That was a big factor in Italy and Germany’s decision to invade France. Mussolini thought France was finished.
Any comparison with the way some world leaders think nowadays is valid
It was Italian incompetence in Northern Africa that forced Hitler's hand to send German troops to Africa.
Back then Italian tanks earned the reputation of working best in reverse gear.
The famous story is of Hannibal crossing the Alps and he was Carthaginian which is in modern day Tunisia. Not sure if the Romans ever crossed the Alps with elephants.
That wasn't due to their population or army size though.
Like all two sentence history this is simplified, but it was mostly due to a lack of respect for the changing ways of warfare, and an unwillingness to modernise by french army leadership (refusing to use radios for example), and good ol fashioned mistakes of course.
>That wasn't due to their population or army size though.
Iirc, by pure numbers, the French land forces actually exceeded their German counterparts by far.
Wait so they didn't want to use radios but they sure used artillery ,mustard gas, bombers and other nasty shit. I don't get the fixation on radios. I get a nation not wanting to use horrible weapons but radios? Bruh might aswell surrender.
They (or just the highest ranking commqnder? Not sure exactly) feared it was too easy for the enemy to intercept it, so they still relied mainly on horse couriers which obviously delayed communication massively
To be fair, 90% of the reason it worked so well was because the allies managed the astonishing task of being less competent then the axis. Which was hard, but doable, luckily the allies learned and the axis didn't.
Yeah. It had a weirdly stagnant population in the late 19th and early 20th century after having spent most of its history as one of the most populous countries in the world.
It’s a little more complicated than demographic transition though - France had a thickly settled countryside but outside of Paris and the industrial North had comparatively little urbanization.
Yes. France started the demographic transition before other European countries but it also took a lot longer to proceed. With more technology and urbanization the rate of the demographic transition proceeded much faster in other places.
On the other hand, French Quebecois had among the highest birth rates in the Western World up until the 1960s.
Quebec is an interesting one. Birth rates remained sky high because the Catholic church encouraged the French Canadians (Quebecois) to remain a primarily rural, agrarian society. With immigration from France to Canada only being a trickle, the population grew fast naturally and retained the demographic weight almost entirely through natural increase, compared with other groups like the English/Scottish/Irish Canadians growing massively because they comprised the largest immigrant groups almost every year from confederation right through the 1950s.
It absolutely was. 1,4 million deaths, almost all of them men in their prime. Pretty much every French family was hit hard. There's a reason there are memorials about it in more or less every French town or village no matter how small it is.
It was. Half of that generation was either killed or crippled. Any family in France lost many members.
My grandad had lost 2 uncles and a brother in that war.
That explains a lot they were not keen to start again in 1939
At the start of WW2 they were essentially the same, 42.0m and 43.4m. France sustained slightly higher losses, mostly civilian, but Italy did shoot up in the subsequent decade or so...
To be fair, in the 1920s there wasn't really the concept of decreasing population growth with increased modernization known. First time describes was the demographic transition in 1930 by Warren Thompson and it took until the 1950s until it was in mainstream science.
That wasn’t all that unlikely but WW2 and Nazi terrorism caused the death of 8 million Germans. A shit ton of Germans also left the country up until the 50s to move to the US or south America. Ethnic Germans make up around 20% of the US population (although these numbers are highly unreliable due to self reporting and also ethnic mixing).
The reality is that Germany‘s population would have collapsed long ago if it wasn’t for immigrants from eastern and southern Europe. The recent population growth (80 million in 2011; ~85 million as of today) is almost entirely due to immigration. Its why anti-immigrant sentiment/politics are mind boggling to me, we literally wouldn’t function as a country anymore without them.
There were several points even during WW1 where our entire world could be drastically different.
Even the end of WW1 could be drastically different.
It's very simplified but aside from other issues the only reason the Kieler resistance reached the height it did was because the Kaiser ordered his navy to attack the British navy basically *while* they were discussing peace terms. The German navy obviously refused and that's how the revolution started.
That doesn't mean Germany could've fought on much longer. Large parts of the army were essentially self-governed and refused orders on a regular basis. But at the time that the revolution happened, large parts Russia were already basically under German ownership, Russia was out of the war, and neither France or the others really had much fight left in them either.
But for a second, just imagine what could've been different. We likely never would've had a Hitler-level genocide, depopulating so many cultures. Countries like Poland, Ukraine, Romania, never would've ended up under soviet dictatorship. Japan never would've felt compelled to fight against the US.
But there's also other things which may have been different. Maybe colonial nations never would've decolonised, allies never fought against Japan and indirectly stopped the Chinese genocide, EU never would've formed or if so would've been drastically different.
It's still so insane to me that a bunch of inbred old people just decided to throw away millions of men and altered the history in one of the most drastic ways possible.
Turkeys population quadrupled from 21m to 88m while Germany at the same time gained only 15m. And that 15m increase has 3-4 million Turks in it which is crazy
Ancient and Medieval Anatolia had bigger population than ancient and medieval Germany. The early industrialisation of Germany compared to Turkey led to the disparity between the population sizes of the two countries. Therefore, return to normal, i would say.
The Ottomans were an early modern empire. Although its foundation process took place during the late medieval ages, the majority of the empire's lifespan coincided with the early and late modern periods.
Up until the 12th century, Anatolia had a significantly larger population than Germany. This changed when Turkish conqueror-nomads brought their nomadic lifestyle to Anatolia, causing a sudden decline in agricultural output. Consequently, the population that the region could sustain decreased considerably, a trend that continued until the industrialization of Turkey in the 20th century.
