• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Dev Diary #47 - Conversion and Assimilation

16_9.jpg

Happy Thursday! Today our topic returns to Pop mechanics, with a discussion around some of the finer details on how Pops may change their religion and culture over time depending on your nation’s legal system. The mechanics themselves are quite straightforward, but as always in Victoria 3, the applications of them can have quite different outcomes in different situations.

Let’s begin by reviewing the mechanics around Discrimination, since this will be important later in the discussion. We’ve already talked about most of this in other dev diaries but some details here may be new.
dakotaculture.png

Discriminated Pops have barely any Political Strength and cannot vote. This means the only way they can impact your country’s politics is by agitating for change through Political Movements, or by starting a civil war for self-rule through a Cultural Secession. In addition to being hamstrung politically, they also get paid substantially less than their non-discriminated counterparts, have a harder time developing Qualifications for certain Professions, and their presence in your country is a potential source of radicalism and Turmoil.

Whether a Pop is discriminated against or accepted depends on who they are, the national identity of the country they live in, and the laws of that country. Both culture and religion are potential reasons for discrimination, and these are controlled by different laws. Your Citizenship laws determine which Pops are discriminated against on the basis of their culture, while your Church and State laws determine which forms of worship are considered acceptable in your country. To be considered non-discriminated by these laws, Pops must pass a more or less stringent selection criteria based on how much they differ from the primary culture(s) and state religion in the country.

For example, under the Racial Segregation Citizenship law, only Pops whose culture’s heritage trait matches that of their primary cultures heritage trait will be accepted. The heritage trait indicates which region of the world the culture originates from (e.g. European, African, Indigenous American), and under this law that is the only thing that matters - whether the Pops speak the same language, or are both transplants in the New World, is unimportant in determining their status. By contrast, under Cultural Exclusion, any similarity between a Pop’s culture and one of the primary ones qualifies them as equal under the law.

The total set of options are:

Ethnostate: only Pops of primary cultures are accepted
National Supremacy: Pops whose cultures share both heritage and another trait are accepted
Racial Segregation: Pops of the same heritage are accepted
Cultural Exclusion: Pops whose cultures share any similarities are accepted
Multiculturalism: no cultures are discriminated against

State Religion: only Pops who adhere to the state religion are accepted
Freedom of Conscience: Pops who adhere to a religion in the same family as the state religion are accepted (e.g. any branch of Christianity, any form of Buddhist)
Total Separation: no religions are discriminated against

citizenshiplawsus.png

The practical impact of these laws therefore depends on what the state religion and primary cultures of your country are, as well as who actually lives in your country. An Ethnostate operates no differently in practice than a Multicultural state if only Pops of primary cultures live there. Since Pops are unlikely to mass migrate to your country if they’d be oppressed there once they arrived, until you expand your borders and populace by force you may not see a practical difference (except for a curious lack of immigrants). But if you were to form a Customs Union with a poorer neighbor, resulting in a lot of economic migration within the market to your country, you might have to deal with substantial political strife until you take steps to loosen up your Citizenship laws. If the option exists for you, as an alternative you might consider attempting to unify your nations instead (which we’ll learn more about next week) in order to accept both cultures as “primary”.

Alright, now that we’ve cleared up how countries can adapt to the Pops, we will consider how Pops might adapt to their country.

culturesus.png

First let’s tackle Religious Conversion. Pops who are discriminated against on the basis of their religion will always be in the process of converting to an accepted religion. The religion they convert to is not necessarily the state religion, though - it could be any accepted religion that is dominant in the state where they live. An Indigenous American following an Animist religion in a United States with Freedom of Conscience instead of Total Separation is eventually going to convert to some form of Christianity to avoid religious persecution, but if they live in a Nebraska that has been settled by predominantly Catholic rather than Protestant Pops, they would convert to Catholicism even though Protestantism is the dominant religion in the nation as a whole.

Pops convert at a percentage-based rate, currently set to a base of 0.2% / month (as usual, numbers such as these are subject to balancing and change before release, and are always moddable). A percentage-based conversion rate naturally means a diminishing number of actual converts over time, so at this rate it would take almost 30 years for ½ of your discriminated population to convert. If you find this rate too ponderous for your strategic goals, you have two primary tools at your disposal to speed it up.

