If the Pale of Settlement Gets Abolished, How Many Russian Jews Move to the Interior of Russia?

The Russian and Polish Jews would integrate and assimilate much faster.
They wanted too but werer rebuffed by the authorities.

Now to these Jews, Moscow and St Petersberg would be an attractive place
for them. Plenty of work and close to universities for their kids. This
would cause later major problems for the Zionist movements and also result
in fewer immigrants to the USA.

Post by WolfBear
Also, please keep in mind that the Holocaust might be butterflied away in this TL considering that Adolf Hitler was only born in 1889. Indeed, even if WWI still occurs (albeit very possibly as the result of a different crisis) and has a similar outcome in this TL, there might not be a sufficiently charismatic demagogue--let alone as rabidly anti-Semitic as Hitler was in our TL--to take control of Germany during the Great Depression.

Why should any of this change baring the butterfly effect?

Alex Milman

2018-02-07 18:59:36 UTC

You need to look at the things in historic context. Why were restrictions for the Jews introduced? Because Russian merchants had been complaining about the "unfair" (from their perspective) competition.

Of course, the irony was in the fact that by the time of Alexander II the Jewish merchants (officially acknowledged as such based upon a declared capital) were exempted from the Pale restrictions.

Post by WolfBear
Anyway, how many Russian Jews decide to move to the interior of Russia over the next several decades and beyond?

Probably experience of the Soviet Union can be indicative: there was a mass migration to the big cities accompanied by an explosive growth of those with a high education.

Post by WolfBear
Also, please keep in mind that the Holocaust might be butterflied away in this TL considering that Adolf Hitler was only born in 1889.

Not sure what this has to do with the Pale, etc.

Post by WolfBear
Indeed, even if WWI still occurs (albeit very possibly as the result of a different crisis) and has a similar outcome in this TL, there might not be a sufficiently charismatic demagogue--let alone as rabidly anti-Semitic as Hitler was in our TL--to take control of Germany during the Great Depression.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?

Rich Rostrom

2018-02-11 09:33:25 UTC

Post by WolfBear
Also, please keep in mind that the Holocaust might
be butterflied away in this TL considering that
Adolf Hitler was only born in 1889.
Not sure what this has to do with the Pale, etc.

Butterfly effects don't require a recognizable
connection. It's enough that the pattern of human
activity is "stirred up", such that people meet
and marry different spouses, conceive different
children, etc.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Alex Milman

2018-02-11 17:09:34 UTC

In other words, you wrote something that you can't connect to the discussed subject in any recognizable way. Unless, of course, you can somehow explain how liquidation of the Pale (in Russia) could impact Hitler, ideology of Nazism, etc.

WolfBear

2018-02-11 20:37:10 UTC

Well, this could cause Hitler's parents to mate at a slightly different time, thus causing a different sperm to fertilize the egg of Hitler's mother in 1888. This in itself would cause a different child to be born to the Hitlers in 1889.

Alex Milman

2018-02-11 22:52:19 UTC

Well, this could cause Hitler's parents to mate at a slightly different time,

So could different weather and a huge number of other things completely unrelated to the Pale. And why not to assume that the Butterfly effect in its not recognizable way eliminated WWI altogether? Or did not impact Holocaust at all? If the meaningful logical relation between the events is excluded, you are moving into the realm of an unrestricted fantasy.

The Horny Goat

2018-02-12 02:45:36 UTC

Post by Alex Milman
In other words, you wrote something that you can't connect to the discussed subject in any recognizable way. Unless, of course, you can somehow explain how liquidation of the Pale (in Russia) could impact Hitler, ideology of Nazism, etc.

Well of course but that's a convention of this genre. Had I gone to a
different grad school my children would likely have been from a
different mother. If one of my grandchildren wins the Nobel prize.....

(I don't actually have any grandchildren though my kids are definitely
of an age to)

SolomonW

2018-02-13 05:51:04 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat

Well of course but that's a convention of this genre. Had I gone to a
different grad school my children would likely have been from a
different mother. If one of my grandchildren wins the Nobel prize.....
(I don't actually have any grandchildren though my kids are definitely
of an age to)

You do not have to make it so complex, if one night you had zigged instead
of zagging, you would have had different kids.

