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

[JodelDiplom]

The interesting thing about this graph is that in 1871 the Germans had no demographic advantage over the French. Sure the French were no longer the most obviously populous nation in Europe any more, but they were not significantly outweighed by the Germans, as they would be by 1914. The cause of French loss of power is something more than just demographic.

The lines of France and Germany cross at around 1870 so their populations were equal that's true. But you also have to consider the age distribution. The line for Germany has a steeper slope throughout the decades before and street 1870 which means they were growing at a significantly faster rate and for a while. So their age distribution must have had more younger people than France at the same time. Soldiers are mostly recruited from the age cohort 18-30 and 1870 Germany must already have had more people in that age cohort than France despite total population numbers being around equal.

That being said - ofc France's defeat in 1870 wasn't primarily due to demographics The Prussian army just did the whole "hit them first and hit them hard" perfectly while the French army dropped the ball. Could have been a reverse result had the quality of preparation been reversed.

 

[loup99]

The interesting thing about this graph is that in 1871 the Germans had no demographic advantage over the French. Sure the French were no longer the most obviously populous nation in Europe any more, but they were not significantly outweighed by the Germans, as they would be by 1914. The cause of French loss of power is something more than just demographic.

The lines of France and Germany cross at around 1870 so their populations were equal that's true.

The borders don't evolve on the graph. Germany thus already had an advantage since the German Empire encompassed additional territories compared to today. France on the other has kept the same borders in Europe from 1870 to today (with the exception of Alsace-Lorraine being annexed by the Germans and other German occupations during WW2).

 

[bz249]

The interesting thing about this graph is that in 1871 the Germans had no demographic advantage over the French. Sure the French were no longer the most obviously populous nation in Europe any more, but they were not significantly outweighed by the Germans, as they would be by 1914. The cause of French loss of power is something more than just demographic.

Like they forgot to plant large coal deposits into the French soil?

 

[demanvanwezel]

Like they forgot to plant large coal deposits into the French soil?

sure looks like enough to me

 

[loup99]

Like they forgot to plant large coal deposits into the French soil?

What do you mean? France had a coal industry with miners. Less than Germany, but it was still present. I can recommend you Zola's book Germinal if this is a subject that interests you.

 

[JodelDiplom]

The borders don't evolve on the graph. Germany thus already had an advantage since the German Empire encompassed additional territories compared to today. France on the other has kept the same borders in Europe from 1870 to today (with the exception of Alsace-Lorraine being annexed by the Germans and other German occupations during WW2).

The graph says its counting population in present day borders, but that's certainly a false description of the numbers shown.

The German 1871 census counted 41 million people in the then present borders of the German Empire (including Alsace Lorraine and the vast eastern provinces). The graph matches up even though Alsace Lorraine alone had over a million inhabitants.

The German 1919 census had 61 million inhabitants in the then present borders of the Weimar Republic. (sans Saar, sans Posen, with Silesia Pomerania east Prussia) and that matches up with the graph despite Silesia pomerania and east Prussia having around 6 million or so people at that time.

Alsace–Lorraine - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Liste der Volkszählungen in Deutschland – Wikipedia

de.m.wikipedia.org

 

[bz249]

What do you mean? France had a coal industry with miners. Less than Germany, but it was still present. I can recommend you Zola's book Germinal if this is a subject that interests you.

It was less than Germany and/or the UK.. thus the Ruhr area emerged as the powerplant of Europe and not Lille.

 

[Kovax]

It was less than Germany and/or the UK.. thus the Ruhr area emerged as the powerplant of Europe and not Lille.

That's not an "all or nothing" situation, as you seem to portray it. France could have had something very similar, and only slightly smaller, or even managed to match or exceed it with a bit more investment in rail transportation to get the coal from nearby mines to the factories. It was available nearby, just not as concentrated as in Germany.

 

[bz249]

That's not an "all or nothing" situation, as you seem to portray it. France could have had something very similar, and only slightly smaller, or even managed to match or exceed it with a bit more investment in rail transportation to get the coal from nearby mines to the factories. It was available nearby, just not as concentrated as in Germany.

The French coal production was like 1/4 that of Germany by 1913 (i found no earlier data as of now) 40 vs 173+12 in Saar+4 in AL

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications/FRB/pages/1920-1924/25077_1920-1924.pdf

That's pretty significant. Not even the same league. The French were pushing for the Saar over and over again for very good reasons. Namely coal.

edited: link failed

 

[Director]

I can't speak directly to French coal production but I can say that in their steam locomotive designs they prioritized fuel economy to a much greater degree than British, American or German designs. That indicates a certain sensitivity to coal supply.

