European populations without WW2

[Deleted member 1487]

Men were either killed, leaving large numbers of single women that realized they didn't need men to live their lives successfully, or working, training soldiers, or filling in some other way they learned they were the equals of men and that they could exist independently. It was about confidence for the majority of women.

 

[Faeelin]

Men were either killed, leaving large numbers of single women that realized they didn't need men to live their lives successfully, or working, training soldiers, or filling in some other way they learned they were the equals of men and that they could exist independently. It was about confidence for the majority of women.

That's nice, but so? The women's rights movement hit everywhere, including countries like America that hadn't lost that many people.

 

[DrakonFin]

Yes they would fall, around the late 70ties like in OTL, but I don't think immigration would change, while Europe would met the insane boom of OTL, we would see a more stable growth* without WWII and be much richer (especially the East Europeans) of course the emigration countries would changes, Poland, Hungary and the Baltic States would be the primary source of Gastarbeiter to North and Central Europe and to lesser extent France. Even before WWI Denmark, Netherland, Belgium, France and Germany had a high level of immigration**, I see no reason, they won't get that with peace and prosperity again. Sweden will also boom in 50 and 60ties, and like in OTL it will get a lot of Finns, but likely its middleeasten immigrant will be replaced by Balts.

*High growth with Europeans using Keynesian economics is almost unavoidable, and the fact that it's after the depression make it even likelier.

**I read a little up on Polish migration to Denmark before WWI, and if you replaced Turk with Pole and made it a little less "PC" it was like reading about immgration today.

Interesting points about migration. What you should also take into account is economic convergence: ITTL, Eastern Europe will bridge the gap with the west much sooner than it did IOTL. If Sweden booms in the 50s, why couldn't, say, Poland, the Baltics and Finland experience a similar boom, tying possible immigrants down in their home countries? Without the war, those countries have a much greater continuity from the 30s and (like our southern neighbours like to say) for example Estonia was well on its way to prosperity before the advent of the Soviet occupation. Finland, in turn, has both retained the economically developing Ladoga Karelia and Viipuri, a national economic hub. No mass internal migration and the need to resettle over 10% of the population, no reconstruction or war reparations: a lot more potential for economic growth and capital for investment than IOTL. Poland, well, I guess we don't have to go to details on how hard it was hit by the war. This all is bound to have an effect on Baltic migration in the 50s-70s timeframe.


It is hard to say, then, would a general boom in the Baltic area diminish or add to the boom experienced in Sweden. Personally, I'd contend that Sweden gained more opportunities in the post-war period because of the hardships of the nations on the eastern side of the Baltic, who already in the 30s could manage in industry products (nearly) the same quality with smaller costs for labour and raw materials.

 

[Deleted member 5719]

That's nice, but so? The women's rights movement hit everywhere, including countries like America that hadn't lost that many people.

America saw an expansion in the types of jobs women were allowed to do during WWII, as did every other combatant country.

 

[fhaessig]

? What about France? Would their populations still decline?

treat Germany better and probably let them keep the Rhineland. France would be a little smaller, but more Germans would stay in Germany.

Is this thread supposed to be a DBWI?

 

[Albidoom]

Is this thread supposed to be a DBWI?

I guess he either meant Alsace-Lorraine or the occupation of the Rhineland. Or maybe both.
But a CP-loses-but-keep-Alsace-Lorraine setting is very unlikely (even ASBs would have trouble with it)

 

[Valdemar II]

Interesting points about migration. What you should also take into account is economic convergence: ITTL, Eastern Europe will bridge the gap with the west much sooner than it did IOTL. If Sweden booms in the 50s, why couldn't, say, Poland, the Baltics and Finland experience a similar boom, tying possible immigrants down in their home countries? Without the war, those countries have a much greater continuity from the 30s and (like our southern neighbours like to say) for example Estonia was well on its way to prosperity before the advent of the Soviet occupation. Finland, in turn, has both retained the economically developing Ladoga Karelia and Viipuri, a national economic hub. No mass internal migration and the need to resettle over 10% of the population, no reconstruction or war reparations: a lot more potential for economic growth and capital for investment than IOTL. Poland, well, I guess we don't have to go to details on how hard it was hit by the war. This all is bound to have an effect on Baltic migration in the 50s-70s timeframe.