The Horny Goat

2018-02-13 17:49:26 UTC

Post by SolomonW

Post by The Horny Goat
(I don't actually have any grandchildren though my kids are definitely
of an age to)

You do not have to make it so complex, if one night you had zigged instead
of zagging, you would have had different kids.

Heh heh - well when I applied to university I was determined to move
away from home for 2 years and I was accepted to multiple schools.
Didn't plan on finding a mate but you know how these things work......

Rich Rostrom

2018-02-14 21:02:55 UTC

In article
<68082556-cf2a-4eb4-83d2-***@googlegroups.com>
,

In other words, you wrote something...

Not me, someone else mentioned the possible
butterfly effect.

...that you can't connect to the discussed subject
in any recognizable way. Unless, of course, you can
somehow explain how liquidation of the Pale (in
Russia) could impact Hitler, ideology of Nazism, etc.

Abolition of the Pale in Russia before 1889 would
would have _butterfly_ effects eliminating all OTL
personalities born later. Thus events dependent on
individual personalities, such as Hitler's career
with all its consequences (i.e. the Holocaust), would
not happen.

Broad trends such as the Anglo-Boer conflict, Balkan
nationalism, Chinese political breakdown, development
of automobiles, might be affected in predictable ways
(one would have to trace a connection).

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Alex Milman

2018-02-15 19:40:15 UTC

Post by Rich Rostrom
In article
,

In other words, you wrote something...

Not me, someone else mentioned the possible
butterfly effect.

Abolition of the Pale in Russia before 1889 would
would have _butterfly_ effects eliminating all OTL
personalities born later.

Or it would not. Especially as far as the persons who did not live anywhere close to the Pale are involved.

Of course, nobody prevents anybody from starting a thread "WIF Hitler is not born", etc. but this is a separate issue.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Thus events dependent on
individual personalities, such as Hitler's career
with all its consequences (i.e. the Holocaust), would
not happen.

Or they would because none of them is directly related to the Pale.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Broad trends such as the Anglo-Boer conflict, Balkan
nationalism, Chinese political breakdown, development
of automobiles, might be affected in predictable ways
(one would have to trace a connection).

Well, can you trace a connection in "predictable way" between abolishing of the Pale and development of automobiles or Anglo-Boer War?

Rich Rostrom

2018-02-17 20:12:38 UTC

Post by Rich Rostrom
Abolition of the Pale in Russia before 1889 would
would have _butterfly_ effects eliminating all OTL
personalities born later.

Or it would not. Especially as far as the persons
who did not live anywhere close to the Pale are
involved.

You underestimate the sensitivity of such matters.
The conception of any particular child is a one-
in-millions chance (considering the number of sperm
chasing any one egg). Anything which disturbs the
process even slightly means a different outcome.

And Braunau-am-Inn was only about 800 km from the
Pale of Settlement. A change as important as the
abolition of the Pale would affect millions of
lives there - many of whom OTL migrated to other
areas.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

WolfBear

2018-02-17 23:17:54 UTC

Post by Rich Rostrom
Abolition of the Pale in Russia before 1889 would
would have _butterfly_ effects eliminating all OTL
personalities born later.

Or it would not. Especially as far as the persons
who did not live anywhere close to the Pale are
involved.

You underestimate the sensitivity of such matters.
The conception of any particular child is a one-
in-millions chance (considering the number of sperm
chasing any one egg). Anything which disturbs the
process even slightly means a different outcome.
And Braunau-am-Inn was only about 800 km from the
Pale of Settlement. A change as important as the
abolition of the Pale would affect millions of
lives there - many of whom OTL migrated to other
areas.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Rich is absolutely correct here. In fact, even reading a different piece of news in the morning could affect one's mood and thus affect the timing of when one has sex either on that day or later on. Indeed, as Rich said, even an extremely tiny change which would result in you having sex a minute later could result in a different child being conceived and born.

Pete Barrett

2018-02-18 10:44:14 UTC

Abolition of the Pale in Russia before 1889 would would have
_butterfly_ effects eliminating all OTL personalities born later.

