and tightly interconnected international knowledge-based corporations.
Migration can be understood as a long-term geographical relocation of the focal point of life for individuals, families, groups, or indeed for a whole population. Distinctions can be made between different manifestations of geographical population movements. This particularly relates to migrations for the purpose of work or resettlement, nomadic movement, migration for education, training, and cultural reasons, for marriage, for economic improvement, as well as forced migration. Disregarding forced migration for the moment (mainly flight, expulsion, and deportation), then people on the move between geographical and social locations, whether individuals, families, or groups, are mostly seeking to improve their opportunities for employment, places to settle, job markets, education, training, or marriage, or just to get a new chance in life. The decision to migrate is a result of personal choices or new arrangements in family economic situations. There may indeed be no alternative actions for individuals and families to take, especially not when there is a real threat of existential need because of economic, social, or environmental crises.
In that context belong the intercontinental migrations of the 19th and early 20th centuries, which led some 55 to 60 million Europeans to other parts of the world. The migration overseas of German-speaking settlers from eastern parts of Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries makes up one element of this extensive, continent-wide, and geographical movement of population. For these migrations, which were directed towards the transformation of economic and social opportunities, there was primarily an economic gap between the region of origin and the target region. This should however in no way be understood as referring to marked differences in economic development between two global or continental macro-areas, but rather more as being restricted to individual small-scale market sectors. Access to markets was driven by the specific social characteristics of individuals or members of families or groups, especially sex, age, and position in the family cycle, occupation and qualifications, along with personal attributes (especially with regard to ethnicity or nationality), all of which were often bound up with privileges and birth rights, and affected their perception of the opportunities offered by migration.
Systems of communication also motivated and gave structure to geographical movements of population, and the extent to which migration was understood as an economic alternative for individuals or families depended decisively on a knowledge of the target location, along with the route to get there and the opportunities available. In order for migrations for the purpose of work, education and colonization to reach a certain scale and a specific duration, there needed to be a continuous and reliable flow of information about the target region. The forms of communication were very diverse: a central element was made up of verbal or written transmission of knowledge about opportunities for employment, education, marriage, or housing by previous (pioneer) migrants who had already gone out there, whose reports were given greater weight on the grounds of connections of family relationship or acquaintance. There was however also the phenomenon, albeit rare, that the first settlers deliberately kept quiet about problems with the aim of overcoming these by attracting more of their friends and relatives to come out to the new homeland. Reliable and adequate sources of information affecting the genesis and the implementation of the decision to emigrate were predominantly only available to the potential migrants for one particular target location, or for individual settlements limited to a local area, or to specific segments of the employment or education market, so that realistic options for making choices between different target areas could not have been made available.
The importance of the sharing of information through networking with friends and relatives cannot be overestimated. As an example, relatives or acquaintance often provided the first place to stay, or else the final destination of the journey, for 94% of the Europeans who arrived in North America around 1900. At least a hundred million letters from emigrants were sent from the U.S. to Germany between 1820 and 1914 and were circulated around the circles of friends and relatives back in the home regions. We do not know exactly how many letters from emigrants went back to the German-speaking minorities in regions of East, Central, and South-East Europe, but there is plenty of individual evidence indicating that here, too, it was letters or the testimony of people who had returned that were the central instrument for sharing reliable information about the opportunities offered abroad. Thus, the places of origin and the target regions were linked up through transatlantic migration networks, by means of a communication system involving family relationships, friendships, and ethnic communities.
Our knowledge about the opportunities and the dangers of emigration and immigration, about territorial goals and transport routes, as well as the psychological, physical, and financial burdens involved, have come from verbal and written reports of official (state), religious, or private organizations and information centers. In addition, a wide range of different media agencies spread information which was relevant to the migration process. These included migration advisers as well as articles in newspapers and magazines. It is also the case that official or private advertising by migrants seeking work or housing – for example with the help of agents or advertisers – could be understood as a form of transferring knowledge by way of migrant opportunities.
In general, there were multiple drivers underlying decisions about migration, and a whole range of different motives affected the decision on emigration or immigration into a particular location. Mostly, a combination of economic, social, political, religious, and personal motives came together in a variety of different configurations and to different degrees. It is also the case that coincidence played a not insignificant role. For example, territorial movements might be interrupted because in the course of transit through an area, a location that had at first only been thought of as an intermediate stopover unexpectedly offered new opportunities. On the other hand, the planned goal could prove to be unsuitable or less attractive, resulting in an onward migration. A striking example of this is given by Mennonite settlers who started by moving from German-speaking regions into the Russian Tsarist Empire but then, after the important privileges that they had been granted since the early 1870s were taken away (especially in 1874 the lifting of exemption from military service), they moved away to North America. The Canadian government offered them their own settlement areas in South Manitoba. In 1872, the Canadian administration had sent William Hespeler into the settlement areas of the German Russians as their agent, partly in the hope of gaining immigrants to develop their own western areas, and secondly to encourage more Germans wanting to emigrate from the Tsarist empire. Hespeler, who had originally emigrated from Baden to Canada, travelled through the regions to the north of the Black Sea and returned to Canada in 1873 with a group of 284 Mennonites, who became the pioneers for the later Mennonite settlement in Manitoba. By 1880, the group had already grown to around 8,000 people.
Canada was attractive, not only because the state took on a good proportion of the travel costs, but also especially because of the possibility of an exclusive settlement in areas which were made available by the Canadian government. At the same time, the Mennonites were granted the right to introduce their own school system. In the Canadian census of 1886, the official enumerators recorded 11,000 inhabitants of German origin in Manitoba, of whom only 500 had been born in Germany, in comparison to the 5,700 born in Russia.
Onward migration or return migration was by no means a consistent sign of failure, contrary to what research has long believed. Indeed, success in the destination region might make it possible to return home, or else to an equal extent prevent a return that had originally been planned. Thus, the process of migration remained open-ended, with the intention of the migration and the outcome of the migration not infrequently being quite different. This could also be due to the fact that making a single direct journey from the place of origin to the destination point was only one of many possibilities, and the process of migration very often involved a number of stages, which could at any time turn into a permanent destination. Paid employment found at intermediate locations on the way also provided cash funds for the onward journey, or towards the cost of preparations for the settlement itself.
From the early 19th century onwards, the number of people who turned their backs on Europe grew rapidly. The background for this was an increasing imbalance between the growth in population on
