Germany's population without WW1, WW2 and the emigration

As we all know, Germany had a quite "unfortunate" 20th century. I, as a demographics fanate, was interested in how Germany's population would be different without both world wars and the heavy emigration that occured. I decided to post the results here.

I will explain how I calculated beneath, but for the people who just want to know the result, here it is: Germany would have roughly 120 million inhabitants (disclaimer: my own calculation, I am not saying this is 100% correct) now. Quite amazing to think how an already economical powerhouse would be even more powerful with 40 million extra inhabitants. Also, one can wonder if this would be sustainable on Germany's level. Could this possible have led to water or food shortages?

Some might call this calvulation too optimistic, but well, I simply wanted to make this "unfortunate" century a "fortunate" century for Germany :).

Here is the calculation:
I start in 1850. Germany's population is 33 million. Between 1850 and 1900, 7 million German emigrants leave for the US. Now, I make this 10 million emigrants in total with this rough estimate: there are 46 million German Americans, and ROUGHLY 20 million other German <insert denomyn>. So, I assumed German emigrants to other countries but USA were emigrating in the same proportion and "multiplying" at the same rate as German americans. Thus, if 7 million equals for 46mmillion, roughly 3 million equals for 20 million. Im not statin that these 3 and 7 million account for all the 46 and 20 (respectively) million, but it is a rough estimate to get the total number of German emigranta from 1850 to 1900.

Then I assume the following: about 1/4th reemmigrates to Germany: this would leave a total number of -7.5 million of net migrants (I assume immigrants to Germany, aside from the returning emigranrs, is negligible). This would give a net migrant rate of on average -3.6 migrants per year per thousand inhabitants (net migrants divided by 50 divided by average population Germany 1850-1900, not totally correct but pretty near). As Germany grew from 1850 and 1900 from 33 to 54 million, this would mean an annual growth rate of 0.99%. Substract the -3.6 net migrant rate (as in this version I take no emigrants) and you get an annual growth rate of 1.35%.

This would mean a population of 65 million in 1900, instead of 54 million. Next I use a simpler method: by using Wikipedia "Demographics of Germany" Vital Statistics. These give the Crude Birth Rate and Crude Death Rate from 1900 on for every year. The annual birth surplus rate (netto change rate) is also given, which is the growth rate minus the net migrant rate. So, I use these numbers to calculate population growth till the onset of WW1. The population of Germany on the First of January 1914 would be 78 million.

Now, I assume WW1 doesnt happen. What I do is the following: I let the birth rate of Germany drop with 0.5 births per thousand inhabitants per year, while I let the death rate drop with 0.1 deaths per year, to match the growth decline that was happening in Germany. This gives revised growth rates, and then I use the normal netto change rates given in the vital statistics table till 1940.

This gives a population of 98 million at the start of 1940.

Now I was doubting three cases: have the WW2 happen, with the baby boom, or no WW2 but no baby boom or have Hitler rise (and thus higher birth rates, which happened, due to the pro natalist laws of the nazies) but without Ww2 happening. I chose the last one. Now this might be one of the weaker choices I have made in terms of credibility of happening, but lets just say Hitler and his party would eventually fade away in history, but with the higher birth rates happening.

Crude birth rates were about 20 because of the Nazies, but I believe, if WW2 wouldn't have happensd, these birth rates would have automatically declined again, according to the laws of the Demographic transition model. So, for the time frame from 1940 to 1970, I use an average birth rate of 17.5, and a death rate of 11.5 (which was the average for Germany between 1946 and 1970). This gives an annual growth rate forGermany of 0.6% a year. The population of Germany would then be 117 million (!) at the end of the 1970 year.

For the case of the timeframe 1970 to 1990 I use a lazy trick, namely simply having the population of real life Germany in 1990 divided by the population of Germany in real life of 1971, multiplied of the population of my calculation in 1971. This would give the population of Germany of my version in 1990 if the Germany in my version had the same growth as real life Germany had between 1971 and 1990. I chose this because in this time frame there were more immigrants to Germany than emigrants, and as I wanted for Germany to have a more "fortunate" 20th century.

Between 1991 and 2000, growth rates of East Germany in real life were negative because of the extremely low fertility rates then there. In my version, the drop in fertility rate wouldn't have
happened after 1991 in East Germany as in my version, East Germany wouldn't be communistic (WW2 never happened) and thus the fall of Soviet Union wouldn't have such impact. As birth rates in general for Germany declined from 11 in 1990 to 10 in 1991, this would mean without the fall in fertility in Easr Germany, growth rates would be 0.1% plus more. Thus, at the beginning of 2001, Germany's population would be 124 million.