 

[Easy-Kill]

European coal production in Million metric tonnes.

From:
ECONOMICS 303Y1
The Economic History of Modern Europe to 1914
Prof. John Munro
Lecture Topic No. 20:
IV. THE SPREAD OF MODERN INDUSTRIALIZATION IN THE 19TH CENTURY: THE ‘SLOW INDUSTRIALIZATION’ OF FRANCE, 1789 - 1914

Decade	Great Britain	Belgium	France	Germany	Russia
1820-9	20.00	n.a.	1.30	1.40	n.a.
1830-9	25.45	2.75	2.45	2.45	n.a.
1840-9	40.40	4.60	3.95	5.25	n.a
1850-9	59.00	7.70	6.45	11.95	n.a
1860-9	95.50	11.35	11.35	25.90	0.45
1870-9	129.45	14.70	16.20	45.65	1.60
1880-9	163.40	17.95	20.85	71.90	4.35
1890-9	194.15	20.70	28.45	107.05	9.05
1900-9	245.30	24.05	34.70	179.25	20.50
1910-3	275.40	24.80	39.90	247.50	30.20

Noting how France very quickly falls behind Germany and the UK in coal production.

 

[pithorr]

View attachment 605893

sure looks like enough to me

Did France substantially mine coal from any of all those deposits, short of Lille area?

 

[loup99]

Did France substantially mine coal from any of all those deposits, short of Lille area?

Yes, although France always imported coal from other countries, the domestic extraction was never sufficient. You have in addition to the Nord-Pas de Calais Mining Basin for example the one in Lorraine which is famous, although it was annexed by the German Empire between 1870-1914. Mining in Nord-Pas de Calais nonetheless remained the most important.

 

[pithorr]

Yes, although France always imported coal from other countries, the domestic production was never sufficient. You have in addition to the Nord-Pas de Calais Mining Basin the one in Lorraine which is famous.

But the map shows plenty of other deposits, especially in the Massif Central and Loire region. Was mining there unprofitable?

 

[loup99]

But the map shows plenty of other deposits, especially in the Massif Central and Loire region. Was mining there unprofitable?

No, it was done there too, and at start, during the first part of the 19th century, the Loire mining was even more significant than that of Nord-Pas de Calais. Although the size of the deposits and mining activity was less significant over the whole period. I don't have detailed regional numbers in front of me so I can't tell the precise difference in scale.

 

[demanvanwezel]

Yes, although France always imported coal from other countries, the domestic extraction was never sufficient. You have in addition to the Nord-Pas de Calais Mining Basin for example the one in Lorraine which is famous, although it was annexed by the German Empire between 1870-1914. Mining in Nord-Pas de Calais nonetheless remained the most important.

this is honestly one of the things that get's forgotten in all of the "germany doesn't do shlieffen and focusses on russia"-AH's
it might have been a failure but germany did controll a third of france's coal production and half of it's steel production

 

[thedarkendstar]

I've never gotten this whole oh Europe is protected by the American taxpayer thing, yes Europe doesn't spend much on defense yes the US does but we aren't spending that money because of Europe we are just spending it on our military because we want the biggest gun most of Europe is allied with the US and itself no one is invading Europe they arent not spending at our expense we are spending because we chose to...

Why is the answer always Europe needs to pay more instead of they have the right idea we could probably spend a bit less.

 

[Culann]

I've never gotten this whole oh Europe is protected by the American taxpayer thing, yes Europe doesn't spend much on defense yes the US does but we aren't spending that money because of Europe we are just spending it on our military because we want the biggest gun most of Europe is allied with the US and itself no one is invading Europe they arent not spending at our expense we are spending because we chose to...

Why is the answer always Europe needs to pay more instead of they have the right idea we could probably spend a bit less.

People are blaming those not responsible.Early Gen Xers and boomers still run our country and believe that we have to keep spending the money on defense to curb the possibility of an expansionist China or Russia. They don’t get the world has changed and future conflicts won’t be conventional nor the scale they believe.

 

[Ming]

Why is the answer always Europe needs to pay more instead of they have the right idea we could probably spend a bit less.

Both are true.

Europe should spend a modest amount more.

The US should spend a massive amount less.

 

[MrReaper182]

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.

Because they did what you wanted at the end of WW1 and nothing bad happened did it? There has never been another world war started in Europe so the Marshall plain worked. It's a damn good job you were not the person leading the clean up after WW2 for the USA.