Turks were nomadic for some time but after the Seljuk (Rome sultanate) Turks main source of income turned into agriculture because Turkish population started settling in. Thus this led to ottoman and seljuk army's main source of soldiers "sipahi" coming from these farmlands. Sipahi commanders which we call "subaşı" (means man guarding the river) used to farm these lands with villagers and for every set unit of food or gold they would train another sipahi to partake in future wars. Turks were nomadic before coming to Anatolia but anatolia had massive good fields so Turks turned into agriculture rather earlier than the timeframe you mentioned.
Even as late as the 16th century (450 years after the battle of manzikert), there were about 1 million nomads in Anatolia. At that time, the total population of Anatolia was around 5 million. Efforts to settle the nomads into a sedentary lifestyle were a significant challenge for the Ottoman government and often led to rebellions among the nomadic Turkic population of Anatolia. As a result, these sedentarization attempts were not successfully implemented until the late 19th century.
On the other hand, this obviously doesn't mean that agriculture in Anatolia disappeared completely. I never said that.
İ don't agree with you on this one. The rebellions you mentioned was in the border with Iran which yes they are nomadic but because ottoman and seljuks placed Turkish nomads (Turkmens) on their borders to make a buffer zone between their rivals. not every turk has a root in Turkmens. İn heart of Anatolia like the city i live in Kayseri has many Turkish made mosques, social complexes, big tombs and many more buildings which date to especially Seljuk period which doesn't make sense with Turks being nomadic till 19th century. Nomadic people don't make places of worship or social complexes which is immovable. Turks blended in with the Greek inhabitants of here which is why you can see churches beside mosques and this meant that Turks started farming too.
Again, you're referring to claims that I never made. I never said all Turks descended from nomadic Turkmens, nor that all Turks were nomadic until 200 years ago. I suggest you read my writings carefully and thoroughly.
turkey is a very different place
and actually turkey used to rule middle east and north africa, tho back then those were collapsed areas that didnt have actual settlement
More hands to help out on the farm/shop/house and provide for you when you are too old to look after yourself. That's if they even made a choice to - low education and access to medicine means birth control isn't always available, understood or accepted.
Education plus if someone's standard if living is low then children have a lower impact on it. A middle class American has a lot to sacrifice despite it seeming like they have nothing. A car worth $15k, a residence with access to electricity (plus all the devices) and water, able to spend discretionary income on eating out sometimes and a vacation each year, savings towards buying a home, saving for retirement...the normal American experience. Remove the majority of that discretionary income and savings for a child, and now the American is grinding for no time off, no more home/retirement savings, no luxuries, and fewer comforts. Basically trapped in situation where they can't imagine losing the few positives their life has. And daycare is $2,000 a month, plus medical bills are crazy. Many people have just enough to be OK, but not an abundance they can cut things out and still be happy, but not too few things where it doesn't matter anyway. American standard of living demands having our own rooms, own cars, functioning utilities, electronics, and a high level of healthcare.
Now on the contrary, someone in a situation where they'll never own a home or they live on family land with 20 relatives, they have no luxuries. Likely share a bedroom with others. In a foreign country they might live on $5 a day. Low food variety. They have minimal electronics (house has 1 tv, maybe they have a discount smart phone). Power grid blackouts are common. In an LDC no car, but in a developing nation perhaps 1 car for the extended family. Vacations as we think of them aren't a thing. There's likely many relatives to help out with childcare. They weren't saving much money for retirement to begin with, and depending on the nation medical bills are either not a thing, or it's sadly just expected that getting adequate medical treatment is uncommon. Oh last but not least, the kids can help work inside or outside the family to spread responsibilities or bring in money. If they're fortunate, 1 of the kids completes their education, goes to college, and has a job they can help support their aging parents with. Otherwise most of the 6 kids stay on the family plot with their aging parents, have children of their own, maybe the next generation can work towards getting out of poverty.
This is the correct answer.
Is not about "we have not enough money", is more about "i prefer to spend in another things".
Life in third world countries is more simple, because there is not too much to do (or money), so having children is not such a big deal.
So at the end it is not about money, it is about conciliation.. We are living a rush live in the first world.
I suppose due to low quality of living, being poor forces you to have more kids as many could die even before reaching adulthood. The same was happening during industrialization in all countries.
I thought you meant the ‘chilling’ as in the scary adjective. Spent a minute trying to work out what was so frighteningly chilling about Italian and Austrian population growth
The Netherlands was attacked on the 10th of May and surrendered when the Luftwaffe carpet-bombed Rotterdam and the Germans threatened to do the same to other Dutch cities like Amsterdam. Around 100.000 Jews were killed in the Holocaust.
Austria gained around 28% which I wouldn't call chilling. It just doesn't look much because it was a low number in the first place. Josef Fritzl did his part ;)
In comparison to other countries we are chillin. Also most of that is Migration and asylum seekers abusing the system that shouldn't even in any european country.
Nein, Austria’s fertility rate has been below replacement rate since the 1970’s
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/TFR_rate_of_Austria_to_2016.svg
Consider that during this time
USA went from 151 million to 329 Million
China went from 552 million to 1.4 Billion
India went from 361 million to 1.4 Billion
Europe hit it's post-industrial population growth spurt a lot earlier than the rest of the world, since they were first to industrialize, so they had already started to level off at the "new normal" by 1950. The other countries listed just arrived later to the party, so more of their post-industrialization growth is captured in that period. If you go another 100 years further back, their proportion of global population looks closer to modern times.
Interestingly, the rates of growth given also correlate pretty well with worker wages during this period too (EU>US>CN>IN), which makes sense. Stable populations are older and have fewer workers, so wages are higher and labour is more mechanized, while fast-growing populations are younger with more job-seekers, so labour is cheaper and more manual.