The Religious School System law + institution combination increases this rate by +20% per investment level, up to a potential maximum of +100% (i.e. twice the speed). It also increases the Education Access of Pops overall and increases the Clout of the Devout Interest Group.

The other method is the Promote National Values decree. Like all decrees, it is issued in a certain state and costs Authority for each state it is issued in, so in a larger country you will have to focus your efforts. Promote National Values doubles the rate of both conversion and assimilation.

berbersunniconversion.png

Using a combination of both methods, you could speed up religious conversion such that ½ of a minority population can be converted to an accepted religion within the span of a 10 years. Of course, your school system only extends to incorporated states, so if you’re trying to mass convert Pops in conquered land or colonies you will have to do so by decree - or embark on the often lengthy and painstaking process of incorporating a part of the world that’s culturally alien to your country.

This leads us to cultural assimilation. The conditions for assimilation are a little more complex than conversion, and in some ways operate by the reverse logic. In order to start assimilating, a Pop must already be culturally accepted. After all, if they can’t get citizenship, can’t vote, can’t participate in politics, can’t get paid a fair wage on the basis of who they are, there simply is no way for them to assimilate - by which we mean, integrate themselves into a primary culture such that they are both accepted as such by others and genuinely consider themselves part of that culture. Renouncing one’s religious beliefs and practices can be a very practical and concrete choice, but adopting and being adopted by a different culture is not a utilitarian decision.

In addition, Pops will never change culture if they live in a state they consider their Homeland. A Franco-Canadian in Ontario might over time adopt the ways and tongue of their Anglo-Canadian neighbors, but a Franco-Canadian who resides in Quebec?! Plutôt mourir!

(And of course, if a confederated Canada has been created with both Anglo- and Franco-Canadian as primary cultures, none of those types of Pops would be changing cultures in the first place.)

If a Pop should be assimilating, the culture they will be assimilating into will always be a primary culture. This is because, again, this is not a practical decision that’s just up to the Pop in question, but a two-way-street of assimilation into the dominant national identity. In the case of countries with multiple primary cultures, the one selected will be the Homeland of the state the Pop lives in, or in case none or several apply, the dominant one among Pops who already live there. A Czech Pop living in a unified Germany (North + South German) in the state of Silesia (North German and Polish Homelands) will assimilate into the North German culture; if they lived in Bavaria they would be assimilating into the South German culture; and if they lived in Bohemia they would not assimilate at all, since Bohemia is a not only a South German but also a Czech Homeland. If this Pop instead lived in Transylvania (with both Hungarian and Romanian primary cultures and Homelands), they would be assimilating into whichever of those cultures is more dominant in the part of Transylvania where they live.

The rate of assimilation is the same as for religion, 0.2% per month. As mentioned, the Promote National Values decree can be used to double this rate on a per-state basis. In addition, a Public School System will provide an increased assimilation rate of +12.5% per investment level, representing perhaps a less overt approach to indoctrination than their religious counterparts. With maximum effort, this means you can assimilate half of a minority population in about 18 years.

northgermanprotestantassimilation.png

I’ll end on a small design note. While our primary motivation while developing these mechanics was to provide a logical and believable simulation, a nice side effect of the asymmetry between conversion and assimilation is that there’s no way to benefit from both without an asymmetry in your laws as well. An inclusive, accepting, discrimination-free society won’t also become religiously homogeneous over time, nor will an oppressive, xenophobic country be able to assimilate their cultural minorities just by waiting them out while throwing resources at integrating them. Culture-wise, Pops need to be either accepted or harshly dealt with, now or in the future. Being accepting of all faiths today means there will be problems if you backtrack in the future. There is no one-size-fits-all strategy for dealing with heterogeneous populations.

There are of course a few good examples of countries that already start out with asymmetrical Citizenship and Church and State laws. The Ottoman Empire, home to a lot of cultural and religious minorities, has fairly lenient Citizenship Laws but zero separation of Church and State. As a result they will initially have a lot of both assimilation and conversion, and increasing the rate of those further might be one way for them to try to minimize Turmoil due to discrimination long-term. Meanwhile, the United States has total separation of Church and State (zero religious conversion, but no religious discrimination either) but Racial Segregation laws that cause considerable population segments to be discriminated against, particularly Indigenous- and African-American. Since none of these populations will ever be assimilating unless the Citizenship policy changes, this problem will not just go away on its own. Either the United States changes course legally, or they will have to continue dealing with trouble caused by the oppression of these minorities for the following century.

