WI French population at 80million by 2015 after WW2 without Non European immigration.

Not happening in this forum. France had core Europe's highest birthrate after WW2 already; getting to 80 would require population growth that wasn't achieved in any developed country without substantial immigration.

If you want to take it to before 1900 and talk about France's Revolution-era demographic transition, then sure. But by 1900 France was already at replacement TFR, and was not going to go above it without some special event like WW2 leading to the Baby Boom; in the first half of the 20c France already took in a lot of immigrants from Southern Europe in order to maintain positive population growth, especially after WW1.

Or are you specifically saying non-European migration because you're asking about triggering a major postwar migration wave from Southern Europe to France? Because that's not happening either - Southern Europe grew fast after the war, and wasn't going to grow more slowly under any reasonable scenario.
 
Not happening in this forum. France had core Europe's highest birthrate after WW2 already; getting to 80 would require population growth that wasn't achieved in any developed country without substantial immigration.

If you want to take it to before 1900 and talk about France's Revolution-era demographic transition, then sure. But by 1900 France was already at replacement TFR, and was not going to go above it without some special event like WW2 leading to the Baby Boom; in the first half of the 20c France already took in a lot of immigrants from Southern Europe in order to maintain positive population growth, especially after WW1.

Or are you specifically saying non-European migration because you're asking about triggering a major postwar migration wave from Southern Europe to France? Because that's not happening either - Southern Europe grew fast after the war, and wasn't going to grow more slowly under any reasonable scenario.

I specially said non European immigration because I didn't want people saying France should open its borders to people from the former empire e.g North Africans Arabs.
 
Ameck16 said:
I specially said non European immigration because I didn't want people saying France should open its borders to people from the former empire e.g North Africans Arabs.

Seems... difficult. One of the themes of the colonisation was to get the "forces vives" from the colonies to repopulate France, or at least rejuvenate it (see what Lyautey was saying for example).

To bring it to 80 millions with a PoD in 1945... there's only so much a womb can bear. Maybe we can cheat a bit, find a way to butterfly the Algerian war, have a lot of Southern European immigration there?
 
Not happening in this forum. France had core Europe's highest birthrate after WW2 already; getting to 80 would require population growth that wasn't achieved in any developed country without substantial immigration.

Japan went from 70 to 130 million, South Korea went from 20 to 50 million, Russia also nearly doubled, the USA too but the USA always had some immigration.
 
Easiest way to do this is to just have a geographically larger France. Several ways of having this happen:

Algeria doesn't gain independence; instead, it is integrated into the metropole.

Partition of Belgium. Flanders to the Netherlands, and Wallonia and Brussels to France.

After WWII, France demands territorial concessions from Germany and/or Italy. (Rhineland and Baden from Germany; Piedmont and Liguria from Italy)

Now, if you wanted the population *inside the OTL French borders* to exceed 80 million, that's much more difficult. I'm not sure how we could get that to happen.
 
anotherlurker said:
Japan went from 70 to 130 million, South Korea went from 20 to 50 million, Russia also nearly doubled, the USA too but the USA always had some immigration.

And France went from 45 millions to 65 millions, with a population who had already started its demographic transition before the war.
That's the issue there: the socio-economical factors (women in the workforce for example) limit he fertility rate.

The thing, if you include immigration, the 80 millions is not easy but frankly achievable. Even more natalist policies, less feminism... That's possible.

Without the immigration, you're litterally taking tens of millions of people out of the population
 
Japan went from 70 to 130 million, South Korea went from 20 to 50 million, Russia also nearly doubled, the USA too but the USA always had some immigration.

South Korea had lower development levels and higher birthrates; it also had a lot of catch-up growth in life expectancy. I think this was also true of Russia.

Elsewhere, there was demographic momentum from past population growth. If your population has been growing for the last few decades, and your TFR drops to replacement level now, then you'll still have population growth: the number of babies born every year is approximately the same as the number of people in each cohort of child-bearing age, but the number of people dying of old age is much smaller, since past population growth means the 80-year-old cohort is smaller than the 30-year-old cohort. This way, European countries with not much of a baby boom still had population growth in the postwar era. This was especially true of Japan, where the TFR was 6 until the 1920s and was still at 4 at the beginning of the war; even as Japan hit replacement TFR in 1957, it had substantial demographic momentum, since the dying cohorts, say people who were 70 at the time, were much smaller than the cohorts being born.

France had no demographic momentum. Its TFR hit replacement in the early 19c; its 19c population growth came from longer life expectancy, and not from growth in the size of birth cohorts. With higher birthrates than Japan throughout the postwar era, and a fair bit of net immigration, France has had less population growth.
 
Top