Challange: US with much smaller population

Replicator

Banned
Make the US population of 1940 less than 100 million with a POD/POD´s after the year 1900. Is that possible?

Could a deadlier spanish flue in the US achieved that?

All the Europen immigrant going to Australia, Canada, New Zeeland or South America instead?

A much more immigration hostile US policy?

And what effects would this have had for WW2?

I believe in 1940 US population was close to 140 million - 100 million would be 29% less population than in OTL. That means far less soldiers and prodcution ect.
 

Maur

Banned
Make the US population of 1940 less than 100 million with a POD/POD´s after the year 1900. Is that possible?

Could a deadlier spanish flue in the US achieved that?

All the Europen immigrant going to Australia, Canada, New Zeeland or South America instead?

A much more immigration hostile US policy?

And what effects would this have had for WW2?

I believe in 1940 US population was close to 140 million - 100 million would be 29% less population than in OTL. That means far less soldiers and prodcution ect.
Seeing as USA had 100m in 1900 already, IIRC, this is borderline asb (as in requires something like global extinction event)
 

Replicator

Banned
Seeing as USA had 100m in 1900 already, IIRC, this is borderline asb (as in requires something like global extinction event)

Yellowstone or Tungaska Asteroids hits US in 1908 instead of Sibiria?
Spanish flu is much more devastating in the US?
 
can´t pull it off without epidemics or catastrophes which likely would change the TL.

I´d suggest having earlier pods that include ridicilous legal and economic barriers to immigrants.
 
Something like the first.

Second one isn't going to be confined to US only.

Actually, both would wreak an unholy amount of devastation on the globe. Yellowstone erupting would result in mass extinctions all over the globe. Massive temperature drops would cause famine for years on end and humanity would just barely hang on.

You really cannot lower the US population that significantly without something similar happening to the rest of the world.
 

Maur

Banned
Actually, both would wreak an unholy amount of devastation on the globe. Yellowstone erupting would result in mass extinctions all over the globe. Massive temperature drops would cause famine for years on end and humanity would just barely hang on.

You really cannot lower the US population that significantly without something similar happening to the rest of the world.
Nah, sure you can. Have 20 Tunguska-size meteors strike from Massachusetts to Alabama simultaneously, and the effect on ROTW would be minimal :D ;)
 
How about some form of crop blight? Obviously, the US is not nearly as dependent on a single crop as Ireland was on the potato, but a mass die-off of wheat could still do a lot of damage. If it was bad enough, maybe you could get a situation where you cannot grow wheat economically in the most productive areas of the country. So, you have vast internal migration to new lands, and the Midwest/Great Plains turns into a dust bowl. Word spreads, so fewer agricultural immigrants move to the US. Finally, food prices shoot upwards, forcing people all over the country to have much smaller families. An entire generation of children grows up with malnutrition, making them less able to survive illness, etc.

I don't know if that is enough to generate such a large shortfall vs. OTL, but it should help.
 

celt

Banned
As for the challange the US has to go completly nativist at the turn of the century and ban all immigration from eastern and southern Europe to keep the population down.

But thats a somewhat obvious answer.
 
Top