That’s all for this week! Like I hinted above, next week Martin will get into how Unifications work in Victoria 3, which I for one am very excited about!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 175Like
  • 50Love
  • 22
  • 20
  • 16
Reactions:
This will presumably be picked up in a future proofreading pass, but just in case: in the screenshot you're using the word 'discriminated' wrong. Every pop is being discriminated, the Dakota are being discriminated against.
Missing out the word 'against' is like the joke about the war in the Ukraine: Putin asks his general to describe how the war is going in one word: 'Good!,' is the answer. In two words? 'Not good!'
 
  • 7Haha
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Also, I hope Promote National Values will make sure that pops convert to the official religion rather than any accepted religion: it makes little sense for the Protestant, Freedom of Conscience UK givernment to actively advocate conversion to Catholicism, for example.
It boosts the existing conversion, so it will convert pops to whatever is already the dominant religion of the region. If the official stance of the UK government is that Catholicism is "close enough", why waste extra effort trying to make everyone Anglican instead of using the religious framework that's already in place?

Also a question about Shinto in Japan, what religious group are they, if Japan goes for Freedom of Conscience. Is there any other religion in their group, or are they grouped with Buddhism? Or will State-Shinto not be a thing, and Japan will always stay Buddhist as their state religion?
In the Japan AAR Shinto was considered the same family as Mahayana Buddhism, and there is a specific option for Japan to switch.

So if Japan conquers the United States then Americans will be converting to Shinto?
Only if a) Shinto is an accepted religion, b) their religion isn't, and c) they live in a Shinto-majority state (so, Japan itself). Under complete separate of church and state, there's never actually any pressure and so no one converts religions at all (or, I guess slightly more realistically, it's assumed that each religion gains and loses members at more or less the same rate). Under freedom of conscience, I think Shinto is still discriminated because it isn't in the same family as Protestantism or whatever else might be dominant in the US.

I suppose in theory there might be a mechanic such that the US can end up with Shinto as a state religion but at that point sure, American pops becoming Shinto is hardly the problem.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't think we know exactly, but the estimate was ~20% of imported slaves through 1800, many of whom were still be alive and passing down traditions by 1836. So at least thousands, and it very much came up in the era's politics of slavery.

Passing down traditions is a little too vague to be useful. This is a numbers driven matter, at the end of the day.

To be sure, the imported slaves were almost certain to be non-Christian. However, when we consider that the US entirely banned the atlantic slave trade in 1808, after decades of restricting it further and further on a state-by-state basis (and banning US citizens from engaging in the trade), the the US was the destination of a very small portion of slaves, and that the life expectancy of slaves was much lower than that of Whites, all of this combines to one conclusion: the overall number of slaves in the US that were not born in the US was relatively small, as a portion of the 2-2.4 million slaves in the country at the start date - there were a few thousand imported per year until the trade was banned. Then, by your estimate, about 20% of them were non-Christian. That means we're actually talking about a number in the high hundreds, in a typical year. The number of them that would be alive in 1836 would also be extremely low. Which means that this particular instance is not something that would be a major part of the gameplay, even if it were actively modeled.

And, on a purely academic level, I'm curious if the lifespan of slaves that were born in the US varied significantly from those that were imported from Africa or other countries. My gut says yes, but I'd be shocked if we had any solid evidence one way or the other.

Conversely, I have no idea what the situation was like in a country like Brazil, which imported far more slaves than the US did, kept importing them for longer, and, of course, maintained slavery itself for longer.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Sadly, I do not understand how these citizenship laws work. What are cultural traits? How many are there? How different are they? Why do you not give examples?

The Heritage trait is where they come from, okay. So all european cultures share the same heritage, I assume, but what are the other traits?

Lets take this for example:

This sentence implies, that there are more than one other type of trait, that could potentially be accepted. (other than heritage)
So what are those? Say I unify Germany with North and South German as primary culture, what traits do these cultures have?