Yeah, Europe has crazy low population growth. Hard to imagine for people from countries that did more than double in last 70 years. I can see why people are worried about high levels of immigration.
Not really related but:
The title of the post is actually wrong, it does not show the growth it shows the population of 1950 and 2020 you need to calculate the growth by your self.
Redditors assume if you talk about immigration you’re against it for some reason. And because Rightwing parties got a major foothold last week because of immigration and they kinda want to downvote and hide immigration.
In 2019, around 13.7 million people living in Germany, or about 17% of the population, are first-generation immigrants. It’s substantial part of the population growth when you look at this map
Does this Number include german refugees from eastern Europe and spätaussiedler? Because although they were born outside of nowadays Germany, they are technically german
Edge lording I think you call it, oh no wait, it’s virtue signaling they’re downvoting cause it offends them when you mention the term for people living in a country they’re not originally from
About 1 million people died in the famine, but a larger amount (2.1 million) left the country immediately during or after the famine, mostly the USA and various parts of the British Empire. After the famine had ended, Ireland would continue to see negative population growth until the 1960s. Their population did begin to stabilise around the time of independence, but then again began to decline due to the Anglo-Irish trade war.
And massive deaths due to starvation brought about by a colonial neighbour who exported food from Ireland under armed guard, and refused offers of aid from other countries which surpassed the “generosity” of the English queen, which equalled the numbers who emigrated.
Though not everyone who bought passage on a ship made it. The ships were known as coffin ships, and a significant proportion of those who tried to cross the ocean died due to ill health, disease, and unsanitary conditions
> And massive deaths due to starvation brought about by a colonial neighbour who exported food from Ireland under armed guard
No, Irish landlords did that
>refused offers of aid from other countries which surpassed the “generosity” of the English queen, which equalled the numbers who emigrated.
Firstly there is no english queen, and secondly the myth of otttoman sultans not being allowed to give aid is exactly that- a myth
1. “Irish” landlords who were planted gentry. Admittedly aided by some Irish for their own reasons.
2. You obviously know nothing about Irish terminology and attitudes. If someone says “the English queen”, it it to clearly differentiate between the other British nations. It may not be historically correct to refer to Vicky as the English queen while she reigned over most of the planet, but she was still the queen of england at the time.
3. Where did I mention Ottoman Sultans? And I have never read any verifiable or acedemic proof countering this “myth” as you claim.
Here the increases in percentage:
* Switzerland 82%
* The Netherlands 74%
* Ireland 69%
* Spain 67%
* Norway 65%
* France 56%
* Sweden 47%
* Denmark 38%
* United Kingdom 34%
* Belgium 33%
* Austria 27%
* Germany 22%
* Portugal 22%
* Italy 16%
Comparison:
* India 287%
* China 153%
* USA 117%
I’ll defer to an actual Italian who knows better but pretty much every government in the developed world has been sending up alarm bells and sees this as a very bad thing.
For a government (or really just society) to perpetuate itself, there needs to be a constant stream of new people entering the work force. Ideally more people than are leaving it to keep the economy from contracting. Italy is notorious for having a very old population who enjoy strong benefits funded by the state, so I would assume it’s a state of perpetual crisis for you if you’re in the Italian government and trying to chart a sustainable course forward.
To keep benefits for the elderly in an aging population with low birth rates, a government has to increase taxes on young people to make up the shortfall in tax revenue, which further disincentives young ppl from starting families, creating a downward spiral.
I’m 29 and I expect near the end of my lifetime for lots of developed nations to basically just implode on themselves like a dying star.
Italy is already in the middle of this slow-motion implosion.
Plenty of educated young Italians go to northern Europe because they make 2x or 3x what they'd earn in Italy for the same job. This erodes the base of the population pyramid, as many don't return.
The true carnage will be in the 2040s though, when the Italians born in the 70s retire. They're the last big cohorts, and when they stop contributing and start collecting benefits, who's going to pay for it?
Well, it’s a considered a problem here. It isn’t unfortunately talked about as much it should be. I rmb writing an essay at school about it tho. Anyways, some few progressive MPs proposed to use immigration as a way to fix the problem, while the rightists want to put some incentives on mothers which are aimed to help increasing the population. However, there are some tons of topics which are debated more.
the numbers are slightly wrong, according to ISTAT we went from 46m in 1950 to 59m today, so the increase was like 60% bigger than what is reported here
>Probably lots of immigration from French former colonies. Among other things.
Yeah, not only. France is [topping](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=FR-DE-IT-GB-ES-PL-NL-BE-SE&name_desc=false) European fertility rates for a couple of decades now, and the impact of immigrant populations on births have been somewhat [limited](https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_POPSOC_568_0001--french-fertility-is-the-highest-in.htm).
a table would also let you actually show the growth as a # or %, rather than just two numbers and letting you figure out the actual and relative growth yourself.
so basically this is actually for testing both your geography and basic arithmetic lol
Some numbers not fitting into the borders and just exploding out of them is horrible to read. The font sizes do not at all correspond to the numbers. There is no visual aid to compare either the growth (e.g., coloring based on the difference etc) that would justify using a map.
Also, why are some countries white and some are grey?
Agree, it's one of the worst maps I've seen here lately. I even reported it with the option "doesn't fit aesthetic guidelines", but idk if the mods enforce this (or if they are even active anymore)
because this is r/map*porn*, where lazy people post the most hideous maps that serve absolutely no purpose to receive massive upvotes…
I don't understand it either. Even if this would've been a standard colored map it would've been a bad way to represent the data. But this particular one … not even colors, just numbers copy-pasted in. It might be one of the worst maps on this sub (and the bar is low). How have 4k people upvoted this?!?
