Greater France population

If France's population had grown at the same rate that Germany's did from 1815 to 2000, France's population would have been 110 million in 2000. I know France was plagued with the issue of falling birth rates before the rest of Europe, which held off emigration to the America's. What are some of the main changes in our timeline you think would occur if this had happened?
 
Well, France's demographic transition started earlier - around 1790 or 1800 - so 1815 is kind of a bad date for it (in particular, it wasn't because of Nappy or anything like that).

But let's say it hadn't happened. I'm not exactly sure what it would involve, because it happened so atypically early in France's development. Let's ignore the AHC part and just do a WI. In the ATL, France's demographic evolution is similar to that of Sweden - I'm picking Sweden and not Germany because its borders have been more stable, and its late-18c/early-19c statistics are the most reliable. This means France has 27.5 million people in present-day borders in 1800, loses the Napoleonic Wars on schedule because all of Europe ganged up on it, and then undergoes fast population growth. There's still resentment over the monarchy, so the 1830 and 1848 revolutions occur on schedule, and Nappy III still wins.

Fast forward to 1870. France has 49 million people (OTL: 37 million), Germany has 41 million. Germany is only starting to industrialize, so tech levels are comparable. France still has a Paris-centered railway network, but the population boost gives it a somewhat thicker network, with better connections between the Southwest and Provence, and a denser network in Nord and Alsace. It has an easier time moving troops to the front, and more manpower; the German attack stalls, and after a protracted war of 2 years, France repels the Prussian invaders. Germany unifies anyway, to balance against France, but the reparation payments France imposes on Germany to pay for the carnage caused in Alsace and Lorraine lead to a lot of bitterness among the secondary states, which blame Prussia for dragging them to war and saddling them with debt.

In the following 20 years, Germany is rife with instability. Austria-Hungary is trying to peel off German states to weaken Prussia, Bavaria and Baden are openly calling for making the emperor's position elective, and a socialist commune launched an uprising in Hamburg in 1882 that was only suppressed after three weeks and a few thousand dead. The instability spreads to Austria-Hungary, and liberal nationalists are calling for the dissolution of both Prussia and A-H and their replacement with a federal German republic. Germany's only ally is Belgium's conservative and Flemish factions, since both France and liberal Walloons call for French annexation of Belgium; Belgium's population grows at the same rate as France's starting after the Napoleonic Wars, and by 1900 it has 8.5 million people (OTL: 6.7), and France has 60 (OTL: 39). The Second French Empire remains stable, and has an easy time suppressing worker revolts; Nappy III dies in 1881 and is peacefully succeeded by his son Nappy IV (1842-1926, r. 1881-1926).

In the Scramble for Africa, France explicitly challenges British domination of the world. A brief colonial war in India ends in a French defeat, but in Africa, France manages to take control of the Congo, West Africa (except Nigeria and the Gold Coast), and parts of East Africa. France engages in naval buildup with Britain, and by 1900 its navy is only 20% smaller than Britain's, while its army is much larger.

In 1901, expeditions from Britain heading south from Kenya and from France heading west from Dar es Salaam meet around Arusha and begin a skirmish: France is attempting to connect Africa west-to-east, from Napoleonville on the Congo to Dar es Salaam, and Britain is attempting to connect it north-to-south, from Cairo to Cape Town. It is later called the Great Skirmish, due to its far-reaching effects combined with the limited death toll. It is agreed that Britain will get sole control of East Africa and France will vacate Pondicherry, but in exchange, Thailand is in the French sphere of influence, and Britain will remove its objection to France's annexation of Belgium. In 1903, 52% of the eligible voters in Belgium agree to French annexation in a referendum, including 70% in Wallonia and Brussels but only 33% in Flanders; while the election was technically free, Flemings with poor French language skills in many cases could not find the polling places, especially in Brussels. France immediately moves in, and begins a campaign to suppress the Dutch language, which it considers a sign of hostility.

By this point, the Netherlands has already established consociationalism, and nationalist Catholic elements indicate that they'd be open to annexation of Flanders. To protect itself from French aggression, it allies with Britain, as does Germany. While stability is restored for now, the Netherlands and Germany grow increasingly dependent on Britain. So far, all European countries are as rich as in OTL, except Germany, which is poorer because of the instability between 1870 and 1890 and the lack of captive colonial export markets.