Sure European heritage, but what other traits? Would french be accepted? Why yes/no? What traits do they have other than european heritage?


And take this

You do not explain what kind of similarities there are. No examples either. I do not understand this law. What does it do?

Is heritage enough? Would french be accepted in Germany with this law? What other similarities could there be other than just heritage? Surely one can't just become "North German" but not have the european heritage. So what does this law do?

The whole culture aspect of this diary is not clear, at all. Sorry to say this.
FTCy7u7WUAAe8x3.jpg
If we look at the from the twitter teaser thread we see that they have the traits of "New World Settler, Francophone, and European Heritage".

The traits come from culture, it always contains a heritage and a language. It may contain other traits.

So in a nation with National Supremacy (Pops whose cultures share both heritage and another trait are accepted) the Franco-Canadians would be accepted if the primary culture had European Heritage and either was a 'new world settler' or spoke French. With Cultural Exclusion (Pops whose cultures share any similarities are accepted) then as long as the primary culture had any of the three traits (say maybe some culture that spoke French but not a new world settler or of European heritage).

We do not yet know how Unification works (or having multiple primary cultures) but they are talking about that in the next DD.

I also thought we were told long ago that the level to which one is discriminated depended upon how different the cultural traits. So I think French-Canadian would get along better with someone from France (both European heritage and Francophone) than someone from England (just European heritage) and not well with someone from China (no matches).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Passing down traditions is a little too vague to be useful. This is a numbers driven matter, at the end of the day.

To be sure, the imported slaves were almost certain to be non-Christian. However, when we consider that the US entirely banned the atlantic slave trade in 1808, after decades of restricting it further and further on a state-by-state basis (and banning US citizens from engaging in the trade), the the US was the destination of a very small portion of slaves, and that the life expectancy of slaves was much lower than that of Whites, all of this combines to one conclusion: the overall number of slaves in the US that were not born in the US was relatively small, as a portion of the 2-2.4 million slaves in the country at the start date - there were a few thousand imported per year until the trade was banned. Then, by your estimate, about 20% of them were non-Christian. That means we're actually talking about a number in the high hundreds, in a typical year. The number of them that would be alive in 1836 would also be extremely low. Which means that this particular instance is not something that would be a major part of the gameplay, even if it were actively modeled.

And, on a purely academic level, I'm curious if the lifespan of slaves that were born in the US varied significantly from those that were imported from Africa or other countries. My gut says yes, but I'd be shocked if we had any solid evidence one way or the other.

Conversely, I have no idea what the situation was like in a country like Brazil, which imported far more slaves than the US did, kept importing them for longer, and, of course, maintained slavery itself for longer.
To be clear, traditions = the religion in this case, not just some loose cultural practices.
As far as a numbers-based thing... I mean, we don't have those, because they weren't recorded - this is true for most places on the map, not just this one specific population. We do know of many communities numbering in the dozens as late as the 1860s, and there's circumstantial evidence in e.g. naming traditions, but other than "many" and "some were very high-profile" a best guess is all we can get.
 
Hmmmmm the game assumes discrimination only happens by law, while discrimination can be very implicit. On paper the Netherlands had 'freedom of conscience', but in practice Catholics were discriminated against in the 19th century. And it's not that if you enact 'Multiculturalism' by law, racism/discrimination stops existing all of the sudden.

I also wish there were multiple discrimination levels ... I mean Catholics were disciminated against in the Netherlands, but not in the same way African-Americans were discriminated in the US of course.
This is true but it also misunderstands what these things represent. These laws are specifically about discrimination from a legalistic point of view, not a moral one, for instance a country that has freedom of conscience is supposed to stop people when they discriminate against anyone that isn't the majority (i.e catholics in the Netherlands), because this game is about countries and not people it doesn't make sense to model interpersonal discrimination because it's an amorphous thing that happens that is a lot harder to actually model properly. Multiculturalism similarly doesn't mean that racism stops existing but it means that, to use the US as an example, you can't have something like Jim Crow laws exist, because it's a legal form of discrimination, seperate but equal and all that, multiculturalism is closer to what the US has irl where in theory you are not allowed to discriminate on a racial or ethnic background, but like in the real world you can just lie about doing that. Like if you're a racist that thinks all black people steal and thus you decide to fire your black worker because you think he might be stealing from you, but you don't have any proof, then you can't just openly say the real reason, you have to pretend it's not because he's black, and instead say something like "he's a bad worker".