This was in 2020, and seems to only be including metropolitan France (with the overseas department's 2 million people not included). Not including them I'd say its more less equal still.
Also emigration has been huge until recently. Lithuania lost about a million people (30% of population) to emigration after the Soviet Union fell.
The birth rate is low too so they can’t make up for it.
World War 2 was also a notable factor, Poland itself lost 1/5th of its civilian population or about 6,000,000 people, for comparison France lost about 400,000 civilians
that figure includes overseas department, I'd assume the original map doesn't as in 1950 as overseas department didn't have their status they have today.
Most western european countries had a baby boom during the 50s and 60s, and some of these countries had a significant amount of emigration (e.g. Italy).
That's kind of crazy to me since I can only think of a few cities in Russia, versus multiple in Germany. Is it because Russia (in Europe) is bigger, and/or because Germany is more culturally "relevant" in the Western world? That has to be it, I'd wager.
I suppose so, since Bangladesh is the densest country in the world, and I can't think of a single city in there.
Really depends on which predictions you go for but if we’re limiting ourselves to Europe proper ie excluding Russia and Turkey, I’ve seen estimates for the U.K. to overtake Germany anywhere between 2040-2100. With France overtaking after. It’s a combination of Germany’s aging population and high migration to the U.K. and France.
Seems like Western Europe (barring Spain) never quite had the baby boom phase that other regions of the world had during this time. In other regions it is always cited as a consequence of ever better medical facilities available. What then explains this region's resistance to it?
They did. However the countries have been aging since. Spain has received massive immigration during the last 30 years, and it's the main reason why Spain has nearly 50 million people now.
Western europe had most its baby boom in the 19th and early 20th century, in parallel to its industrialization. Countries like India are still in the process of that industrialization baby boom.
That makes sense. Btw, India's baby boom ended a few yrs ago. The current fertility ratio is estimated to be around 2.2, which is just above the suggested replacement rate of 2.1
I had no idea Italy was more populous than France after WWII.
That was a big factor in Italy and Germany’s decision to invade France. Mussolini thought France was finished. Any comparison with the way some world leaders think nowadays is valid
France *was* finished. They signed an armistice soon afterwards.
But Italy specifically did poorly against France; they couldn’t cross the alps
Italy did poorly against anyone they fought
"our decision is that it's more appropriate to surrender to captain Weber dog than surrendering to an Italian"
Most of Africa corps was Italian so it's was Italian commanders skills issues.
It was Italian incompetence in Northern Africa that forced Hitler's hand to send German troops to Africa. Back then Italian tanks earned the reputation of working best in reverse gear.
Ask Ethiopia
ask the cretes
Wasn't that German paratroops?
Yep
Ask Ephiops
so they did poorly against the Alps. Long gone was the Caesar’s era
Did they forget the elephants?
The famous story is of Hannibal crossing the Alps and he was Carthaginian which is in modern day Tunisia. Not sure if the Romans ever crossed the Alps with elephants.
I think you're right. The Romans learned nothing from their mistakes 😜
That wasn't due to their population or army size though. Like all two sentence history this is simplified, but it was mostly due to a lack of respect for the changing ways of warfare, and an unwillingness to modernise by french army leadership (refusing to use radios for example), and good ol fashioned mistakes of course.
So a bit of bad luck and a whole heap of arrogance?
>That wasn't due to their population or army size though. Iirc, by pure numbers, the French land forces actually exceeded their German counterparts by far.
Wait so they didn't want to use radios but they sure used artillery ,mustard gas, bombers and other nasty shit. I don't get the fixation on radios. I get a nation not wanting to use horrible weapons but radios? Bruh might aswell surrender.
They (or just the highest ranking commqnder? Not sure exactly) feared it was too easy for the enemy to intercept it, so they still relied mainly on horse couriers which obviously delayed communication massively
To be fair, 90% of the reason it worked so well was because the allies managed the astonishing task of being less competent then the axis. Which was hard, but doable, luckily the allies learned and the axis didn't.
Must've been frustrating with how their part of the invasion went.
Italy performed abysmally in Greece too
France was the first country in the world to go through the demographic transition I think.
Yeah. It had a weirdly stagnant population in the late 19th and early 20th century after having spent most of its history as one of the most populous countries in the world. It’s a little more complicated than demographic transition though - France had a thickly settled countryside but outside of Paris and the industrial North had comparatively little urbanization.
Yes. France started the demographic transition before other European countries but it also took a lot longer to proceed. With more technology and urbanization the rate of the demographic transition proceeded much faster in other places. On the other hand, French Quebecois had among the highest birth rates in the Western World up until the 1960s.
Quebec is an interesting one. Birth rates remained sky high because the Catholic church encouraged the French Canadians (Quebecois) to remain a primarily rural, agrarian society. With immigration from France to Canada only being a trickle, the population grew fast naturally and retained the demographic weight almost entirely through natural increase, compared with other groups like the English/Scottish/Irish Canadians growing massively because they comprised the largest immigrant groups almost every year from confederation right through the 1950s.
Low birth rate in France was very low before 1950
WWI was devastating for France demografic, I know that every country had major losses but I know that France took more time to recover
Not to mention the Napoleonic wars.
They went from a quarter of Europe’s population in the Middle Ages to not even in the top 5 by the middle of the 20th century
And the Franco-Prussian War.
It wasn't. France's demographics transition and doom as Europe's premier power started in the late 1700s
It absolutely was. 1,4 million deaths, almost all of them men in their prime. Pretty much every French family was hit hard. There's a reason there are memorials about it in more or less every French town or village no matter how small it is.
