If was thinking if you have a higher goal(as in larger tfr) then that will give you more energy to pursue natalist policies. Maybe it would be harder to reach the goal of 6.0 tfr than 3.0, but even if you don't reach 6.0 tfr then you may have a higher tfr than 3.

Even Romania with their extreme natalist policies was only able to get their fertility rate over 3 (peaking at 3.68) for the immediate few years (1967-69) after the government ordered it. If Romania with their extreme security state couldn't do it for more than few years, then neither can East Germany.
 
View attachment 383986
View attachment 384183
What if:
DDR(Deutsche Demokratische Republikk/East Germany) had a larger population than BRD(Bunds Republikken Deutschland) at the time of reunification? This has to happen within OTL borders, after ther German surrender and with all events leading up to the German surrender being as in OTL.

AHC: With a pod in 1945 have DDR's population become larger than BRD's population by the time of OTL unification. This has to happen within OTL borders, after ther German surrender and with all events leading up to the German surrender being as in OTL.

Questions:
1. Would the reunifaction of the two germanies still happen if DDR's population were larger than BRD's population?
2. How might a larger population affect DDR's internal politics?
3. How and why would DDR's population increase?

The Soviet Union makes the GDR bigger by adding Königsberg, Eastern prussia etc. ? Alternate it resettles their own ethnic germans and other ethecities in Eastern Germany instead Central Asia ?
 
During the fall of the Berlin wall, make the DDR government give papers of nationality as if were Papiermark to anyone who ask for one, and then, burn the archives
 
Hitler goes all-out on chemical warfare in 1945, including strikes on the UK. WAllies retaliate with Operation Vegetarian in 1945, impacting mainly what would become West Germany killing millions, while largely sparing East Germany. Borders somehow end up the same at the end of the war.

West Germany ends up with huge chunks of wasteland and no-man's land and has to spend a ton of money just cleaning the place up, while East Germany is able to more easily repair the damage. The economies of both states are about the same as a result. The end result is that East Germany has slightly more people than the West.

Even being off topic, care to prove these absurd claims?
 
Even being off topic, care to prove these absurd claims?

What's so absurd about it? Anthrax is lethal to animals and very dangerous to humans and easily infests the soil, turning huge areas into death zones. Operation Vegetarian would have killed millions of people through either the disease itself or more likely famine.
 
What's so absurd about it? Anthrax is lethal to animals and very dangerous to humans and easily infests the soil, turning huge areas into death zones. Operation Vegetarian would have killed millions of people through either the disease itself or more likely famine.

Yes and it reproduces in soil apparently.

The idea that less than 2 kg of anthrax used in Vegetarian is enough to make west Germany a wasteland? How have you determined this? Did it not take more tham 2 kg to contaminate Gruinard island?

While unclear exactly how much anthrax was dumped on Gruinard island it is very evident cattle cakes is not the exact best way to contaminate the whole of west Germany. The Brtiitsh contaminated the Gruinard island with anthrax clouds. Even then was Guinard island a "death zone" where all animal life ceased.. Doubt it.

And no famine either. Culling and vaccinnes will stop it from becoming an anthrax outbreak. The Nazis had 20 million cattle by the end of 1939. At most this kills 5 million cattle (being extremely generous here). That is not near as bad a picture as the one casuing the Soviet post-war famine for example (itself possibly avoidable).

The WAllies would only do it the Nazis used anthrax. In 1945. They were within a stones throw of Berlin. Even less reason to do so. They will retaliate with chemical weapons and chemical weapons alone.
 
I never said it was particularly plausible, but neither is the very scenario of this topic. Implausible (yet not ASB) scenarios for implausible (yet not ASB) topics.

So killing 5 million cattle and other livestock in a country which needs to steal food from other countries to feed its army, its people, and other people its occupying won't cause a famine? I call it a "death zone" because most livestock will die (and anyone who eats the animals will become severely ill) and people will have a high risk of developing cutaneous anthrax--seems pretty bad to me. Given this thread deals with the post-war effects, it will be rather hard to convince most people to live there. People who already live there will mostly clear out, causing a shortage of housing in other places. A sizable amount of land (up to a few thousand km2 perhaps) can be considered to be a true death zone, but even less contaminated land might get that reputation.
 
Even Romania with their extreme natalist policies was only able to get their fertility rate over 3 (peaking at 3.68) for the immediate few years (1967-69) after the government ordered it. If Romania with their extreme security state couldn't do it for more than few years, then neither can East Germany.
Why did Romania's TFR not exeed it's otl rate? And why did it not last(Rapid decline after the fertility boom, untill tfr stablised at 2,2-2,6)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Romania
 
The Soviet Union makes the GDR bigger by adding Königsberg, Eastern prussia etc. ? Alternate it resettles their own ethnic germans and other ethecities in Eastern Germany instead Central Asia ?
There was anti german sentiment and discrimination for many decades after ww2, therefore i suppose the Soviets could rid themselfes of these people by expelling them.
 