With the Scramble for Africa complete, the colonial powers turn to China. They reject the US's proposal for an open door policy, and carve China: Japan gets Taiwan and Manchuria, Britain gets Shanghai and points west, France gets Guangdong and Fujian and points west, the US gets Beijing and the North China Plain south to about the Huai. This division is hammered out in 1904 and is complete by 1920.

The apparent stability masks deep contradictions, especially in France, which has the highest inequality among major countries. Only Paris, Brussels, and Wallonia are as rich as Britain; the rest of France is poorer, and begins to sour on Nappy, who it supported against the wishes of the Parisians up until now.

In 1918, the Poles revolt in eastern Germany, with Russia's support. Germany immediately puts down the revolt, massacres the Polish intelligentsia, and when Russia objects, it invade, annexing most of OTL's Poland's interwar boundaries, except the East Slavic far east. It immediately begins to dump settlers in the region, from all states rather than just Prussia, to mollify opposition from various local notables.

In 1920, taking a cue from the Poles, the Czechs rise up, proclaiming a Czechoslovak republic in all of Bohemia, Slovakia, and Galicia. A-H spends a year trying to put down the rebellion before withdrawing; subsequently, the Sudeten Germans maintain resistance and call for reintegration into Austria, launching an intermittent guerrilla campaign, but in most of the boundaries of the new country there is quiet. This creates a chain reaction, destroying A-H by 1924, leaving a rump Austria, undecided whether to join Germany or remain independent.

Arab intellectuals in Paris and London watch the dissolution of A-H with glee, and with France and Britain's support go back to the Middle East and launch revolts against the Ottoman Empire. Zionism manages to survive with Britain and France's support - France especially views it as a convenient way to get rid of its Jewish population. German intellectuals at this point proclaim that Germany is being bypassed by Britain and France, which are dividing the world between them. A second Polish revolt in January of 1926 leads to a cascade of revolutions, creating a new Polish republic as well as republican regimes in Yugoslavia and Austria. By April this leads to the fall of the Hohenzollerns, and a brief civil war in Germany, in which liberals proclaim a federal republic, including Austria, but face guerrilla warfare in mixed Polish-German areas, outright rebellion in Franconia and rural East Elbia, and strikes and industrial sabotage in the Ruhr. When Nappy IV dies in August, his unpopular son is prevented from taking the throne, and French urbanites, by now 55% of the population, declare a Third Republic, with universal (not universal-male) suffrage.
 
@Alon, I have some issues with your TL:

1. Britain will never accept French Belgium this easily, some colony in Africa can be sacrificed, but Britain will always prioritize Balance of Power in Europe first and foremost (with exception maybe of India, but Pondicherry wasn't that valuable).

2. France being so dominant butterflies completely the Franco-Prussian War, Bismarck (or whatever is in charge of Prussia) wouldn't taunt France if victory isn't possible (which in OTL wasn't that certain).

3. Complementing #2, how Germany unifies after being defeated in 1871? If France can stop the Prussian swarming it'll prevent a strong neighbor on its eastern border (i.e. the foreign policy since Louis XIV).

4. Not a flaw, but what happened between 1848-1870 there? Crimean War, Italian unification, France was a big player on those, they were irrelevant?

5. Why did Russia shift from the traditional friendly relation with Prussia to internal sabotage? Hell, why Russia wants more Poles?

6. How did the Europeans scramble China? the resistance there would be monstrous.

7. Why is Germany such a shithole for no reason?

8. What happened in the Balkans?
 
@Alon, I have some issues with your TL:

1. Pondicherry plus continuous Cape-to-Cairo colonization, against a Belgium where much of the elite is already pro-French, plus a France that's more powerful relative to Britain than OTL's Germany was at the same time? That could happen.

2. You'll notice that this war is not a rout. Germany invades France; France wins, but it's a slog. The population difference with OTL is noticeable at this stage but not huge, and Germany does have better infrastructure for war.

3. Balancing against France. Similar examples in OTL: the EC/EU was formed as a way of balancing against both the US and the USSR, and one of the most pro-European periods, the mid-2000s, occurred when the European elites' desire to balance against the US was greatest; Switzerland was formed as a way to fight the HRE/Austria together; the US was formed as a way to fight Britain together.