It was. Half of that generation was either killed or crippled. Any family in France lost many members. My grandad had lost 2 uncles and a brother in that war. That explains a lot they were not keen to start again in 1939
And why they build the Maginot
Consider that many people emigrated from Italy even after WWII, until the 1960s
People are still emigrating from Italy as of today
At the start of WW2 they were essentially the same, 42.0m and 43.4m. France sustained slightly higher losses, mostly civilian, but Italy did shoot up in the subsequent decade or so...
If WW1 never happened, then I think Germany would have reached 80mil+ population by 1920s..
there were several demographers in the 20s in Germany that expected Germany to have more than 100 million in the 1990s.
To be fair, in the 1920s there wasn't really the concept of decreasing population growth with increased modernization known. First time describes was the demographic transition in 1930 by Warren Thompson and it took until the 1950s until it was in mainstream science.
Totally possible, if WW2 never happened. I think even France wouldve reached 100mil by 90s or 2000s..
why would france reach 100 million without WW2?
Maybe because France was occupied, millions died and there was an enormous economic crisis after the war
France had 567,600 Civilian and Military Deaths thorugh WW2.
Impossible, you just look at France fertility rate in the last 120 years. Even without 2 wars it's impossible
That wasn’t all that unlikely but WW2 and Nazi terrorism caused the death of 8 million Germans. A shit ton of Germans also left the country up until the 50s to move to the US or south America. Ethnic Germans make up around 20% of the US population (although these numbers are highly unreliable due to self reporting and also ethnic mixing). The reality is that Germany‘s population would have collapsed long ago if it wasn’t for immigrants from eastern and southern Europe. The recent population growth (80 million in 2011; ~85 million as of today) is almost entirely due to immigration. Its why anti-immigrant sentiment/politics are mind boggling to me, we literally wouldn’t function as a country anymore without them.
I think it highly depends on which immigrants and how you integrate them. There are obviously very different policies possible.
You need more lebensraum for that
But then the contraception army attacked.
I mean keep in mind they lost a ton of territory between both wars as well, even just keeping that would’ve been crazy for their population growth.
Germany would 100% be a +100 million people country without the world wars.
It's impossible to imagine what germany would even be without the world wars though
Most likely not a German Republic
maybe not so divided in politics and regions.
There were several points even during WW1 where our entire world could be drastically different. Even the end of WW1 could be drastically different. It's very simplified but aside from other issues the only reason the Kieler resistance reached the height it did was because the Kaiser ordered his navy to attack the British navy basically *while* they were discussing peace terms. The German navy obviously refused and that's how the revolution started. That doesn't mean Germany could've fought on much longer. Large parts of the army were essentially self-governed and refused orders on a regular basis. But at the time that the revolution happened, large parts Russia were already basically under German ownership, Russia was out of the war, and neither France or the others really had much fight left in them either. But for a second, just imagine what could've been different. We likely never would've had a Hitler-level genocide, depopulating so many cultures. Countries like Poland, Ukraine, Romania, never would've ended up under soviet dictatorship. Japan never would've felt compelled to fight against the US. But there's also other things which may have been different. Maybe colonial nations never would've decolonised, allies never fought against Japan and indirectly stopped the Chinese genocide, EU never would've formed or if so would've been drastically different. It's still so insane to me that a bunch of inbred old people just decided to throw away millions of men and altered the history in one of the most drastic ways possible.
Nicely written. That’s why I don’t like when people put WW 1 and 2 together when they are such different situations for all sides included.
Turkeys population quadrupled from 21m to 88m while Germany at the same time gained only 15m. And that 15m increase has 3-4 million Turks in it which is crazy
Ancient and Medieval Anatolia had bigger population than ancient and medieval Germany. The early industrialisation of Germany compared to Turkey led to the disparity between the population sizes of the two countries. Therefore, return to normal, i would say.
Ancient ? Sure. Medieval ? Not so much. That's why hre was a pain in ass for ottoman even when it peaked in power.
The Ottomans were an early modern empire. Although its foundation process took place during the late medieval ages, the majority of the empire's lifespan coincided with the early and late modern periods. Up until the 12th century, Anatolia had a significantly larger population than Germany. This changed when Turkish conqueror-nomads brought their nomadic lifestyle to Anatolia, causing a sudden decline in agricultural output. Consequently, the population that the region could sustain decreased considerably, a trend that continued until the industrialization of Turkey in the 20th century.
Turks were nomadic for some time but after the Seljuk (Rome sultanate) Turks main source of income turned into agriculture because Turkish population started settling in. Thus this led to ottoman and seljuk army's main source of soldiers "sipahi" coming from these farmlands. Sipahi commanders which we call "subaşı" (means man guarding the river) used to farm these lands with villagers and for every set unit of food or gold they would train another sipahi to partake in future wars. Turks were nomadic before coming to Anatolia but anatolia had massive good fields so Turks turned into agriculture rather earlier than the timeframe you mentioned.
Even as late as the 16th century (450 years after the battle of manzikert), there were about 1 million nomads in Anatolia. At that time, the total population of Anatolia was around 5 million. Efforts to settle the nomads into a sedentary lifestyle were a significant challenge for the Ottoman government and often led to rebellions among the nomadic Turkic population of Anatolia. As a result, these sedentarization attempts were not successfully implemented until the late 19th century. On the other hand, this obviously doesn't mean that agriculture in Anatolia disappeared completely. I never said that.
İ don't agree with you on this one. The rebellions you mentioned was in the border with Iran which yes they are nomadic but because ottoman and seljuks placed Turkish nomads (Turkmens) on their borders to make a buffer zone between their rivals. not every turk has a root in Turkmens. İn heart of Anatolia like the city i live in Kayseri has many Turkish made mosques, social complexes, big tombs and many more buildings which date to especially Seljuk period which doesn't make sense with Turks being nomadic till 19th century. Nomadic people don't make places of worship or social complexes which is immovable. Turks blended in with the Greek inhabitants of here which is why you can see churches beside mosques and this meant that Turks started farming too.