Then, I use the same growth as real life Germany had between 2001 and 2017. Population would be 125 million in 2017.

And well, that's it. I would love to hear remarks and have a discussion about this calculation or what for implication this higher population would be. What do you think?

Thanks for reading, it was a lot of text I know.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Forestalling the pre-WWI German emigration......harder than stopping the world wars IMO could also affect the balance of population and relative distribution of population across the various states. Do we have a sense if emigrants were disproportionately from particular states or demographic groups?

...and keeping Nazis is definitely the weakest choice in the scenario, given what you did to prevent WWI, and associated territorial loss and humiliation.

If you turn this into a TL, and you want this demographic result, I would make up a new right-wing patriotic pro-natalist political movement different from the Nazis, and gaining ascendancy for different reasons than OTL, to accomplish the end you seek.
 
Need a great big PoD to get this scenario to work; why do immigrants return to Germany? Why does WW2 happen? Have you calculated the OTL impact of Eastern European Germans being deported to Germany post-WW2? Overall though a simple scenario of "no world wars" with a very modest average growth rate of 0.5% will mean a population of about 105 million by 2014. Increase this moderately and 125 million is quite possible. As to the implications, that depends on the wider world. If for instance Russia has a similarly gentle 20th century Germany is going to look a lot weaker than it does OTL. On the other hand if this Germany can absorb Austria somehow it could be worth almost three other European Great Powers. Context is everything.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
For what it's worth, Germany's total fertility rate might decline at a bit of a slower pace if Germany either avoids or wins WWI. Also, if WWI still occurs but Germany wins it and gets Brest-Litovsk-style gains in the East, then we could see large-scale immigration into Germany from both Austria-Hungary and Germany's Eastern European client states throughout the 20th century and perhaps even in the 21st century. :)
 
I will explain how I calculated beneath, but for the people who just want to know the result, here it is: Germany would have roughly 120 million inhabitants (disclaimer: my own calculation, I am not saying this is 100% correct) now. Quite amazing to think how an already economical powerhouse would be even more powerful with 40 million extra inhabitants. Also, one can wonder if this would be sustainable on Germany's level. Could this possible have led to water or food shortages?

People always seem to find a way to solve water shortages, so I doubt water is too much an issue since Germany isn't a desert.

Food can always be imported. And since Germany isn't getting into many great wars, Germany doesn't need to worry about horrific food shortages as in the OTL World Wars. As a developed nation, famine is highly unlikely.

Also, I apologised if I missed this, but which borders of Germany are you working with for this?
 
For what it's worth, Germany's total fertility rate might decline at a bit of a slower pace if Germany either avoids or wins WWI. Also, if WWI still occurs but Germany wins it and gets Brest-Litovsk-style gains in the East, then we could see large-scale immigration into Germany from both Austria-Hungary and Germany's Eastern European client states throughout the 20th century and perhaps even in the 21st century. :)

No WW1 would do wonders for the German birthrate. 4 years of a huge number of men being much less able to reproduce+a huge number of missing men post war had a huge effect on all the nations at war. A no-WW1 Germany would have several million more people just by 1918.
 
Some argue that both World Wars were all about German "living space". Can you dissociate German population growth and the World Wars? I don't think so.
 
As we all know, Germany had a quite "unfortunate" 20th century. I, as a demographics fanate, was interested in how Germany's population would be different without both world wars and the heavy emigration that occured. I decided to post the results here.

I will explain how I calculated beneath, but for the people who just want to know the result, here it is: Germany would have roughly 120 million inhabitants (disclaimer: my own calculation, I am not saying this is 100% correct) now. Quite amazing to think how an already economical powerhouse would be even more powerful with 40 million extra inhabitants. Also, one can wonder if this would be sustainable on Germany's level. Could this possible have led to water or food shortages?

Some might call this calvulation too optimistic, but well, I simply wanted to make this "unfortunate" century a "fortunate" century for Germany :).

Here is the calculation:
I start in 1850. Germany's population is 33 million. Between 1850 and 1900, 7 million German emigrants leave for the US. Now, I make this 10 million emigrants in total with this rough estimate: there are 46 million German Americans, and ROUGHLY 20 million other German <insert denomyn>. So, I assumed German emigrants to other countries but USA were emigrating in the same proportion and "multiplying" at the same rate as German americans. Thus, if 7 million equals for 46mmillion, roughly 3 million equals for 20 million. Im not statin that these 3 and 7 million account for all the 46 and 20 (respectively) million, but it is a rough estimate to get the total number of German emigranta from 1850 to 1900.