4. I imagine they go as in OTL. In the 1850s, the population difference with OTL is even smaller than in 1870, and Italian nationalists could still plausibly ally with France against A-H, which was occupying their country. The eventual France/Italy border is a France-wank in OTL anyway.

5. They compete for the same territory; in OTL, they were enemies in the world wars, and Russia used pan-Slavism to attack Germany.

6. They did that in OTL; by 1900, China remained independent because the Western powers were divided about whether to do a formal scramble or just keep the unequal treaties, that's how weak the Qing Empire was. I did not invent the term Scramble for China.

7. The late-19c European economies were not capable of sustaining themselves through domestic demand; Britain in particular went through the Long Depression. The only way to keep their manufacturing workers employed was to find new markets abroad, which meant imperialism. The big European economies (Britain, France, Germany) built up big colonial empires, and many of the small ones exported goods to the rest of Europe (e.g. Switzerland). The Scramble for Africa had an economic logic to it, and was supported by the liberal middle class. In the ATL, Germany is cut off from foreign colonial markets because it lost the war with France, and is too big to run big trade surpluses with the rest of Europe the way Switzerland does. France is bigger, but it also has a bigger colonial empire, so it's a wash.

8. You mean why Yugoslavia became independent? There was a trend for nationalism in OTL, leading to Greece's independence and Yugoslavism. In the context of cascading revolutions starting in Poland, it makes sense, in the same way that "people in Libya took to the streets demanding Qaddafi's ouster" makes sense in the context of the Arab Spring.
 
1. Again, Britain will prioritize her interest in Europe before Africa, France being stronger is a even bigger reason to do so, even in the apex of French hegemony (Napoleon) Britain didn't bend over.

2. You took the war the other way around, France declared war against Prussia, it was a French invasion not a German one, the initial French offensive is going to be way different.

3. But why would the three South Germans (Baden, Wurttemberg and Bavaria) join the Prussian reich if it failed to defeat the hereditary enemy? The NGC may survive, the proclamation of the Empire is off.

4. I meant if it did turn out as OTL, a France with a bigger army could make a difference in the Austro-French War, maybe they get Veneto? Could be interesting.

5. No they don't? Russian interest were in the Balkans, not in Eastern Prussia, Russia participation in WWI was against Austria, not Germany, and Russian panslavism was targeting the Yugoslavs, not Poland, the Poles weren't fond of Russian supremacy, this PoD butterflies Nazism so their relation in WWII is null.

6. Oh, you meant the sphere of influences? Granted.

7. The German Colonial Empire was worthless and Germany still had one of the most prosperous economies in Europe, the lack of thereof isn't a recipe for Iberian-tier civil wars and instability.

8. I'm talking about the disintegration of the Ottomans there, Germany was a big player there, without Germany babysitting Austria's ambitions things may go wildly different.
 
If France can avoid the structural issues that led to its slow population growth, than I think you'll see a much larger French diaspora in the New World, which will mean quite a few things due to larger populations earlier.
 
If France can avoid the structural issues that led to its slow population growth, than I think you'll see a much larger French diaspora in the New World, which will mean quite a few things due to larger populations earlier.

The French demographic trajectory was set at least as early as the 18th century. That French demographic issues were shared with the rest of Francophone Europe, including Wallonia and Romandy in Switzerland, suggests that fundamentally cultural issues were at stake. People in most of France were limiting their births for a reason.

One way to change this might be to make France, not Britain, the center of industrialization in Europe and of global empire. If it was France that became the global hegemon, rich off its domestic industry and world trade, perhaps people in France would feel less reluctant to limit births? Even if it put up a stronger showing, perhaps population growth would be stronger.

I would caution against the belief that a declining population would hinder emigration. Ireland had a consistently declining population from the 1840s on, but that decline did little to nothing to hinder Irish emigration. If things are sufficiently bad in France that emigration is the only solution, then the French will leave, no matter that the population might fall. In North America, the existence of a large French immigrant minority will be noteworthy--OTL, most Franco-Americans are of French Canadian or Louisianan descent, being "French" only indirectly.