It is hard to say, then, would a general boom in the Baltic area diminish or add to the boom experienced in Sweden. Personally, I'd contend that Sweden gained more opportunities in the post-war period because of the hardships of the nations on the eastern side of the Baltic, who already in the 30s could manage in industry products (nearly) the same quality with smaller costs for labour and raw materials.

Swedens industry was quite different from the Baltic States and Finnish industry, it was a lot heavier and would stay such, heavy industry at the time demands a lot of low-skill workers, and even without WWII the Baltic States and Finland is going top be poorer than Sweden. Together with the fact that these states has historical ties to Sweden emigration to Sweden from there is quite likely.

 

[DrakonFin]

Swedens industry was quite different from the Baltic States and Finnish industry, it was a lot heavier and would stay such, heavy industry at the time demands a lot of low-skill workers, and even without WWII the Baltic States and Finland is going top be poorer than Sweden. Together with the fact that these states has historical ties to Sweden emigration to Sweden from there is quite likely.

You are right, of course: the industrial structure in Sweden is and would be different than in Finland and the Baltic states, Sweden was a "mature economy" much earlier than its eastern neighbours. I am not discounting Finnish and Baltic immigration to Sweden altogether, just pointing out that there will be a difference in the pushing and pulling factors, as it were, in regards to labour supply and demand in the greater Baltic Sea area. Significantly better projected growth for the eastern coast nations and perhaps slightly smaller growth for Sweden will diminish work-related immigration, even if it certainly will not be eliminated. Even if the industrial makeup is different, the Baltic states and Finland will have lighter industries able to compete with the Swedish, and what heavy industry there is (and will be) will be oriented towards the west rather than the Soviet market: this also adds to competition, even if on a small scale.

 

[Ferto]

An obvious result would be that there would be much more discrimination against jews, just like with the Roma and the Sinti IOTL. Although they were victims of the holocaust too, but for some reason everybody keeps forgetting that. <.<

 

[DuQuense]

Germany would likely have 10-15 million more people, Czechoslovakia 5 (Mostly Germans), Austria 3, Poland would have around 60 million people, the former USSR around the same but more Russians, the Baltic States would also have the same number but more of the natives plus Jews (primary Lithuania 10%), Germans (Latvia and Estonia 6-8%) and Swedes (Estonia 1-2%).

You are ignoring the Great Depression, During the Depression the Birthrates fell to 1.3~1.5 across Europe and America. Without WW2 I would expect this to last a lot longer.
There would also be no Post War Baby Boom.

Most of the Post War [50's 60's] Immigration in France and Germany came from Spain and Portugal.

I mostly agree on eugenics, but could somebody explain what revolutionary changes were wrought by WW2 for women? And not going to the factories; they promptly returned once the war was over...

But the Daughters grow up on tales of Mom working in the Factory, and were not willing to accept the idea of - Men only Jobs.

 

[Faeelin]

But the Daughters grow up on tales of Mom working in the Factory, and were not willing to accept the idea of - Men only Jobs.

But they had this from WW1, and Europe's socialist movements already all supported equal rights for women.

An obvious result would be that there would be much more discrimination against jews, just like with the Roma and the Sinti IOTL. Although they were victims of the holocaust too, but for some reason everybody keeps forgetting that. <.<

Much more? Where? Without the Nazis, serious discrimination is something those Slavs do; we in the Reich would never ban them from schools. Though of course, there'd be cultural pressure to keep Jews out of the military, say.

Interesting points about migration. What you should also take into account is economic convergence: ITTL, Eastern Europe will bridge the gap with the west much sooner than it did IOTL.

Why would it?

After all, Brazil and Argentina never had their countries destroyed in WW2, yet they're all signifcantly poorer than Europe today, no?

It is hard to say, then, would a general boom in the Baltic area diminish or add to the boom experienced in Sweden. Personally, I'd contend that Sweden gained more opportunities in the post-war period because of the hardships of the nations on the eastern side of the Baltic, who already in the 30s could manage in industry products (nearly) the same quality with smaller costs for labour and raw materials.

Eh... I'm not sure that having a significantly poorer series of neighboring states really helps Sweden.