Or it would not. Especially as far as the persons who did not live
anywhere close to the Pale are involved.

You underestimate the sensitivity of such matters.
The conception of any particular child is a one-
in-millions chance (considering the number of sperm chasing any one
egg). Anything which disturbs the process even slightly means a
different outcome.
And Braunau-am-Inn was only about 800 km from the Pale of Settlement. A
change as important as the abolition of the Pale would affect millions
of lives there - many of whom OTL migrated to other areas.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Rich is absolutely correct here. In fact, even reading a different piece
of news in the morning could affect one's mood and thus affect the
timing of when one has sex either on that day or later on. Indeed, as
Rich said, even an extremely tiny change which would result in you
having sex a minute later could result in a different child being
conceived and born.

But is that important? In a monarchical constitution, where a person
chosen solely by their birth has large amounts of political power, it
makes a big difference - if Philip or Alexander had been different
people, history would be very different.

In modern republican constitutions (and I'm using 'republican' in a
rather non-standard way here, which would include modern constitutional
monarchies), where the people who hold political power are chosen through
election, a different personality for, say, Tony Blair or Bill Clinton,
would simply mean that they would not be politically prominent, so that
someone else, but with a similar political outlook, would be in their
place. There's still room for personality to have an effect, but less so.

And of course there are constitutions somewhere between the two, where a
monarch may pick who has political power, but in practice can only choose
among those who have risen to political prominence. 19th Century European
constitutional monarchies (other than Britain) tend to be like this.

The thing is, the question of _identity_ between individuals in OTL and
the ATL, is less important than that an individual in OTL has an
_analogue_ in the ATL. In some cases (such as Philip and Alexander), if
we leave aside the philosophical niceties, we can say that the ATL
analogue is the same person as in OTL, just with a different personality.
But when we're talking about Bismarck or Golitsyn, things are a bit
different. With regard to their _families_, there will be, or at least
may be, an individual in the ATL who we would say is the same person as
OTL, but with a different outlook and personality. But with regard to
their _political_ positions, their ATL analogue could be someone with a
different name and parentage, but with a similar outlook and personality,
certainly with regard to their political ambition, and very likely with
regard to their political opinions.

Thus the ATL analogue may be more similar politically to the OTL
individual, than the argument from a change in genetics due to different
factors in conception would suggest.

--
Pete BARRETT

The Horny Goat

2018-02-18 16:37:27 UTC

On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 10:44:14 +0000 (UTC), Pete Barrett

What would you prefer? A system of government based on the
distribution of swords by tarts?

(apologies to Monty Python)

Rich Rostrom

2018-02-21 19:36:16 UTC

Post by Pete Barrett
But is that important? In a monarchical constitution, where a person
chosen solely by their birth has large amounts of political power, it
makes a big difference - if Philip or Alexander had been different
people, history would be very different.
In modern republican constitutions (and I'm using 'republican' in a
rather non-standard way here, which would include modern constitutional
monarchies), where the people who hold political power are chosen through
election, a different personality for, say, Tony Blair or Bill Clinton,
would simply mean that they would not be politically prominent, so that
someone else, but with a similar political outlook, would be in their
place. There's still room for personality to have an effect, but less so.

Possibly... but a politician is not just a set of
attitudes, but also a set of specific abilities
and experiences. A "similar" figure will make many
different choices and have different effects.

For instance - Bill Clinton. His particular personality
included compulsive sexual aggressiveness, to a degree
practically unprecedented in high-level US politics.
His exposure had great cultural consequences. (Ironically,
not such great political consequences - the Republicans
lost ground in 1998, and narrowly won in 2000.) The
Democrats and their allies in the press and Hollywood
chose to defend him, and quite literally began to assert
that such conduct didn't matter, as long he was sound on
the right issues.

Suppose there was no Clinton... 1992 was a good year for
a putative moderate Southern Democrat to win. So perhaps
Gore is the nominee instead. In which case there is no
Presidential sex scandal. Gore is no angel (separated from
his wife since 2010), but he was never the horndog that
Clinton was.

And there is the most obvious and important example: Hitler.
There was nothing in his family background or early career
pointing him toward his towering presence in history; there
was no one like him before or after.