I do agree that it would be nice to see this be a bit more flexible than discriminated or not, because right now you also can't model say, catholic immigrants in the US being discriminated against on a legal basis without making the US have a state religion of some kind.

TL;DR, you're not wrong that the game assumes discrimination only happens by law, but essentially it kinda has to because doing anything more than that would require going far deeper into the lives of the pops, from a state point of view it doesn't seem like it makes sense, and the resources that would be spent doing that could probably be put to better use improving the existing system to make it more modular.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Isn't this better shown as migration because of discrimination which already exists? As opposed to Italians in Nice becoming French?

Same with the Germanification of the Polish lands they held?
These are separate things, some Poles did become Germanized, they weren't replaced by ethnic Germans. Think about marriages between nationalities etc...
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I think the root of the problem here is that the binary accepted vs discriminated system is simply way too limited to properly represent how historical discrimination worked. If you're e.g. Russia you either fully accept Poles and treat them as equal citizens in every way or you discriminate against them so harshly that they're considered wholly other and it's impossible for them to assimilate into Russian society, there's no inbetween.

I propose instead that there be 3 tiers - accepted, tolerated, and discriminated. Tolerated cultures would still have less rights than accepted cultures (maybe give them penalties to standard of living or political power) but unlike discriminated cultures would be able to assimilate. Using the historical US for example the culture list would look something like this
Primary - Yankee and Dixie
Accepted - European heritage + Accepted cultural trait (English, French, German, Canadian, etc)
Tolerated - European heritage only (Italian, Polish, Ukrainian, Mexican, etc)
Discriminated -All other heritages (African American, Cherokee, Japanese, Bengali, etc)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 9
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I really think discrimination should be more specific. As said earlier we should have seperate laws for different stuff of assimilation. Yes it makes more sense to assimilate accepted people. But stuff like forced language in French schools and forbitting the regional languages as exemple as in Alsace etc DID help assimilate too and would be considered as discrimination. So maybe there should be more specific discrimination laws instead of just a generic one.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Surprised there's literally no way at all ever to assimilate folks in homelands, at least linguistically. France managed to just fine in this period, using education. Welsh was rapidly disappearing during this time period as well.

Edit: In fact the argument that folks need to be accepted in order to assimilate doesn't make a great deal of sense when it comes to language- what you speak is as deliberate a choice as which religious rites you practice, ultimately.
 
Last edited:
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I actually quite like the model the game has chosen for cultural assimilation, with one specific exception: there really needs to be a way to try to force assimilation of a discriminated culture. It shouldn't work all that well, almost not at all, but it should be an option, and should cause an increase in pop rebelliousness. Perhaps certain nationalistic IGs could demand it, which would add an interesting layer of trade-offs for a player trying to put together a government.

With respect to religious conversion, pops of certain religions (such as Jewish pops) should have added resistance. There should be sizeable Jewish pops left by the end of the game, though in a tolerant state they may well be of the majority culture.

Finally, I am pleased to see that the help text on the left-hand side of the second screenshot now correctly says "discriminated against", but please also update the text in the first screenshot. It should say: "Dakota culture is discriminated against in the United States".

I look forward to reading about cultural unification next week - particularly how it relates to my planned first run as a reformist, multicultural Austria. If it works anything like CK3 hybridisation, which I suspect it may, I'm keen for the potential to form a pluri-centric 'Austrian' nationality, with fused name-lists from all the component peoples. :)
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
This is true but it also misunderstands what these things represent. These laws are specifically about discrimination from a legalistic point of view, not a moral one, for instance a country that has freedom of conscience is supposed to stop people when they discriminate against anyone that isn't the majority (i.e catholics in the Netherlands), because this game is about countries and not people it doesn't make sense to model interpersonal discrimination because it's an amorphous thing that happens that is a lot harder to actually model properly. Multiculturalism similarly doesn't mean that racism stops existing but it means that, to use the US as an example, you can't have something like Jim Crow laws exist, because it's a legal form of discrimination, seperate but equal and all that, multiculturalism is closer to what the US has irl where in theory you are not allowed to discriminate on a racial or ethnic background, but like in the real world you can just lie about doing that. Like if you're a racist that thinks all black people steal and thus you decide to fire your black worker because you think he might be stealing from you, but you don't have any proof, then you can't just openly say the real reason, you have to pretend it's not because he's black, and instead say something like "he's a bad worker".

