France's population decline and its effect on French power in the 19th and 20th centuries.

[Sunforged General]

What ever the causes of the French population decline were, do you think its likely France could have retained its power and prestige well into the 20th century had its population stayed on a growth level similar to that of Germany?

Do you think France having a bigger population, and thus more manpower for more armies, could have turned the tide in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870? What about WWI? And WWII?

Do you think having the manpower to slug it out 1vs1 with Germany would have made France act in a more dominant way toward Germany?

 

[loup99]

Had France had a bigger population and had the same growth as the UK and Germany it would likely have continued to dominate Europe. It is difficult to predict events so much later on though, the French demographic evolution diverged a long time before 1870. If France remains the single biggest European power, above the UK and Germany, events would begin to change earlier than as late as 1870. The country might influence German reunification or Italian reunification early on, a younger and more urban population might mean stronger social movements and thus a Republic which stabilises a lot more early. It is very difficult to tell what impact demography has on politics.

 

[Spelaren]

I don't understand how Germany still is the economical and population rich giant of Europe despite being in two world wars, getting bombed to smithereens and millions of their piopulation dying. They lost preussen which had a lot of industrial stuff, and that coal and iron rich part that is now in poland.

 

[loup99]

I don't understand how Germany still is the economical and population rich giant of Europe despite being in two world wars, getting bombed to smithereens and millions of their piopulation dying. They lost preussen which had a lot of industrial stuff, and that coal and iron rich part that is now in poland.

France a lost a larger share of their population in WW1 than Germany. In WW2 Poland and the Soviet Union had greater casualties. Germany kept the wealthy Ruhr area throughout both conflicts. They were still more industrialised than others even after the destruction, to my knowledge.

 

[Herbert West]

I don't understand how Germany still is the economical and population rich giant of Europe despite being in two world wars, getting bombed to smithereens and millions of their piopulation dying. They lost preussen which had a lot of industrial stuff, and that coal and iron rich part that is now in poland.

Because the population loss in WWII was counteracted by the expulsion of 10-15 million Germans from the East who settled in Germany proper.

Prussia was never an industrial powerhouse. It was an agrarian backwater.

 

[loup99]

Prussia was never an industrial powerhouse. It was an agrarian backwater.

Maybe Spelaren was rather referring to Silesia?

 

[Sunforged General]

I don't understand how Germany still is the economical and population rich giant of Europe despite being in two world wars, getting bombed to smithereens and millions of their piopulation dying. They lost preussen which had a lot of industrial stuff, and that coal and iron rich part that is now in poland.

It was mostly the Marshall Plan. Had the US not injected Germany with obscene amounts of relief money to rebuild industry, Germany today would be more equal to France or Britain in terms of economy. Honestly, all that money given to Germany should have gone to France or Britain, you know, the victims of a war they didn't want, and left the Germans to fix their own mess.

At the very least, instead of free money, the Germans should have been given high interest loans.

 

[Herbert West]

It was mostly the Marshall Plan. Had the US not injected Germany with obscene amounts of relief money to rebuild industry, Germany today would be more equal to France or Britain in terms of economy. Honestly, all that money given to Germany should have gone to France or Britain, you know, the victims of a war they didn't want, and left the Germans to fix their own mess.

A nice myth, but a myth nonetheless.

France and the UK got more money (3300 million for the UK and 2300 million for France compared to 1450 million for West Germany) than Germany. Per capita, Italy got more money.

The injected funds part of the Marshall plan had less to do with the german bounce-back, than the abandonment of the asinine "lets turn germany into an agrarian state" plan that was practiced until then.

A highly industrialised, highly educated country like Germany was going to bounce back no matter what, provided it has customers and suppliers who dealt with it on an equitable base.

 

[loup99]

It was mostly the Marshall Plan. Had the US not injected Germany with obscene amounts of relief money to rebuild industry, Germany today would be more equal to France or Britain in terms of economy. Honestly, all that money given to Germany should have gone to France or Britain, you know, the victims of a war they didn't want, and left the Germans to fix their own mess.

At the very least, instead of free money, the Germans should have been given high interest loans.

The Marshall Plan wasn't some generous charity project. Amongst other reasons the Plan was a way to prevent communism from spreading, export US influence abroad by selling US products, tying countries to the US economically and establish the US as a model of capitalism as opposed to the considerable attraction of the model of the Soviet Union in Western Europe, given the success of communist parties and trade unions in the resistance movements and the liberation of large parts of Europe by the Red Army.

 

[Sunforged General]

A nice myth, but a myth nonetheless.

France and the UK got more money (3300 million for the UK and 2300 million for France compared to 1450 million for West Germany) than Germany. Per capita, Italy got more money.

The injected funds part of the Marshall plan had less to do with the german bounce-back, than the abandonment of the asinine "lets turn germany into an agrarian state" plan that was practiced until then.

A highly industrialised, highly educated country like Germany was going to bounce back no matter what, provided it has customers and suppliers who dealt with it on an equitable base.

Not quite a myth, without the Marshall plan, Germany would take far longer to recover. However, you are right in that abandoning the Morgenthau Plan helped more than the Marshall plan it self.

However, I disagree that Germany would have "bounced back" no matter what. Had the Morgenthau Plan been carried out, a forced de-industrialization, moving those factories to France or scrapping them, and forcing Germany into agrarianism, would have been something they could not undo them selves. I dont see why the plan was "asinine", its not like the Germans didn't steal factories from a dozen countries in the war. During the first world war, the Germans carried off a considerable amount of factory machines from Belgium as well.

 

[Herbert West]

Not quite a myth, without the Marshall plan, Germany would take far longer to recover. However, you are right in that abandoning the Morgenthau Plan helped more than the Marshall plan it self.

