Demographics of a world without the Great War megathread

[Gancio The Ranter]

UK: Ireland: 7 milion people. Scotland: 9 milions. Wales: 5 milion. England: 55 milion people. Immigrants would be about 8% of the population, with more people from the Commonwealth and less eastern and southern Europeans.
Metropolitan France: 55 milion people

Why would France have a lower population than otl? shouldn't it be quite a bit large since a whole generation of young men isn't killed off? and IMO the uk should have a larger population aswell, seeing as those men who died would have children themselves and less people would emigrate
[/QUOTE]
France wouldn't have had such a large post war baby boom and wouldn't have Alsace and Lorraine. The birth rate in France actually went up after the world wars, in 1914 France had the lowest birth rate in the world.
The UK could have a larger population but would max out at about 80 mil imo, which isn't far off from my prediction if you include Ireland. Also what really matters is the distribution of the population, London would have about 12 million people and Birmingham probably wouldn't have been purposefully killed by the government as in OTL.

 

[Jürgen]

One important aspect is women rights, women entering the work force did a lot to lower the birthrate in the short term. But in the long term more conservative countries tend to see fast collapse in birth rates. The Scandinavian countries as example saw earlier fall in birth rates, but the fall was shorter and ended going upward again. As comparison Italy, Japan and Spain saw a longer high birth rate but saw a much large fall and haven't been able to really raise them again.

Another aspect immigration, while immigration will happen, it will more likely stay a east to west rather than south to north business. Germany is more likely to have industrial cities full of Poles, Ukrainians and East European Jews rather than Italians, Yugoslavs and Turks. The Iron curtain destroyed traditional migration pattern, we saw it to survive to some degree in Sweden, which saw a massive influx of Finns. UK will likely still see Windrush Generation and a large influx of South Asians, but UK will likely also see a continued influx of East European Jews. With fewer Italians migrating to Germany France will likely see a bigger influx instead, but they will also see a lot of North and West Africans. Without WWII Netherlands will likely not see the large influx of Indos (of course it still depend on how Indonesia get independence). Europe will be pretty alien compared to OTL.

A specific mention should go to Austria-Hungary, I believe it won't collapse. Instead we will see Vienna plus suburbs growing into a truly massive city of 15-25 million people. This have some massive effect on Austrian German identity, when a majority of Austrian German speakers are Viennese and children or grandchildren of non-German speakers. Instead of the Austrian and German identity split being a result of Austria wiping the war guilt off on Germany instead the split here will because German identity will blood and soil (in rough terms, there will still be plenty of Germans with Polish parents), while Austrian identity will be one of adoption of its values. Of course that will also create a split between Vienna and the rest of the Empire, which embrace their own national identities. But the Vienna Austrian identity will be one people in multiethnic areas and cities across the empire can adopt. Beside that outside the Austrian Riviera turning German speaking. The language borders will stay the same.

 

[The Anglo-Dutch Union]

Why would France have a lower population than otl? shouldn't it be quite a bit large since a whole generation of young men isn't killed off? and IMO the uk should have a larger population aswell, seeing as those men who died would have children themselves and less people would emigrate

France wouldn't have had such a large post war baby boom and wouldn't have Alsace and Lorraine. The birth rate in France actually went up after the world wars, in 1914 France had the lowest birth rate in the world.

[/QUOTE]
Sure but IMO once the increased welfare comes around like OTL in the 1950’s then the French population would surely grow larger? Especially as there are more young men

 

[Alhistnerd]

India had almost 0 growth between 1947 and the early 1990s, the British weren't great but the people that ruled india for the First decades of its history sucked

You underestimate how much time it takes to build a common National Identity amongst a population that's more varied then Europe - India is one of the few successful large multiethnic countries that have survived the 20th century- the huge population growth rate ensured that the Economy didn't grow at a fast enough pace to meet the demands of the population - yet we had plenty of growth .

 

[Quintuplicate]

One thing often left unmentioned in these conversations is that, in addition to larger white populations in these colonies, a longer-lasting and more robust European presence in Africa will likely lead to larger Asian populations as well, especially in the British possessions.

But to go back to the original question, I suppose that South Africa's white population would probably max out at somewhere between 20% and 25% of the whole (note that Afrikaners would comprise less than half of this, which would be interesting in itself), while Rhodesia (assuming that butterflies from the lack of the Great War do not result in the colony just being folded into South Africa) might end up at around 10% or 15%. This might be more of a question for @Reagent.

Wasn't it 20% IOTL?

 

[Analytical Engine]

China: the absence of a communist government means that there's no single child policy and no forced industrialization. The population would be about 1,5 bilion people, probably includes Mongolia.

Given existing Russian interest in the region, I suspect Mongolia would end up as a Russian satellite.

India: includes Bangladesh and Pakistan, assuming no devastating socialist government between 1947 and the early 1990s quicker Economic growth would mean an earlier demographic transition, thus resulting in 1,2/1,3 bilion people in the entire Indian subcontinent by now, about 1/4 of them muslim.

That very much depends on how India is structured, and its political development. Bangladesh might well decide to remain, as an autonomous East Bengal, or as part of a larger Bengal province - OTL Pakistan might not be so amenable, depending on the government in Delhi.

UK: Ireland: 7 milion people. Scotland: 9 milions. Wales: 5 milion. England: 55 milion people. Immigrants would be about 8% of the population, with more people from the Commonwealth and less eastern and southern Europeans.

I suspect Ireland would become independent eventually - possibly with a bit more of Northern Ireland - but retaining the British monarchy (for longer).

Metropolitan France: 55 milion people

Even assuming low French birth rates, there is still the possibility of immigration from outside. If economic growth outstrips the native workforce, France might encourage immigration from its colonies.

Non-metropolitan France probably ends up bigger, overall, IMO, with a slower decolonisation.

 

[Mr_Fanboy]

Wasn't it 20% IOTL?

My point is that the percentage could be around that high come present day.

 

[Gancio The Ranter]

You underestimate how much time it takes to build a common National Identity amongst a population that's more varied then Europe - India is one of the few successful large multiethnic countries that have survived the 20th century- the huge population growth rate ensured that the Economy didn't grow at a fast enough pace to meet the demands of the population - yet we had plenty of growth .

You underestimate the damage of Fabian socialism. The huge population growth rate is also a consequence of poor economic growth because It slows the normal demographic transition. India wouldn't have drawned it's Economy in Red tape and central planning as It did OTL with a slower and different Independence process.
India only acgieved serious levels of Economic growth after the 1991 reforms.

 

[Gancio The Ranter]

Given existing Russian interest in the region, I suspect Mongolia would end up as a Russian satellite.

Mongolia was part of the Qing empire so China would have a stronger claim, also It would be easier for them to Project power from China than It would be for the Russians

 

[Gancio The Ranter]

I suspect Ireland would become independent eventually - possibly with a bit more of Northern Ireland - but retaining the British monarchy (for longer).

Idk, most people would be fine with home rule imo, but that's a possibility

 

[Gancio The Ranter]

My point is that the percentage could be around that high come present day.

I can't see more than 30% White, 20% mixed or other "second class citizens" (non native non Whites) and about 50% African natives. And that's assuming Botswana and parts of Rhodesia wouldn't be incorporated into South Africa, as I think they might be.

 

[James Ricker]

You would probably see fewet immigrants to Europe from Asia and Africa
Mainly due to a higher population and not having a post war labor shortage driving up wages.

 

[Mr_Fanboy]

I can't see more than 30% White, 20% mixed or other "second class citizens" (non native non Whites) and about 50% African natives. And that's assuming Botswana and parts of Rhodesia wouldn't be incorporated into South Africa, as I think they might be.

Again, that would mean a modern South Africa where Afrikaners would comprise well under half of the white population, which could have interesting political and social implications. I wonder how the identity of the British diaspora in South Africa would evolve in a world where they make up a much larger percentage of the country’s population as a whole. Would it be as distinctive as the Canadian or Australian identity today?

However, various colonies and dominions in Africa would probably receive a relatively small portion of the emigration from Europe in this world - as before 1914, most would likely still head for the Western Hemisphere. I am curious as to how Latin America in particular would evolve with even more immigration. Take the example of Argentina to see how the number of immigrants just crashed with the outbreak of the Great War:

Jewish Immigration to Argentina | Modern Latin America

library.brown.edu

 

[Jito]

Without WWII, I imagine the American West would be a lot less densely settled, since no war in the Pacific means less shipbuilding, training, and manufacturing in that region. I think Arizona in particular will have a much smaller population. Industries and population might still move south with the development of air conditioning, but perhaps even more to Texas and the South.

 

[Mr_Fanboy]

I think the US would have a similar population. It’s easy to assume that that the 1924 legislation would have been passed later in this world but I doubt it. In some cities in the US immigrants and their children made up the supermajority of the population and backlash was already building up. No World War means 4 more years of large scale immigration, so the legislation would probably come around 1919 instead. As for the UK, the population would also be similar as emigration, which peaked in 1913 at hundreds of thousands a year, would remain strong for the foreseeable future. Australia, Canada and NZ would all benefit from this.