I do agree that it would be nice to see this be a bit more flexible than discriminated or not, because right now you also can't model say, catholic immigrants in the US being discriminated against on a legal basis without making the US have a state religion of some kind.

TL;DR, you're not wrong that the game assumes discrimination only happens by law, but essentially it kinda has to because doing anything more than that would require going far deeper into the lives of the pops, from a state point of view it doesn't seem like it makes sense, and the resources that would be spent doing that could probably be put to better use improving the existing system to make it more modular.
I agree with you here that the game seems headed toward representing only the kinds of discrimination that the government could affect. Nevertheless, sometime down the road the game could start to simulate discrimination that arises spontaneously between groups of POPs. For example, a society that is relatively tolerant of minorities might start acting more harshly toward immigrants if they begin to grow rapidly in numbers. That's just one possibility.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Is there a way to force assimilation of pops in their homeland? E.g. fprced Swedenisation of Danes in Copenhagen after Swedish conquest.
If not, it should be imcluded imo since there were such attempts historically.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Are portraits linked to culture or generated per pop? Because it would be odd to see African-Americans suddenly become white when they assimilate in a multicultural USA...
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I think religious schools encouraging conversion seems a bit... strange. It's not like Greek Orthodox were sent to madrasahs to study, and indoctrinated into Islam in that way. I think they shouldn't directly impact conversion (except maybe for pagan* pops) but instead reduce education access to non-state religion pops. As for religious conversion overall, I think something more nuanced than discrimination causing conversion needs to be considered, or else it will result in nonsensical situations like Ashkenazi Orthodox pops or the Ottomans becoming fully Sunni by the game's end date (and probably far before that).

*i.e. "mission schools"
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
How moddable are these laws, by the way? What does the code for each of these laws look like?

How would something like State Atheism that arose near the end of the period, such as Mexico and the USSR?
Functionally that's just Atheism and State Religion. Which honestly isn't too far off the mark.
 
Last edited:
Any journal entries or diplomatic events/great power status effects that would boost/suppress conversion &/or assimilation?

For example, would a Great Power Ottoman Empire have a faster conversion/assimilation rate than an Ottoman Empire that loses their status?
 
How does it work for places like Austria or Russia? Do they discriminate against their non-primary cultures (such as Poles in each of them, or people like Czechs, Magyars or Romanians?), and on what aspect?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I think it's a bit of a missed opportunity to not include the Loyalist mechanic in assimilation, after thinking about it. Loyalism can actually model pop attitudes towards the state (and thus the primary culture(s) of that state), which is a more natural metric for whether a pop would be inclined to assimilate. It would also allow for situations where discriminated pops assimilate, but would make that rarer by virtue of discriminated pops being less likely to be Loyalists. I think this would both be a more intuitive and flexible system since assimilation can vary depending on the situation in the country (if minorities are radicalized, logically, they do not assimilate).
 
  • 16
  • 2
Reactions:
I have to echo the concerns others have made about religious conversion being way too rapid. The way this is setup you'd possibly have half the Christians of the Balkans converting in 30 years, but this is absurdly unrealistic. This is past the era when Islam was ascendant in the Balkans for example and even 5% converting over 30 years would be a lot.

As far as culture goes, yeah there are examples of forced cultural conversions working in homelands but it's worth noting that the Germanisation and Russification in Poland that keeps getting brought up wasn't all that successful, and the "successful" Russification mentioned in a prior post in the thread is basically irl fanfiction. In the Posen province for example, German statistics, which were likely to be biased in favor of Germans if anything, record about a quarter of the population as German in 1815 and three-quarters as Polish. In 1910, it was 38% German and 62% Polish. So a shift of 13% in 95 years indicates that said policies weren't very effective. Interestingly, in 1890 it was 40% and 60% German and Polish respectively, which means that by the end it was going backwards from the point of view of Berlin.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 3
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions: