Was Hitler a British Agent...

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Was Hitler a British Agent...

Post by RF » Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:14 am

Byron Angel wrote:
Population differential between France and Germany -

Year-------France---------Germany---------Ratio
1911-----41,415,000----65,360,000--------0.634

Note -
> All French figures include the populations of Alsace and Lorraine, including that for 1911.
B
The population of Alsace-Lorraine was 1,814,000 in 1905 (source: Encyclopedia Britannica). Now that figure won't be materially different from 1911, so lets apply it to that year.

If we adjust the 1911 figures for this, we get France at 39,601,000 and Germany 67,174,000. The revised ratio is 0.5895 which I think is materially different to the 0.634 quoted above. It is significantly less than that of the 0.622 value given for 1929.

Another factor in this not considered is that 1919 onwards there was a ''Frenchification'' policy applied in Alsace-Lorraine which included deportation of some ethnic German settlors who arrived there post 1871. It is probably unlikely that it would materially effect the 0.622 for 1929 but it certainly wouldn't be lower without this.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Was Hitler a British Agent...

Post by Byron Angel » Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:16 am

Pandora wrote:
Byron Angel wrote: Population differential between France and Germany -
Year-------France---------Germany---------Ratio
1911-----41,415,000----65,360,000--------0.634
1921-----39,108,000----60,625,800--------0.645
1929-----40,250,000----64,700,000--------0.622
1936-----41,502,000----67,350,000--------0.616
1940-----40,690,000----70,747,000--------0.575
1941-----39,420,000----71,916,700--------0.548
1942-----39,220,000----72,620,000--------0.540
this is interesting Germany population still growing in 1942 despite the loses in the front. do you have data from 1943, 1944 and 1945?

1943-----38,860,000----71,400,000--------0.544
1944-----38,770,000----70,539,000--------0.549

That's as far as I went. I did not include this data because I felt conditions had changed. France was occupied and at peace (relatively speaking), while Germany was at war suffering heavy casualties fighting on the Eastern Front and her cities being under continuous aerial attack.

B
Last edited by Byron Angel on Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Was Hitler a British Agent...

Post by Byron Angel » Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:41 am

RF wrote:
Byron Angel wrote:
Population differential between France and Germany -

Year-------France---------Germany---------Ratio
1911-----41,415,000----65,360,000--------0.634

Note -
> All French figures include the populations of Alsace and Lorraine, including that for 1911.
B
The population of Alsace-Lorraine was 1,814,000 in 1905 (source: Encyclopedia Britannica). Now that figure won't be materially different from 1911, so lets apply it to that year.

If we adjust the 1911 figures for this, we get France at 39,601,000 and Germany 67,174,000. The revised ratio is 0.5895 which I think is materially different to the 0.634 quoted above. It is significantly less than that of the 0.622 value given for 1929.

Another factor in this not considered is that 1919 onwards there was a ''Frenchification'' policy applied in Alsace-Lorraine which included deportation of some ethnic German settlors who arrived there post 1871. It is probably unlikely that it would materially effect the 0.622 for 1929 but it certainly wouldn't be lower without this.

..... What you say is fair comment, but keep in mind that 600,000 colonial troops served for France on the Western Front in WW1. Numbers-wise, this made up for the absence of Alsace and Lorraine.

French military authorities were painfully aware that the demographic calculus, especially over the "empty years" of the 30's, was profoundly against France. French post-war planning had to come to grips with the fact that, just between 1921 and 1941 (no one knew in 192 when WW2 would break out) that France's already poor manpower situation relative to Germany (her principal and traditional strategic threat) was going to predictably fall by about 15 percent. That was a stupendous population drop which demanded immediate and dramatic action. Hence the Maginot Line.

B

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Was Hitler a British Agent...

Post by RF » Thu Sep 13, 2012 6:00 pm

Don't forget that there were substantial French colonial forces in existence during WW2 as well, although much of those forces weren't actually deployed in France during the first nine months of WW2. Given the alleged severe manpower shortages of the French forces I do find that factor somewhat surprising, particulary the size of the forces in North Africa, which possibly were retained there to deal with any threat there from Italy and Spain.
Many of these forces of course eventually joined the Free French.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Was Hitler a British Agent...

Post by Byron Angel » Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:04 am

RF wrote:Don't forget that there were substantial French colonial forces in existence during WW2 as well, although much of those forces weren't actually deployed in France during the first nine months of WW2. Given the alleged severe manpower shortages of the French forces I do find that factor somewhat surprising, particulary the size of the forces in North Africa, which possibly were retained there to deal with any threat there from Italy and Spain.
Many of these forces of course eventually joined the Free French.

.....There were indeed. But France was afforded no time to raise, train, equip and transport them to France proper.

B

Post Reply