Stalin is so determined to sell Communism to the Germans that--breathlessly reversing his anti-Germanism of 1941-5--he pours enormous resources into the Soviet zone of Germany, making it more prosperous than the USSR itself, the other "people's democracies" or the Western zones of Germany (before the 1948 currency reform). Millions of west Germans swarm to the eastern socialist utopia.

No, not very plausible. But it's the best I can do to bring about an outcome that is very unlikely under any circumstances...
 
Why did Romania's TFR not exeed it's otl rate? And why did it not last(Rapid decline after the fertility boom, untill tfr stablised at 2,2-2,6)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Romania

Because people found ways to evade the state natalist system, either through bribery of government officials or more commonly through illegal abortions. It's no surprise that with Romanian natalist policies many women died as a result, either through back-alley abortions or side-effects of pregnancy. Neighbouring Eastern Bloc states like Hungary and Bulgaria had nowhere near as high of death rate of pregnant women.
 
Because people found ways to evade the state natalist system, either through bribery of government officials or more commonly through illegal abortions. It's no surprise that with Romanian natalist policies many women died as a result, either through back-alley abortions or side-effects of pregnancy. Neighbouring Eastern Bloc states like Hungary and Bulgaria had nowhere near as high of death rate of pregnant women.
How could the state encourage more pro natalist trends? In a way where to population does not object to the natalism. Also how could the state prevent evasion of the natalist system?
 
How could the state encourage more pro natalist trends? In a way where to population does not object to the natalism. Also how could the state prevent evasion of the natalist system?

That's basically impossible. You need to spend huge amounts of money on childcare, with free daycare, free schooling, and huge subsidies to families with children, along with free medical treatment during and after pregnancy. This would have to be to the point where most men would try as hard as they could with their wives/girlfriends for a child, and most women would want a child for the economic benefits provided by the government.

To my knowledge, nothing was funded well-enough to make such natalist visions a reality, nor did the government of Romania (or any other Eastern Bloc country) have the money to fund this. This is why the children of that era played a major role in the overthrow of Nicolai Ceausescu.

And the government can't prevent evasion of such policies. Causing a miscarriage isn't hard, although can be dangerous for a woman. Bribery isn't hard either in a corrupt system like the Eastern Bloc--look at corruption in North Korea, it's believed to be among the most corrupt countries in the world since lower-level government employees are easy to bribe. Anyone with any level of wealth could bribe government enforcers to circumvent the system.
 
That's basically impossible. You need to spend huge amounts of money on childcare, with free daycare, free schooling, and huge subsidies to families with children, along with free medical treatment during and after pregnancy. This would have to be to the point where most men would try as hard as they could with their wives/girlfriends for a child, and most women would want a child for the economic benefits provided by the government.

To my knowledge, nothing was funded well-enough to make such natalist visions a reality, nor did the government of Romania (or any other Eastern Bloc country) have the money to fund this. This is why the children of that era played a major role in the overthrow of Nicolai Ceausescu.

And the government can't prevent evasion of such policies. Causing a miscarriage isn't hard, although can be dangerous for a woman. Bribery isn't hard either in a corrupt system like the Eastern Bloc--look at corruption in North Korea, it's believed to be among the most corrupt countries in the world since lower-level government employees are easy to bribe. Anyone with any level of wealth could bribe government enforcers to circumvent the system.
Maybe the personal social safety net of DDR citizens, could be dependent on future children as to get a pension? Or how could the state encourage people to get more children without subsidising natalist policies? Are there any "free" solutions for the state?
 
Maybe the personal social safety net of DDR citizens, could be dependent on future children as to get a pension? Or how could the state encourage people to get more children without subsidising natalist policies? Are there any "free" solutions for the state?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_on_childlessness

The effects are demographically noticeable (just check the TFR for those countries), but not particularly high since there were many ways to get around them.
 
During the fall of the Berlin wall, make the DDR government give papers of nationality as if were Papiermark to anyone who ask for one, and then, burn the archives
Maybe it could work, but i question the sucess rate of it. Might it delay reunification? Could not BRD refuse unification?
 
Would BRD go ahead with reunification if DDR's population was larger? The economic burden per BRD citizen would be larger than in OTL as the ratio of BRD citizens to DDR citizens would be different.
 
Top