Then I assume the following: about 1/4th reemmigrates to Germany: this would leave a total number of -7.5 million of net migrants (I assume immigrants to Germany, aside from the returning emigranrs, is negligible). This would give a net migrant rate of on average -3.6 migrants per year per thousand inhabitants (net migrants divided by 50 divided by average population Germany 1850-1900, not totally correct but pretty near). As Germany grew from 1850 and 1900 from 33 to 54 million, this would mean an annual growth rate of 0.99%. Substract the -3.6 net migrant rate (as in this version I take no emigrants) and you get an annual growth rate of 1.35%.

This would mean a population of 65 million in 1900, instead of 54 million. Next I use a simpler method: by using Wikipedia "Demographics of Germany" Vital Statistics. These give the Crude Birth Rate and Crude Death Rate from 1900 on for every year. The annual birth surplus rate (netto change rate) is also given, which is the growth rate minus the net migrant rate. So, I use these numbers to calculate population growth till the onset of WW1. The population of Germany on the First of January 1914 would be 78 million.

Now, I assume WW1 doesnt happen. What I do is the following: I let the birth rate of Germany drop with 0.5 births per thousand inhabitants per year, while I let the death rate drop with 0.1 deaths per year, to match the growth decline that was happening in Germany. This gives revised growth rates, and then I use the normal netto change rates given in the vital statistics table till 1940.

This gives a population of 98 million at the start of 1940.

Now I was doubting three cases: have the WW2 happen, with the baby boom, or no WW2 but no baby boom or have Hitler rise (and thus higher birth rates, which happened, due to the pro natalist laws of the nazies) but without Ww2 happening. I chose the last one. Now this might be one of the weaker choices I have made in terms of credibility of happening, but lets just say Hitler and his party would eventually fade away in history, but with the higher birth rates happening.

Crude birth rates were about 20 because of the Nazies, but I believe, if WW2 wouldn't have happensd, these birth rates would have automatically declined again, according to the laws of the Demographic transition model. So, for the time frame from 1940 to 1970, I use an average birth rate of 17.5, and a death rate of 11.5 (which was the average for Germany between 1946 and 1970). This gives an annual growth rate forGermany of 0.6% a year. The population of Germany would then be 117 million (!) at the end of the 1970 year.

For the case of the timeframe 1970 to 1990 I use a lazy trick, namely simply having the population of real life Germany in 1990 divided by the population of Germany in real life of 1971, multiplied of the population of my calculation in 1971. This would give the population of Germany of my version in 1990 if the Germany in my version had the same growth as real life Germany had between 1971 and 1990. I chose this because in this time frame there were more immigrants to Germany than emigrants, and as I wanted for Germany to have a more "fortunate" 20th century.

Between 1991 and 2000, growth rates of East Germany in real life were negative because of the extremely low fertility rates then there. In my version, the drop in fertility rate wouldn't have
happened after 1991 in East Germany as in my version, East Germany wouldn't be communistic (WW2 never happened) and thus the fall of Soviet Union wouldn't have such impact. As birth rates in general for Germany declined from 11 in 1990 to 10 in 1991, this would mean without the fall in fertility in Easr Germany, growth rates would be 0.1% plus more. Thus, at the beginning of 2001, Germany's population would be 124 million.

Then, I use the same growth as real life Germany had between 2001 and 2017. Population would be 125 million in 2017.

And well, that's it. I would love to hear remarks and have a discussion about this calculation or what for implication this higher population would be. What do you think?

Thanks for reading, it was a lot of text I know.
Your growth rate between 1945 and 2017 is WAY too small. France in comparison grew from 38 to 68 million, I'd assume Germany in its 1871 would have at least 140-160 million today.
 
I think this is interesting. I'm not sure how realistic limiting emigration is; generally, the faster a European nation's population grew, the more emigration it had. England, Germany and Italy all had massive emigration yet their home populations grew steadily as well. On the other hand, there is France, which grew slowly and had very limited emigration. So emigration is not a brake on growth, but more of an effect of it. A more populous Germany probably will have even more emigration.
 
Your growth rate between 1945 and 2017 is WAY too small. France in comparison grew from 38 to 68 million, I'd assume Germany in its 1871 would have at least 140-160 million today.

France had an aggressive pro-natal campaign and very high levels of immigration in the 1960s/70s though; this also came after about 75 years of population stagnation (1870-1945). France is an odd case, not necessarily indicative of how Germany would grow. The UK grew more gradually from 1945-2000 and this might be a better model.

It's also possible that a Germany with 120+ million might see its population growth slow down simply due to the high cost of living that there would be in a much more crowded country (we see this phenomenon occurring in Asia).
 