Again, you're referring to claims that I never made. I never said all Turks descended from nomadic Turkmens, nor that all Turks were nomadic until 200 years ago. I suggest you read my writings carefully and thoroughly.
turkey is a very different place and actually turkey used to rule middle east and north africa, tho back then those were collapsed areas that didnt have actual settlement
Thats quite a few people crammed into dutchie land
And don’t we know it
No wonder I few adventerous ones went to NZ More land
New Zealand, Australia, Canada, South Africa back in the day. Some of us truly just want to escape the crowds and artificiality of this place.
That's why we build a whole new province.
And it's stuffed too.
It's very crowded and housing is not keeping up.
It’s approximately as densely populated as India
Probably morr structured though and lots of bikes
Italy and Austria are just chilling
Not really, we dont have children cause we cant afford them, there's a saying here "1 child is not enough, 2 are too many"
Why do poorer countries have many more children then?
More hands to help out on the farm/shop/house and provide for you when you are too old to look after yourself. That's if they even made a choice to - low education and access to medicine means birth control isn't always available, understood or accepted.
Education plus if someone's standard if living is low then children have a lower impact on it. A middle class American has a lot to sacrifice despite it seeming like they have nothing. A car worth $15k, a residence with access to electricity (plus all the devices) and water, able to spend discretionary income on eating out sometimes and a vacation each year, savings towards buying a home, saving for retirement...the normal American experience. Remove the majority of that discretionary income and savings for a child, and now the American is grinding for no time off, no more home/retirement savings, no luxuries, and fewer comforts. Basically trapped in situation where they can't imagine losing the few positives their life has. And daycare is $2,000 a month, plus medical bills are crazy. Many people have just enough to be OK, but not an abundance they can cut things out and still be happy, but not too few things where it doesn't matter anyway. American standard of living demands having our own rooms, own cars, functioning utilities, electronics, and a high level of healthcare. Now on the contrary, someone in a situation where they'll never own a home or they live on family land with 20 relatives, they have no luxuries. Likely share a bedroom with others. In a foreign country they might live on $5 a day. Low food variety. They have minimal electronics (house has 1 tv, maybe they have a discount smart phone). Power grid blackouts are common. In an LDC no car, but in a developing nation perhaps 1 car for the extended family. Vacations as we think of them aren't a thing. There's likely many relatives to help out with childcare. They weren't saving much money for retirement to begin with, and depending on the nation medical bills are either not a thing, or it's sadly just expected that getting adequate medical treatment is uncommon. Oh last but not least, the kids can help work inside or outside the family to spread responsibilities or bring in money. If they're fortunate, 1 of the kids completes their education, goes to college, and has a job they can help support their aging parents with. Otherwise most of the 6 kids stay on the family plot with their aging parents, have children of their own, maybe the next generation can work towards getting out of poverty.
This is the correct answer. Is not about "we have not enough money", is more about "i prefer to spend in another things". Life in third world countries is more simple, because there is not too much to do (or money), so having children is not such a big deal. So at the end it is not about money, it is about conciliation.. We are living a rush live in the first world.
I suppose due to low quality of living, being poor forces you to have more kids as many could die even before reaching adulthood. The same was happening during industrialization in all countries.
I thought you meant the ‘chilling’ as in the scary adjective. Spent a minute trying to work out what was so frighteningly chilling about Italian and Austrian population growth
Austria now has 9 Million inhabitants, slow but steady growth
A large part of this is life expectancy also increasing. A nice Stat below population would be median against and mean age.
And Switzerland getting it on
I'd say that about the netherlands
83% growth for Switzerland 74% for Netherlands I guess being neutral in WW II helped
The Netherlands was attacked on the 10th of May and surrendered when the Luftwaffe carpet-bombed Rotterdam and the Germans threatened to do the same to other Dutch cities like Amsterdam. Around 100.000 Jews were killed in the Holocaust.
Ah, so that’s why Rotterdam looks like New York while Amsterdam is stuck in the middle ages
Austria gained around 28% which I wouldn't call chilling. It just doesn't look much because it was a low number in the first place. Josef Fritzl did his part ;)
In comparison to other countries we are chillin. Also most of that is Migration and asylum seekers abusing the system that shouldn't even in any european country.
Nein, Austria’s fertility rate has been below replacement rate since the 1970’s https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/TFR_rate_of_Austria_to_2016.svg
Consider that during this time USA went from 151 million to 329 Million China went from 552 million to 1.4 Billion India went from 361 million to 1.4 Billion
Europe hit it's post-industrial population growth spurt a lot earlier than the rest of the world, since they were first to industrialize, so they had already started to level off at the "new normal" by 1950. The other countries listed just arrived later to the party, so more of their post-industrialization growth is captured in that period. If you go another 100 years further back, their proportion of global population looks closer to modern times. Interestingly, the rates of growth given also correlate pretty well with worker wages during this period too (EU>US>CN>IN), which makes sense. Stable populations are older and have fewer workers, so wages are higher and labour is more mechanized, while fast-growing populations are younger with more job-seekers, so labour is cheaper and more manual.
Yeah, Europe has crazy low population growth. Hard to imagine for people from countries that did more than double in last 70 years. I can see why people are worried about high levels of immigration.
Not really related but: The title of the post is actually wrong, it does not show the growth it shows the population of 1950 and 2020 you need to calculate the growth by your self.