However, I disagree that Germany would have "bounced back" no matter what. Had the Morgenthau Plan been carried out, a forced de-industrialization, moving those factories to France or scrapping them, and forcing Germany into agrarianism, would have been something they could not undo them selves. I dont see why the plan was "asinine", its not like the Germans didn't steal factories from a dozen countries in the war. During the first world war, the Germans carried off a considerable amount of factory machines from Belgium as well.

It was asinine, because reducing an industrialised society to an agrarian one would have been the perfect way to drive them into the open arms of the industrialised and on paper pro-worker regime next door.

Besides, neither the UK, nor France had the manpower to actually do anything with that machinery.

 

[bz249]

A nice myth, but a myth nonetheless.

France and the UK got more money (3300 million for the UK and 2300 million for France compared to 1450 million for West Germany) than Germany. Per capita, Italy got more money.

The injected funds part of the Marshall plan had less to do with the german bounce-back, than the abandonment of the asinine "lets turn germany into an agrarian state" plan that was practiced until then.

A highly industrialised, highly educated country like Germany was going to bounce back no matter what, provided it has customers and suppliers who dealt with it on an equitable base.

BTW the German dominance over (Central)-Europe is also a consequence of the collapse of the Eastern Bloc. First the Federal Republic of Germany got the DDR... and due to historic and geographic reasons it was much better suited to profit from a closer collaboration with region from Poland from Croatia. Austria also benefitted quite from that while France and especially the Mediterranian countries got the worse of it.

Here is the brand new economic forcecast from the European comission

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/economy-finance/ip132_en.pdf

Page 44 is the evolution of the GDP from 2000-2019 and forecast for 2020-2021

Eastern Europe 50-100% economic growth in that 20 years period
Germany/Austria 25-30%
France 20% (even though the population is still growing at considerable pace)
Italy/Greece 0%

That contains also a nice graph, unemployment in the European regions in 2019

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/10749957/1-24042020-AP-EN.pdf/bc37e8b1-fc14-ae9c-d3cc-6130c98e4d96

Quite easy to mark the borders of the Fifth Reich.

 

[Easy-Kill]

It was asinine, because reducing an industrialised society to an agrarian one would have been the perfect way to drive them into the open arms of the industrialised and on paper pro-worker regime next door.

Besides, neither the UK, nor France had the manpower to actually do anything with that machinery.

There is also the point that the UK and France continued to spend a very large % of its GDP on defence. The situation across Britain, France and Germany was very different.

 

[delta180]

Britain had come off especially well from the Napoleonic wars but France and Russia were close behind with Austria and the Ottomans started to decline, this dynamic dominated Europe for that century

By the mid 19th century France invaded Austria to secure Italy and the Russians invaded the Ottomans to secure Crimea and the Caucasus, Britain did not want to risk a direct war on France that would cut off a major trade partner and weaken its position in China so it supported German unification to counterbalance the French and Russian threats

While Britain never interfered in the Franco-Prussian war itself, Britain could have aided Prussia further had France been stronger at that point, so I don't think the outcome of the war would have changed, even if it had Britain would have strongly opposed French expansion into Germany

WW1 trench warfare was for all intents and purposes a war of technology and not a war of manpower, the French side won anyway so I don't see the result changing, having said that the French were afraid of the German frontier even after ww1, they pushed to move the frontier into Germany and taking away most of its industry, but Britain and America said no on account of keeping Germany a trading partner and checking the power of France, France might not have backed down had France have been stronger in the war and WW2 might not have happened

 

[Kovax]

Possible major change in history, as France becomes the aggressive power, invading Belgium and Italy, while Germany and the UK ally to stop their rampage across Europe?

 

[delta180]

Possible major change in history, as France becomes the aggressive power, invading Belgium and Italy, while Germany and the UK ally to stop their rampage across Europe?

so the Napoleonic wars again?

 

[loup99]

Possible major change in history, as France becomes the aggressive power, invading Belgium and Italy, while Germany and the UK ally to stop their rampage across Europe?

I really don't see why or how that would happen in 1914, not really plausible at all. France already attacked in 1870, although Bismarck wanted it to happen. If France had defeated Germany in 1870 or earlier, been able to annex Wallonia and Luxemburg, which is very unlikely in our timeline but probably a prerequisite for that sort of dominance, 1914 would not have happened in the same way.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

It was mostly the Marshall Plan. Had the US not injected Germany with obscene amounts of relief money to rebuild industry, Germany today would be more equal to France or Britain in terms of economy. Honestly, all that money given to Germany should have gone to France or Britain, you know, the victims of a war they didn't want, and left the Germans to fix their own mess.

At the very least, instead of free money, the Germans should have been given high interest loans.

You overlook the tremendous amounts of German WWII corporate money and invaluable patents stockpiled in shell companies based in neutral countries using Bormann's enforced policy of Flight Capital following I.G. Farben's financial 'Cloaking' model adopted by the Reichsleiter and expanded and stretched across the Nazi friendly corporations of the Reich. This money was repatriated into Germany during the early 1950's when it was apparent the West would play ball with the Germans in exile - creating the illusion of an 'Economic Miracle' that allowed West Germany to outpace all European countries during rearmament, uhm, rebuilding.

 

[Geriander]

during rearmament, uhm, rebuilding.

Looking at the current state of the Bundeswehr, you are right to correct your statement. While Germany has rebuilt, it has certainly not rearmed.

 

[demanvanwezel]

no, you don't understand, the brooms the bunsewehr use instead of guns are a symbol for the german desire to "clean" up all of the world