Also, in republics, sometimes a _particular_ politician falls
into power by accident, which may have major consequences.
Andrew Johnson being President during the first segment of
Reconstruction had consequences, and it is highly unlikely
that any other Southerner would have been the "Union" VP
nominee in 1864. So there would have been a non-Southerner
in his place, who would have followed a different course.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Pete Barrett

2018-02-22 17:44:34 UTC

Post by Pete Barrett
But is that important? In a monarchical constitution, where a person
chosen solely by their birth has large amounts of political power, it
makes a big difference - if Philip or Alexander had been different
people, history would be very different.
In modern republican constitutions (and I'm using 'republican' in a
rather non-standard way here, which would include modern constitutional
monarchies), where the people who hold political power are chosen
through election, a different personality for, say, Tony Blair or Bill
Clinton, would simply mean that they would not be politically
prominent, so that someone else, but with a similar political outlook,
would be in their place. There's still room for personality to have an
effect, but less so.

Possibly... but a politician is not just a set of attitudes, but also a
set of specific abilities and experiences. A "similar" figure will make
many different choices and have different effects.
For instance - Bill Clinton. His particular personality included
compulsive sexual aggressiveness, to a degree practically unprecedented
in high-level US politics.
His exposure had great cultural consequences. (Ironically, not such
great political consequences - the Republicans lost ground in 1998, and
narrowly won in 2000.) The Democrats and their allies in the press and
Hollywood chose to defend him, and quite literally began to assert that
such conduct didn't matter, as long he was sound on the right issues.
Suppose there was no Clinton... 1992 was a good year for a putative
moderate Southern Democrat to win. So perhaps Gore is the nominee
instead. In which case there is no Presidential sex scandal. Gore is no
angel (separated from his wife since 2010), but he was never the horndog
that Clinton was.
And there is the most obvious and important example: Hitler. There was
nothing in his family background or early career pointing him toward his
towering presence in history; there was no one like him before or after.
Also, in republics, sometimes a _particular_ politician falls into power
by accident, which may have major consequences. Andrew Johnson being
President during the first segment of Reconstruction had consequences,
and it is highly unlikely that any other Southerner would have been the
"Union" VP nominee in 1864. So there would have been a non-Southerner in
his place, who would have followed a different course.

But both Hitler and Andrew Johnson were there because they'd _risen_ to
power. They had the characteristics required to rise to political
prominence in the society they found themselves, and any analogue would
have those same characteristics. Of course there are some things which
are peculiar to the individual - _lebensraum_ and an unusually virulent
anti-semitism in Hitler's case - and of course those things have effects,
and often those effects are important. But there are some characteristics
which they have in common with any analogue - expansionism, militarism,
and a bombastic oratorical style would be common to any successful right
wing German politician in the 1920s and 30s.

I think it's clearer in the case of Andrew Johnson. Any replacement might
be a northerner, but would have been active in Congress (or possibly on
the battlefield, since there was a war on), and would have the sort of
opinions (particularly on the war) and background which would cause him
to be nominated by the convention. How different could they be from
Johnson's own? They would hardly have nominated someone with similar
opinions to McClellan.

To apply this to the point at question in the thread - making a change to
the genetics of someone (even assuming that genetics determines
personality and ability to a great degree, which is by no means certain)
in relatively recent history won't change the decisions they make as
President or Prime Minister. Almost certainly, it means that they'll
never become President or Prime Minister, and that someone else will.

--
Pete BARRETT

The Horny Goat

2018-02-23 05:52:04 UTC

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 17:44:34 +0000 (UTC), Pete Barrett

Post by Pete Barrett
To apply this to the point at question in the thread - making a change to
the genetics of someone (even assuming that genetics determines
personality and ability to a great degree, which is by no means certain)
in relatively recent history won't change the decisions they make as
President or Prime Minister. Almost certainly, it means that they'll
never become President or Prime Minister, and that someone else will.

Very true - "WI Margaret Thatcher had a Y chromosome?" would be a
ludicrous POD.