France had an aggressive pro-natal campaign and very high levels of immigration in the 1960s/70s though; this also came after about 75 years of population stagnation (1870-1945). France is an odd case, not necessarily indicative of how Germany would grow. The UK grew more gradually from 1945-2000 and this might be a better model.

It's also possible that a Germany with 120+ million might see its population growth slow down simply due to the high cost of living that there would be in a much more crowded country (we see this phenomenon occurring in Asia).
How exactly though would this Germany be any more crowded than the Netherlands or Belgium? I'd say what happens in Asia is quite different given even there density is locally higher.
 
Woah, a lot of replies, in my email box I thougjt I only saw 1 reply. Thanks for reading all! i'll try to answer your posts all here.

Raharris, I dont know 100% sure but I thought I read somewhere that emigrants were for a large part from Prussian lands, although I think it has been generally fairly balanced. Im not sure tho. You are right about the Nazi party, as they rose to power becauae of the downfalls of WW1, which in my version didn't happen. I used the Nazies for the higher birth rates, but one can also think that without WW1 birth rates wouldn't have been so low as Germany wouldn't face an economical crissi (or much less) due to no monstreous Versailles money toll. This could perhaps compensate my mistake with the nazies.

Dominic, it was quite normal for a migrant to return. 35% of all Italian emigrants returned to Italy between 1861 and 1985. Most of them were males of middle age who searched for "work and bread". I actually hadn't thougjt about the millions of Germans that returned to Germany after WW2. However, the growrh of "my Germany" between 1971 and 2017 (with the exception of 1991 and 2000, because I cancelled East German's low fertility of below 1) is proportionally the same as real life Germany. For the growth 1945-1970 I used the growth rate from birth and death rate, omitting the net migrant rate. According to knoema dot com Germany's net migrant rate was a nihil 0.1 per 1000 in 1960. Dont forget that after WW2 there was a significant wave of Germans to US, which could cancel quite a lot of the Volksdeutsche migration to Germany after WW2. If net migrant rate is virtually zero, growth rates equal the netto change rate (birth rate minus death rate), and I used the netto change rate between 1940 to 1970 for Germany.

Metalinvader, I use the borders of nowadays Germany. Not totally correct ofcourse, especially with higher population as Germany would maybe grow to conquer kther states and a complete other change in history could happen. To keep it simple, I use Germany of nowadays borders. A maybe interesting note on overpopulation in regards to Germany, was that Hitler used the argument that Germany had a "surplus population" to why Germany needed space (AKA Lebensraum).

Gloss, France (together with the Netherlands) were one of the countries that had a massive population boom after WW2. Many countries only saw a modest increase to about 2.5 children per woman during the baby boom, as Germany did.

Funnyhat, omitting emigration was maybe not really a realistic move, but my main motivation for this calculation was to get Germany a higher population if things were more "fortunate" (although ahigher population coukd probably lead to less "fortunate" things). You are mostly true tho, however population growth does not necessarily mean emigration. I havent heard of Russian masss emigration, while Rusaia quadrupled its population durduringe 18th centuey. Also, many Germans emigrated becauae of Wilhelm II autocratism (to escape military draft for example), not because of overpopulation.

Im sorry for any weird spellings, Im writing on mobile and it is a pain in the ass to write long comments.
 
Last edited:
Metalinvader, I use the borders of nowadays Germany. Not totally correct ofcourse, especially with higher population as Germany would maybe grow to conquer kther states and a complete other change in history could happen. To keep it simple, I use Germany of nowadays borders. A maybe interesting note on overpopulation in regards to Germany, was that Hitler used the argument that Germany had a "surplus population" to why Germany needed space (AKA Lebensraum).

Funnyhat, omitting emigration was maybe not really a realistic move, but my main motivation for this calculation was to get Germany a higher population if things were more "fortunate" (although ahigher population coukd probably lead to less "fortunate" things). You are mostly true tho, however population growth does not necessarily mean emigration. I havent heard of Russian masss emigration, while Rusaia quadrupled its population durduringe 18th centuey. Also, many Germans emigrated becauae of Wilhelm II autocratism (to escape military draft for example), not because of overpopulation.

A fortunate 20th century Germany is going to have the 1914 borders at minimum. Also, what have you done with the Franco-Prussian War TTL? Or for that matter, the Austro-Prussian War? Franco-Prussian War Germany could grab a bit more and get away with it. The Austro-Prussian War Germany could gain Austrian Silesia and get away with it. All to take into account, although OTL's result is plausible as anything. Personally, I think a Germany with 1914 borders and a Europe with no great wars is doable--it's a long shot, but not ASB. We can also avoid things like the annexation of Austria or any other Grossdeutschland expansion too.