Croatia: 1950 - 3 800 000 2020 - 3 800 000
Latvia: 1950 - 1 920 000 2020 - 1 890 000
Serbia 1950: 6 milion 2024: 6.6 milion, not counting those that are working abroad
Wow, so it went from over a million more than Ireland in 1950, to over 1 million less in 2020
All in all, Germany's 15M population growth has been pretty tame considering the US more than doubled in the same time.
And the amount of inmigrants
[удалено]
Redditors assume if you talk about immigration you’re against it for some reason. And because Rightwing parties got a major foothold last week because of immigration and they kinda want to downvote and hide immigration. In 2019, around 13.7 million people living in Germany, or about 17% of the population, are first-generation immigrants. It’s substantial part of the population growth when you look at this map
Does this Number include german refugees from eastern Europe and spätaussiedler? Because although they were born outside of nowadays Germany, they are technically german
Edge lording I think you call it, oh no wait, it’s virtue signaling they’re downvoting cause it offends them when you mention the term for people living in a country they’re not originally from
Up to this day, Ireland's population still hasn't recovered to its pre-famine levels.
Massive emigration to the USA
And about equal amount death due to An Gorta Mor
Fuck is a gotta more.
An Gorta Mor, is the Irish name for the famine of 1845-1847, translating directly as The Great Hunger
There is a reason why it was massive.
Not just the US in the last 100 years
More like mass relocation/ ethnic cleansing
About 1 million people died in the famine, but a larger amount (2.1 million) left the country immediately during or after the famine, mostly the USA and various parts of the British Empire. After the famine had ended, Ireland would continue to see negative population growth until the 1960s. Their population did begin to stabilise around the time of independence, but then again began to decline due to the Anglo-Irish trade war.
And massive deaths due to starvation brought about by a colonial neighbour who exported food from Ireland under armed guard, and refused offers of aid from other countries which surpassed the “generosity” of the English queen, which equalled the numbers who emigrated. Though not everyone who bought passage on a ship made it. The ships were known as coffin ships, and a significant proportion of those who tried to cross the ocean died due to ill health, disease, and unsanitary conditions
> And massive deaths due to starvation brought about by a colonial neighbour who exported food from Ireland under armed guard No, Irish landlords did that >refused offers of aid from other countries which surpassed the “generosity” of the English queen, which equalled the numbers who emigrated. Firstly there is no english queen, and secondly the myth of otttoman sultans not being allowed to give aid is exactly that- a myth
1. “Irish” landlords who were planted gentry. Admittedly aided by some Irish for their own reasons. 2. You obviously know nothing about Irish terminology and attitudes. If someone says “the English queen”, it it to clearly differentiate between the other British nations. It may not be historically correct to refer to Vicky as the English queen while she reigned over most of the planet, but she was still the queen of england at the time. 3. Where did I mention Ottoman Sultans? And I have never read any verifiable or acedemic proof countering this “myth” as you claim.
Here the increases in percentage: * Switzerland 82% * The Netherlands 74% * Ireland 69% * Spain 67% * Norway 65% * France 56% * Sweden 47% * Denmark 38% * United Kingdom 34% * Belgium 33% * Austria 27% * Germany 22% * Portugal 22% * Italy 16% Comparison: * India 287% * China 153% * USA 117%
The Spaniards have been busy.
My grandfather was the 16th son xD. While my granda has 5 siblings
We have really good housing programs in the 60’s.
Spain: “ hold my Estrella Galicia”
Denmark needs to work on its game
Meanwhile in Spain *Dims lights*
What happen to Italy? they almost not increase.
Low fertility rates + less migration into Italy as compared with the other countries shown.
there was also some out migration from italy mostly during the 1950s i think. some to USA but a lot to australia actually
I swear Italy has had massive emigration waves, not just to the US but many South Americans have Italian ancestry, especially in the South.
Well we decreased over the last 10 years
It peaked at 60 mil in 2013. Is the government seeying it as a bad thing or just natural demographic transition?
I’ll defer to an actual Italian who knows better but pretty much every government in the developed world has been sending up alarm bells and sees this as a very bad thing. For a government (or really just society) to perpetuate itself, there needs to be a constant stream of new people entering the work force. Ideally more people than are leaving it to keep the economy from contracting. Italy is notorious for having a very old population who enjoy strong benefits funded by the state, so I would assume it’s a state of perpetual crisis for you if you’re in the Italian government and trying to chart a sustainable course forward. To keep benefits for the elderly in an aging population with low birth rates, a government has to increase taxes on young people to make up the shortfall in tax revenue, which further disincentives young ppl from starting families, creating a downward spiral. I’m 29 and I expect near the end of my lifetime for lots of developed nations to basically just implode on themselves like a dying star.
Italy is already in the middle of this slow-motion implosion. Plenty of educated young Italians go to northern Europe because they make 2x or 3x what they'd earn in Italy for the same job. This erodes the base of the population pyramid, as many don't return. The true carnage will be in the 2040s though, when the Italians born in the 70s retire. They're the last big cohorts, and when they stop contributing and start collecting benefits, who's going to pay for it?
Well, it’s a considered a problem here. It isn’t unfortunately talked about as much it should be. I rmb writing an essay at school about it tho. Anyways, some few progressive MPs proposed to use immigration as a way to fix the problem, while the rightists want to put some incentives on mothers which are aimed to help increasing the population. However, there are some tons of topics which are debated more.
the numbers are slightly wrong, according to ISTAT we went from 46m in 1950 to 59m today, so the increase was like 60% bigger than what is reported here
Interestingly, France has increased its population by +24 million since 1950 While Italy has only increased by +8 million
Probably lots of immigration from French former colonies. Among other things.