My impression, though, is that much of the impetus behind the 1924 Immigration Act was not just generalized nativism, but very specifically a consequence of the First Red Scare. Many native-born Americans identified communism, anarchism, and other radical far-left elements with immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. This manifested with episodes such as the persecution of Sacco and Vanzetti, as well as the dissemination of the Judeo-Bolshevism conspiracy theory. Absent the massive political, social, and economic fallout from the Great War, particularly the violence of Russian Revolution, and I think that there will markedly less open xenophobia in the United States, simply because the immigrants will seem less scary to the average American.

Sure, there will probably eventually be a move to severely curb immigration, but it will probably take more time to build, and the resultant restrictionist policies may end up somewhat different in the details.

 

[Mr_Fanboy]

Without WWII, I imagine the American West would be a lot less densely settled, since no war in the Pacific means less shipbuilding, training, and manufacturing in that region. I think Arizona in particular will have a much smaller population. Industries and population might still move south with the development of air conditioning, but perhaps even more to Texas and the South.

California is still a state plentiful in land and resources, such as oil, so I think that it will still be a draw for economic migrants such as the Okies. Now, the development of Southern California in particular may play out a little differently depending on whether Hollywood becomes the center of the global entertainment industry in this timeline. Seeking to escape the legal wrath of Thomas Edison on the East Coast, early motion picture pioneers had already been established in the area before the First World War, but it is important to remember that that conflict was devastating for the early European film industry, which had been in many ways more robust than any American counterpart beforehand. This gave Hollywood an institutional advantage going into the sound era. Absent a major conflict, America might not end up in such a dominant cultural position.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Absent a major conflict, America might not end up in such a dominant cultural position.

Ultimately the sheer size of America's internal markets is likely to tell, as it had in other industries. It may be less dominant, but the United States is still going to be the biggest rich country in the world, by a large margin, and is especially likely to remain so without world wars to even possibly knock it down a peg.

 

[Quintuplicate]

Ultimately the sheer size of America's internal markets is likely to tell, as it had in other industries. It may be less dominant, but the United States is still going to be the biggest rich country in the world, by a large margin, and is especially likely to remain so without world wars to even possibly knock it down a peg.

When was the earliest time the US had a high population?

 

[Arkenfolm]

When was the earliest time the US had a high population?

By the end of the 19th century the US was more populous than any country besides Russia and China, not including colonial empires.

 

[Mart1205]

Here is my prediction, I calculated those numbers using the data available
Assumptions: no Major world wars between great Powers, slower more orderly decolonization, way less socialist influences in developing countries.
China: the absence of a communist government means that there's no single child policy and no forced industrialization. The population would be about 1,5 bilion people, probably includes Mongolia.
India: includes Bangladesh and Pakistan, assuming no devastating socialist government between 1947 and the early 1990s quicker Economic growth would mean an earlier demographic transition, thus resulting in 1,2/1,3 bilion people in the entire Indian subcontinent by now, about 1/4 of them muslim.
USA: no strict immigration laws during the 1920s and due to a richer world less Mass immigration in general, the population by now would be 350 mil, with a larger Number of jews and eastern Europeans, about the same number of Italians and less hispanics. Mexicans in general would be about the same number in the States that border Mexico but wouldn't be common elsewhere. Continued migration from Europe and Asia means no great migration by African americans, which means that at least 80% of all African americans would still live in the South, perhaps making Mississippi a black majority State.
Russian empire: again, assuming no world wars and no socialism the population would be as High as 400/450 mil in 1914 borders, higher estimates are very dubious. Saint Petersburg would be a lot more important than It is now.
Japan: 133 milion people after the later democratic transition, with about 17 more from Taiwan and perhaps 80 from korea, depending on its status.
UK: Ireland: 7 milion people. Scotland: 9 milions. Wales: 5 milion. England: 55 milion people. Immigrants would be about 8% of the population, with more people from the Commonwealth and less eastern and southern Europeans.
Metropolitan France: 55 milion people
Italy: 65/70 milion people assuming libya is assimilated
Germany: 105 milion people
Austria Hungary: 115 milion people. About 40 milion Germans.
Spain: 49 milion people, I'm assuming no civil war.
Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and Portugal would all be in the 13-19 milion range.

Good answer although I would believe that the population of Ireland's population might be slightly larger than Scotland due to Ireland having a larger population in the early 20th century than Scotland. Also I'm certain that Ireland had just as high a birthrate as Scotland if not higher. Being that the Catholic Church would be pro Natal.