The Southern Cone would be another likely destination for French emigrants. OTL, Argentina and Uruguay were major destinations, particularly for French from the southwest (Basque Country, Gascony).
 
The French demographic trajectory was set at least as early as the 18th century. That French demographic issues were shared with the rest of Francophone Europe, including Wallonia and Romandy in Switzerland, suggests that fundamentally cultural issues were at stake. People in most of France were limiting their births for a reason.

No, Wallonia grew substantially faster than France in the 19c - it nearly doubled its population from 1816 to 1901, whereas France only increased its population by about a third. And this doesn't count migration from Wallonia to Brussels. See data here.
 
I would caution against the belief that a declining population would hinder emigration. Ireland had a consistently declining population from the 1840s on, but that decline did little to nothing to hinder Irish emigration. If things are sufficiently bad in France that emigration is the only solution, then the French will leave, no matter that the population might fall. In North America, the existence of a large French immigrant minority will be noteworthy--OTL, most Franco-Americans are of French Canadian or Louisianan descent, being "French" only indirectly.

The Southern Cone would be another likely destination for French emigrants. OTL, Argentina and Uruguay were major destinations, particularly for French from the southwest (Basque Country, Gascony).

If I recall, in this case the birthrate was directly related to why the French immigrant population in the New World is so comparatively small compared to other nations. Something to do with agricultural and land use patterns as well as the way the cities developed was one of the reasons for the declining birthrate which in turn kept a valve on emigration from France.
 
Can French agriculture support that many people?
German agriculture didn´t support its so is not the capacity to feed from local sources the problem, but I doubt you can change such a subtle process when we know so few things about it.
 
Why not? Dutch agriculture can support 400/km^2, and English agriculture can support about 200/km^2 (England imports half of its food to my understanding).

England and the Netherlands both imported their food, due to being richer per capita than France and being able to afford to buy it from abroad.
 
England and the Netherlands both imported their food, due to being richer per capita than France and being able to afford to buy it from abroad.
Germany? Plus I´m not sure the Netherlands were so rich per capita compared to France.
 
No, Wallonia grew substantially faster than France in the 19c - it nearly doubled its population from 1816 to 1901, whereas France only increased its population by about a third. And this doesn't count migration from Wallonia to Brussels. See data here.

Hmm. Does it count Flemish migration to Wallonia?

Still, point taken. The contrast with neighbouring Lorraine, also an old industrialized region, is noteworthy, although there are complicating factors there.

If I recall, in this case the birthrate was directly related to why the French immigrant population in the New World is so comparatively small compared to other nations. Something to do with agricultural and land use patterns as well as the way the cities developed was one of the reasons for the declining birthrate which in turn kept a valve on emigration from France.

A declining birth rate by itself wouldn't limit emigration. Look at how, in eastern Europe after the end of Communism, emigration to western Europe and further points has continued despite falling birth rates. If things are bad enough, or--alternatively--if things are good enough, assuming freedom of movement people will emigrate.

In the specific case of 19th century France, that country was highly economically developed and offered a high standard of living. Whatever income gains might have been achieved by moving to the United States or Argentina outweighed the various costs of moving for most French people. (People on the fringes of France, particularly in Alsace and in the French Basque Country and other Pyrenean territories, did form a disproportionate share of emigrants, suggesting interesting things.)
 
England and the Netherlands both imported their food, due to being richer per capita than France and being able to afford to buy it from abroad.

The Netherlands barely imported food in 1800, and is (barely) a net agricultural exporter today.
 
Does France have the terrain and climate to support increased agricultural development, though?

France has warmer climate than the Netherlands. It doesn't have the riparian floodplain... but Germany doesn't have that either, and still manages to feed about 200 people per km^2, despite high forest cover. The UK feeds 160/km^2, but a big chunk of its land is Scotland, which is far to the north and has much lower density than England. At today's population density (110/km^2), France is the world's second largest agricultural exporter, despite farmers that aren't terribly efficient by German standards. The ATL population of France in 2015 is around 110 million within OTL boundaries (with Belgium, make it around 125 million), which means it's going to have a more efficient farm sector and either break even on food or import a little bit from the colonies or from the Netherlands.
 
Top