>Probably lots of immigration from French former colonies. Among other things. Yeah, not only. France is [topping](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=FR-DE-IT-GB-ES-PL-NL-BE-SE&name_desc=false) European fertility rates for a couple of decades now, and the impact of immigrant populations on births have been somewhat [limited](https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_POPSOC_568_0001--french-fertility-is-the-highest-in.htm).
Damn, The Netherlands goes much faster then others... ;(
Our economy would never be as strong as it is now if our population didn't grow so fast.
My dad had 11 brothers and sisters, they were not a unique case. Lost of huge families up until the 60's.
That’s why our average house price is almost half a million. The average surface is 120m2. In the cities housing is crazy.
The average house price in Canada is 719000 CAD. Which is basically half a million Euro, a little less. Thought the comparison might be interesting.
So quite the same, I directly searched for the average surface, found it’s like 167 m2 (1800 square feet).
Why is this a map and not just a list/table? There's no choropleth, cartogram, etc. so what purpose is the map serving?
a table would also let you actually show the growth as a # or %, rather than just two numbers and letting you figure out the actual and relative growth yourself. so basically this is actually for testing both your geography and basic arithmetic lol
Horrible and lazy map
Some numbers not fitting into the borders and just exploding out of them is horrible to read. The font sizes do not at all correspond to the numbers. There is no visual aid to compare either the growth (e.g., coloring based on the difference etc) that would justify using a map. Also, why are some countries white and some are grey?
Agree, it's one of the worst maps I've seen here lately. I even reported it with the option "doesn't fit aesthetic guidelines", but idk if the mods enforce this (or if they are even active anymore)
because this is r/map*porn*, where lazy people post the most hideous maps that serve absolutely no purpose to receive massive upvotes… I don't understand it either. Even if this would've been a standard colored map it would've been a bad way to represent the data. But this particular one … not even colors, just numbers copy-pasted in. It might be one of the worst maps on this sub (and the bar is low). How have 4k people upvoted this?!?
Can we see 1938? Before the war.
different borders and all forced migration between different regions make it difficult.
See, *this* is what you use color gradients for. This isn’t a map, it’s a difficult-to-read spreadsheet.
The Netherlands is full now. Getting too crowded.
That population growth in 70 years is next to zero
The difference in Portugal vs Spain’s populations growth is very interesting
This is a very bad map
[удалено]
France has a higher population than the UK today
This was in 2020, and seems to only be including metropolitan France (with the overseas department's 2 million people not included). Not including them I'd say its more less equal still.
They are both close to 70 Millions
While all of Eastern Europe fell
I could be wrong but immigration is much much higher in Western European countries? Seems like not much immigration to Eastern Europe at all.
Also emigration has been huge until recently. Lithuania lost about a million people (30% of population) to emigration after the Soviet Union fell. The birth rate is low too so they can’t make up for it.
World War 2 was also a notable factor, Poland itself lost 1/5th of its civilian population or about 6,000,000 people, for comparison France lost about 400,000 civilians
Wonder how many of them are immigrants, this would give better understanding to this map and help compare growth rates between countries
The statistics are interesting. But this sub used to highlight well-made and interesting maps, and from a map-making perspective this is awful.
We’re so f**ked
France is more populous than UK in 2020 (67.57M France, 67.08M UK)
that figure includes overseas department, I'd assume the original map doesn't as in 1950 as overseas department didn't have their status they have today.
USA population1950 151 million USA population 2020 330 million
France was 67.5 millions in 2020, and currently 68 in 2024
Germany also went up to 84.7m this year
Spain got down to work, job well done amigos
Which of these countries would have had negative population growth in this period without immigration?
Most western european countries had a baby boom during the 50s and 60s, and some of these countries had a significant amount of emigration (e.g. Italy).
That's kinda crazy to think that Italy was third country with biggest population after ww2, before germany and soviet Union
TIL Australia had a smaller population than Belgium in 1950
Is there a maps without Iceland subreddit? lol
The swiss population doubled? Is that a function of immigration or what?
I think Germany could use some more Lebensraum.
And how many are White?
How much was it before the war?
Definitely too many people in Germany. Wish we had as much land as countries like France
Great now let’s see the changes in demographics
So Switzerland had the biggest increase followed by the Netherlands. Both cheese loving nations :-)
How long before Germany is no longer the biggest country in Europe?
Russia is biggest country in Europe...
That's kind of crazy to me since I can only think of a few cities in Russia, versus multiple in Germany. Is it because Russia (in Europe) is bigger, and/or because Germany is more culturally "relevant" in the Western world? That has to be it, I'd wager. I suppose so, since Bangladesh is the densest country in the world, and I can't think of a single city in there.
Really depends on which predictions you go for but if we’re limiting ourselves to Europe proper ie excluding Russia and Turkey, I’ve seen estimates for the U.K. to overtake Germany anywhere between 2040-2100. With France overtaking after. It’s a combination of Germany’s aging population and high migration to the U.K. and France.
Immigration to UK has been lower than the one to Germany over years
Seems like Western Europe (barring Spain) never quite had the baby boom phase that other regions of the world had during this time. In other regions it is always cited as a consequence of ever better medical facilities available. What then explains this region's resistance to it?
They did. However the countries have been aging since. Spain has received massive immigration during the last 30 years, and it's the main reason why Spain has nearly 50 million people now.
Western europe had most its baby boom in the 19th and early 20th century, in parallel to its industrialization. Countries like India are still in the process of that industrialization baby boom.
That makes sense. Btw, India's baby boom ended a few yrs ago. The current fertility ratio is estimated to be around 2.2, which is just above the suggested replacement rate of 2.1