Rich Rostrom

2018-02-23 20:12:15 UTC

Post by Pete Barrett

And there is the most obvious and important example: Hitler. There was
nothing in his family background or early career pointing him toward his
towering presence in history; there was no one like him before or after.
Also, in republics, sometimes a _particular_ politician falls into power
by accident, which may have major consequences. Andrew Johnson being
President during the first segment of Reconstruction had consequences,
and it is highly unlikely that any other Southerner would have been the
"Union" VP nominee in 1864. So there would have been a non-Southerner in
his place, who would have followed a different course.

But both Hitler and Andrew Johnson were there because they'd _risen_ to
power.

Yes. And would any other man

Post by Pete Barrett
They had the characteristics required to rise to political
prominence in the society they found themselves, and any analogue would
have those same characteristics.

Really? You believe that in the absence of one person
with astounding talents, unparalleled in history before
or after, someone with the _same_ _talents_ would appear?

Post by Pete Barrett
But there are some characteristics
which they have in common with any analogue - expansionism, militarism,
and a bombastic oratorical style would be common to any successful right
wing German politician in the 1920s and 30s.

There were other right-wingish demagogues in Weimar Germany.
None of them had anything like Hitler's success.

Post by Pete Barrett
I think it's clearer in the case of Andrew Johnson. Any replacement might
be a northerner, but would have been active in Congress (or possibly on
the battlefield, since there was a war on), and would have the sort of
opinions (particularly on the war) and background which would cause him
to be nominated by the convention. How different could they be from
Johnson's own?

Radically. Johnson was a white southerner who had owned slaves
and a partisan Democrat.

All the other potential VP nominees were anti-slavery (even Holt
of Kentucky) were anti-slavery, all but Holt were northerners,
and most were Republicans.

Johnson welcomed "Conservative Reconstruction", in which former
Confederates, organizing as Democrats, formed new state
governments and enacted draconian "black codes" to keep the
former slaves under strict control by whites.

His policy was so distasteful to the Radical Republicans in
Congress that they passed civil rights legislation over his
veto, and eventually tried to remove him by impeachment.

The leading contender for the VP nomination (after Johnson)
was the incumbent, Hannibal Hamlin - who disagreed vehemently
with Johnson's Reconstruction policy that he resigned the
lucrative post of Collector of the Port of Boston.

Other contenders included Ben Butler, an outright Radical.
Another was Daniel Dickinson, who was a War Democrat like
Johnson, and also a self-made man. But he was from NY, not
Tennessee, which would make a huge difference. And he was
not a well man, apparently; he died in 1866, which would
have made Senate Ppt Ben Wade (another outright Radical)
President.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Pete Barrett

2018-02-24 12:20:19 UTC

Post by Pete Barrett

And there is the most obvious and important example: Hitler. There
was nothing in his family background or early career pointing him
toward his towering presence in history; there was no one like him
before or after.
Also, in republics, sometimes a _particular_ politician falls into
power by accident, which may have major consequences. Andrew Johnson
being President during the first segment of Reconstruction had
consequences, and it is highly unlikely that any other Southerner
would have been the "Union" VP nominee in 1864. So there would have
been a non-Southerner in his place, who would have followed a
different course.

But both Hitler and Andrew Johnson were there because they'd _risen_ to
power.

Yes. And would any other man

Post by Pete Barrett
They had the characteristics required to rise to political prominence
in the society they found themselves, and any analogue would have those
same characteristics.

Really? You believe that in the absence of one person with astounding
talents, unparalleled in history before or after, someone with the
_same_ _talents_ would appear?

Of course not. What I'm saying is that anyone who rises to political
prominence in a particular society has the characteristics needed to rise
to political prominence in that society (which is almost a tautology).
They'll have other characteristics in addition, of course, and it's those
which may make things diverge, but there will also be some similarity -
fiddling with the personality of someone politically prominent in OTL is
at least as likely to change their political prominence in the ATL as to
give the equally prominent analogue the new personality.

Compare that with a monarchical constitution - if something happens to
Philip while he's dallying with Olympias, so that Alexander's personality
is radically altered, then the next King of Macedon after Philip is
_still_ Alexander, but with a different personality. (Actually, not quite
so certain in this instance, because Macedonian succession laws weren't
as definite as in some other monarchies, but the general point stands.)

...