 

[Urban fox]

Why has no-one mentioned the great red colossus next to Poland?. The Soviet Union was utterly wreaked by WW2 and it’s core population the Russians took the brunt of those losses (closely followed by Belarus & Ukraine.)

No WW2 means a much stronger U.S.S.R, with an increasingly powerful military and no harrowing expectance of WW2 to blunt the population’s militarism. The USSR lost a lot of land to Poland in the 1920, they'll want it back at some point.

Also a lot more nations will remain right-wing dictatorships.

 

[DrakonFin]

Why would it?

After all, Brazil and Argentina never had their countries destroyed in WW2, yet they're all signifcantly poorer than Europe today, no?

This all is going somewhat OT, but I'll answer. I am not only talking about WWII damage, but also assuming that no WWII = no Soviet yoke for Eastern Europe. That might be a wrong assumption, of course, but then I guess it would be tough for Stalin to grab as many neighbouring nations as he did IOTL without sparking a general war at some point.

No WWII will mean a lot more capital to be invested in Europe - more to the point, British, French and German capital. The newly independent nations along the Baltic and in Eastern Central Europe received rival investment from the big industrial nations already in the 20s and 30s: there is no reason the trend would not continue through the next decades. The German investment would concentrate in what was historically seen the German stomping ground in the "near abroad" or Mitteleuropa. The Baltic sphere would be a close priority, due to various reasons, ranging from historical to anti-Soviet policy. The French and the British, naturally, would seek to contain the German influence and thus Eastern Europe would (continue to) benefit from the rivalry of the bigger players.

Czechoslovakia was already a local economic powerhouse by the late 30s, when as Finland, the Baltics, Poland, Hungary all are within comfortable distance, have low wages and a lot of potential to the discerning capitalist. The Balkans would see growth too, and was indeed a target of French-German-Italian trade wars already in the 30s.

The war and post-war Communist rule stopped an already promising growth for the nations ending up in the Soviet bloc - or at least slowed it down considerably. Naturally, Western investment also dried up. Compare the per capita GDP for Sweden and Czechoslovakia in 1938 and 1960: before the war, those two are nearly on par; 20 years later we can easily see which one has continued to enjoy the blessings of the international market economy. Finland and Estonia offer a similar comparison. In the post-war period, lost areas and war damages notwithstanding, Finland could build on the pre-war growth, whereas most of Eastern Europe could not: without the setbacks brought by the war, that growth would have continued through the 40s also in the rest of the region. There was a lot of catching up to do, and the local conditions would look advantageous to investors for some time.

Eh... I'm not sure that having a significantly poorer series of neighboring states really helps Sweden.

Less competition for foreign investment, less competition in the market, and an possiblity to have a running start in the post-war period when most of Europe was in ruins. In comparison with a no WWII scenario, Sweden was quite well placed to boom in the 50s.

 

[DAMIENEVIL]

Would not the women's movement be squashed by the fact there is alot more men around who have jobs and so women never needed to enter the workforce.

Also would not the empires be kept up due to places to send excess population

Also without japans war colonialization will be kept up since there will be no one to inspire the Natives into rebellion

also without ww2 the Soviets would not be a super power the US would not be either due to the European nations not of having suffered and spent a crap load of money on arms.

would technology be slower or more advanced

because without some science that was created due to the war things which made womens liberation possible would not be around

How much different would it be without the Pill

 

[Faeelin]

Would not the women's movement be squashed by the fact there is alot more men around who have jobs and so women never needed to enter the workforce.

This seems frankly Malthusian. Jobs arise when demand arises.

Also without japans war colonialization will be kept up since there will be no one to inspire the Natives into rebellion

What, did the USSR collapse?

No WWII will mean a lot more capital to be invested in Europe - more to the point, British, French and German capital.

Okay. But will European economies be more protectionist? If so, this is problematic.

Moreover, capital in Eastern Europe was invested in government loans and resource extraction, not economic takeoff.

 

[Grand Prince Paul II.]

also without ww2 the Soviets would not be a super power the US would not be either due to the European nations not of having suffered and spent a crap load of money on arms.

A Great Patriotic War-less USSR would be a very different union but nevertheless a superpower, though less apparent.

The lack of a solid influence zone in Central-East and South-East Europe and a less experienced army would be (more than) compensated by a significantly higher population, a non-devastated western part of the country and a stronger navy.