meeting was progressing and the Ministry of Agriculture’s radical plan had already been rejected by the cabinet, Franz knew it was time for him to step in. “Monopolizing Europe’s grain supply has too low a chance of success. We should still disrupt the agricultural systems of other countries, but not in an overly extreme way. The Minister of Finance’s suggestion is good. We can start with the Anglo-Russian agreement, test the strength of Anglo-Russian relations, and at the same time clear out some of our old grain reserves. The Ministry of Agriculture should take its plan back for revision, with a focus on reducing our visibility in this turmoil as much as possible. The reason for the grain price crash must be attributed to the Russians. Once the agricultural crisis fully breaks out, Europe will undoubtedly see a wave of peasant bankruptcies, which could last for a long time. The Colonial Ministry should immediately take action to recruit people from European countries, especially from the Russian Empire, which will be one of the hardest-hit regions in this crisis. As allies, we have an obligation to help them eliminate this hidden danger.” In the original timeline, during this agricultural crisis, the German region was hit the hardest, and millions of Germans emigrated to the United States during this period. But now, things have changed. Austria has already carried out several rounds of recruitment in the German region, resolving the issue of overpopulation. The best evidence of this is the German Federal Empire, which, after all these years, still hasn’t surpassed ten million in total population—it’s practically stagnant. If you look at their emigration data, you won’t be surprised. From 1854 until now, around 3.5 million people have left the German Federal Empire. With so many people having left, the local population hasn’t grown much. If these people had stayed and reproduced, based on local birth and death rates, the German Federal Empire’s population would have already surpassed 16 million. After shearing this sheep almost bare, Franz then turned his attention to the Russian Empire. Despite losing millions of square kilometers of territory after the Russo-Prussian War, the Russian Empire still had a population of 74 million. Franz had already implemented policies for promoting the birth rate in Austria, but even so, the birth rate in many parts of Austria remained lower than that of Russia. If it weren’t for Austria’s lower mortality rate, its population growth rate would have been unable to keep pace with Russia’s. According to sociologists, the Russian Empire is expected to experience a continuous baby boom in the coming years. Farmers who had gained land would push the birth rate even higher, with the potential to surpass 6%. This figure isn’t surprising. The average lifespan in the Russian Empire is short, and the population structure is dominated by children, teenagers, and middle-aged people, with very few people over the age of 45. From the data, it’s clear that over half of the Russian population is of reproductive age. With such a high proportion of young and able-bodied people, combined with the lack of entertainment activities, many would simply return home to start families, naturally leading to a high birth rate. It’s not just the Russian Empire with a large proportion of people of childbearing age. Nearly every country has a similar situation, with over 40% of the population being in this age group. In the 19th century, Europe’s population began to skyrocket, with most countries experiencing rapid growth. The slowest growth rates were in France, followed by Spain and Italy. The main reason for this is economic—farmers without enough land can no longer afford to have many children. As for workers, the high rate of infant abandonment speaks volumes. Of course, government policies also played a significant role in limiting population growth in these three countries. At the time, it couldn’t be said that these policies were entirely wrong. With no visible improvement in economic development, if population growth wasn’t curbed, how could the extra people be supported? France is an exception—its problem isn’t the inability to support its population but rather its internal disarray. With grain prices plummeting, the Russian Empire with its high birth rate will definitely be the hardest-hit region. Families with many children won’t be able to support them if they stay in Russia. During this period, emigration would actually relieve the pressure on Alexander II. No matter how reluctant the Russian government may be, during this crisis, they won’t be able to stop people from leaving. In this sense, both sides benefit. For the Russian government, which prioritizes stability, eliminating internal risks far outweighs any potential long-term consequences. TN: For those who are curious about the title, here’s some context: 36 Strategies: Loot a Burning House - Chinadaily.com.cn
[Previous | Table of Contents | Next]
Comments
Post a Comment