--
Pete BARRETT

Alex Milman

2018-02-18 18:24:37 UTC

Post by Rich Rostrom
Abolition of the Pale in Russia before 1889 would
would have _butterfly_ effects eliminating all OTL
personalities born later.

Or it would not. Especially as far as the persons
who did not live anywhere close to the Pale are
involved.

You underestimate the sensitivity of such matters.
The conception of any particular child is a one-
in-millions chance (considering the number of sperm
chasing any one egg). Anything which disturbs the
process even slightly means a different outcome.
And Braunau-am-Inn was only about 800 km from the
Pale of Settlement. A change as important as the
abolition of the Pale would affect millions of
lives there - many of whom OTL migrated to other
areas.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Rich is absolutely correct here. In fact, even reading a different piece of news in the morning could affect one's mood and thus affect the timing of when one has sex either on that day or later on.

Yes, it can. The problem is that you can make any logical link with any degree of a certainty and this moves all guesses into the "wild guess" territory. Neither you nor Rich can even formulate in a reasonably convincing way how non-existence of the Pale would affect a birth of a person who had been born far away from it and in a different country.

Try something more logical, like Pale - Russian Revolution or Hitler not being born - Holocaust: at least you'll be able to go step-by-step with some logic in between.

Post by WolfBear
Indeed, as Rich said, even an extremely tiny change which would result in you having sex a minute later could result in a different child being conceived and born.

Or you can read "Dragonfly in amber" for a quite different view on the subject: no matter what you are trying to do, the historic events are not changing.

Rich Rostrom

2018-02-17 20:19:12 UTC

Well, can you trace a connection in "predictable
way" between abolishing of the Pale and development
of automobiles or Anglo-Boer War?

No. Nor has anyone suggested a connection. However...

It seems almost certain that there would be many fewer
Jewish emigrants from Russia. Many of OTL's emigrants
landed in Britain, and some of them became important
in finance. Others went to Germany, where they may have
been in contact with Daimler or Benz or Otto or Diesel.

So a connection is not impossible. But I don't have the
very detailed knowledge of either subject to demonstrate
such a connection.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Alex Milman

2018-02-22 18:58:47 UTC

Getting back to the initial question, we can probably make an educated guess based on the Soviet experience: after the RCW was over a big part of the younger generation started moving into the big cities.

Of course, there still would be the limited areas (mostly Belorussia) where influence of the religious leaders was too strong to prevent mass "migration".

Impact is obvious:

(a) Influx of the "upwardly mobile" young people interested in getting a high education and/or making a further career in in science and/or business. Look at Witte's visit to the US in 1905: he met with a lot of the former Russian Jews who became rich in the US. With the same success they could use their talents in Russia (with no need to learn English). Byproducts: potentially higher growth of the Russian economy and finances.

(b) A much lesser popularity of the revolutionary ideas among the Russian Jews. Byproducts are more or less clear. :-)

The Horny Goat

2018-02-23 05:56:36 UTC

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:58:47 -0800 (PST), Alex Milman

Post by Alex Milman
Getting back to the initial question, we can probably make an educated guess based on the Soviet experience: after the RCW was over a big part of the younger generation started moving into the big cities.
Of course, there still would be the limited areas (mostly Belorussia) where influence of the religious leaders was too strong to prevent mass "migration".
(a) Influx of the "upwardly mobile" young people interested in getting a high education and/or making a further career in in science and/or business. Look at Witte's visit to the US in 1905: he met with a lot of the former Russian Jews who became rich in the US. With the same success they could use their talents in Russia (with no need to learn English). Byproducts: potentially higher growth of the Russian economy and finances.
(b) A much lesser popularity of the revolutionary ideas among the Russian Jews. Byproducts are more or less clear. :-)

For sure - certainly American Jews made major financial contributions
to the early days of the Autonomous Oblast of Birobidzhan particularly
in the form on non-agricultural equipment.

For anyone interested check out "Where the Jews Aren't" by Masha
Gessen

https://www.amazon.ca/Where-Jews-Arent-Birobidzhan-Autonomous/dp/0805242465

(I'm about 2/3 of the way through it right now)

a***@gmail.com

2018-03-17 13:09:03 UTC