Overpopulation? As you wrote, a population of 98 million in 1940 (within the borders of modern Germany--even without Alsace-Lorraine, the number would be a good deal higher) gives a density of 274 km2, which is a bit more than modern Britain. A total of 125 million gives 350 km2, which is slightly more than the Philippines, but still less than Belgium or the Netherlands. Also, unlike Japan or the Philippines, Germany's terrain is more conducive to a more spread out population. And then would there really be 125 million in modern Germany's borders, when Silesia, Pomerania, etc. wouldn't have their German populations expelled by force? The millions of people resettled from those areas (as well as many other ethnic German communities throughout Europe, including ones which were never within Imperial German borders to begin with) would probably not be in modern German borders, or even in German borders to begin with.

Africa ia always good for "Lebensraum". Namibia and the Tanzanian highlands (which border the Kenyan highlands were thousands of British settled) could be used as a population valve if it's needed. Instead of a Germany seeking out conquests in the East, Germany could instead aim for settlement in Africa. Obviously it's going to suck for Africans, but fighting campaigns against African peoples is much easier and cheaper than fighting an industrial war against Russia. A more aggressive colonial policy could pay out big for securing good lands for German settlement. If Germany links up German South West Africa and German East Africa by means of North Rhodesia, Nyasaland, and Katanga, and maybe a bit of interior Angola, then they have almost all of the best lands for European settlement outside of the Cape and North Africa. Katanga and North Rhodesia are also very rich in resources. So that right there solves some key concerns for German imperialists.

Russian population exploded because their agriculture got better (introduction of potatoes) and because Russia was basically the equivalent of a third world country.
 
Funnyhat, omitting emigration was maybe not really a realistic move, but my main motivation for this calculation was to get Germany a higher population if things were more "fortunate" (although ahigher population coukd probably lead to less "fortunate" things). You are mostly true tho, however population growth does not necessarily mean emigration. I havent heard of Russian masss emigration, while Rusaia quadrupled its population durduringe 18th centuey. Also, many Germans emigrated becauae of Wilhelm II autocratism (to escape military draft for example), not because of overpopulation.

.

Well, Russia is a special case - Russians had lots of new territory to the east and south to migrate to, similar to Americans.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Africa ia always good for "Lebensraum". Namibia and the Tanzanian highlands (which border the Kenyan highlands were thousands of British settled) could be used as a population valve if it's needed. Instead of a Germany seeking out conquests in the East, Germany could instead aim for settlement in Africa. Obviously it's going to suck for Africans, but fighting campaigns against African peoples is much easier and cheaper than fighting an industrial war against Russia. A more aggressive colonial policy could pay out big for securing good lands for German settlement. If Germany links up German South West Africa and German East Africa by means of North Rhodesia, Nyasaland, and Katanga, and maybe a bit of interior Angola, then they have almost all of the best lands for European settlement outside of the Cape and North Africa. Katanga and North Rhodesia are also very rich in resources. So that right there solves some key concerns for German imperialists.

Russian population exploded because their agriculture got better (introduction of potatoes) and because Russia was basically the equivalent of a third world country.

If looking at overseas location in Africa for Germans, you have a couple of habitable area in Cameroon in the Highlands. And the best option may well be the "purchase of Angola" which is pretty good location for a settler colony.
 
Metalinvader, I took in account everything that happened to Germany (except mass emigration) between 1850 to 1900. Germany's population grew from 33 million to 54 million between those years (modern day size Germany). Factors like the Prusso French war formed this population growth. If I use the population growth on average of Germany in this time frame, I have included the effects of that war.on German demography. And I did that, but excluded the net migrant rate.

I actually woulsn't be sure if population figures would be that higher if we look at Germany in Empire size. If we say that nearly all Germans that lived outside modern Germany had immigrated to Germany or say US (or any other place) after WW2, then I roughly took that into account. Then you had the Polish, who were about 5%. So with the Polish you would maybe add like 8 million more.

If we spread out a population of 130 million on a surface of 541 thousand km^2, we get a pop density of 240 people per square kilometer. That is not that much. Some German efficient logistics and you handle that. Aside, it is not much different than current German population density.

Fumnyhat, still, mass emigration is not the norm for population growth. Countries like the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, and other countries in "modern" Europe had fairly decent population growth. Emigration of Germany was hardly an overpopulation issue, and if the factors of the emigration were dealt with there wouldn't be such a large emigration, sething I take into account with this calculation.
 
Last edited:
Top