- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How was Germany able to field such large army's in the world wars
Posted on 6/23/16 at 11:30 am to upgrayedd
Posted on 6/23/16 at 11:30 am to upgrayedd
quote:
Crazy that the German pop went up 12 mil after a world war and massive depression.
There wasn't any fighting on German soil during WWI so there's that.
3
Posted on 6/23/16 at 11:31 am to upgrayedd
quote:
Crazy that the German pop went up 12 mil after a world war and massive depression.
Yep. and let's not forget all the land (and the people living there) Germany lost in WWI as well.
and that's on top of over 7 million killed in the war.
Posted on 6/23/16 at 11:33 am to foshizzle
quote:
There wasn't any fighting on German soil during WWI so there's that.
There were also 2 million German men dead by the end of 1918, so there's that.
Posted on 6/23/16 at 11:33 am to foshizzle
quote:
There wasn't any fighting on German soil during WWI so there's that.
True. But there was a blockade on Germany that (depending on who you believe) killed somewhere between 400,000 and 700,000 German civilians, mostly women, children, and the elderly as most able bodied men were in the army.
LINK
ETA: To put some perspective on the total number of German civilian deaths in WWI, France, where the vast majority of the Western Front was fought, only suffered roughly 40,000 civilian deaths.
This post was edited on 6/23/16 at 11:36 am
Posted on 6/23/16 at 11:42 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
True. But there was a blockade on Germany that (depending on who you believe) killed somewhere between 400,000 and 700,000 German civilians, mostly women, children, and the elderly as most able bodied men were in the army.
I believe that's how the Battle of Jutland came about, right?
Posted on 6/23/16 at 11:44 am to hawgfaninc
Most Germans are male, so they didn't have half the population being women who couldn't fight. It was a huge advantage.
Posted on 6/23/16 at 11:46 am to upgrayedd
quote:
I believe that's how the Battle of Jutland came about, right?
It did contribute to it. The Germans wanted to try and lure part of the British Grand Fleet out and destroy it and thus hopefully break the British blockade. Of course the British, as they did later in WWII, had already broken the German's naval codes and knew what the Germans were up to even before their High Seas fleet set sail.
Posted on 6/23/16 at 11:52 am to Sidicous
quote:
Hot uninhibited blondes!!
Its not Sweden
This post was edited on 6/23/16 at 11:52 am
Posted on 6/23/16 at 11:53 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
StraightCashHomey21
Pathetic
Posted on 6/23/16 at 12:02 pm to Darth_Vader
wut
Germany isn't over flowing with blondes like Sweden is.
Germany isn't over flowing with blondes like Sweden is.
Posted on 6/23/16 at 12:07 pm to hawgfaninc
And the fact that WWI caused a massive country wide struggle for survival. Struggling men are desperate for three things:
rubbing alcohol
drinking alcohol
and a part of the female anatomy.
Two of those things combined lead very quickly to an increased population.
rubbing alcohol
drinking alcohol
and a part of the female anatomy.
Two of those things combined lead very quickly to an increased population.
Posted on 6/23/16 at 12:08 pm to hawgfaninc
Europe has a very dense population.
Posted on 6/23/16 at 12:39 pm to hawgfaninc
Perhaps now you better understand the frantic interest for lebensraum.
Posted on 6/23/16 at 12:54 pm to foshizzle
quote:
They had a booming population. It was actually kind of a problem for them. They were like modern China, on a smaller scale. Industrialization coupled with better, scientific healthcare methods and improved nutrition, along with becoming a unified country instead of 100 little kingdoms unleashed a wave of population. If the wars hadn't killed so many young men it's interesting to ponder what crises they may have faced given their population growth pre-WWI. A lot more immigration to America, but possibly also famine and unrest/revolution. They probably needed more arable land to feed their people and living space and may have started a different war anyway just to get at the breadbasket plains of the Ukraine.
Germany had a large population per capita, but they weren't exactly "booming" in birthrates. Post WWI birthrates were actually quite low in Germany. In fact, the Nazis began placing an emphasis on encouraging large families to help account for this.
Germany's population figures for WWII being at 80 million include annexed Austria as well as the 3 million or so Sudeten Germans. Whether those figures include Czechs I'm not certain.
From recollection the German population circa 1938 was at roughly 70 million prior to the annexations.
**Work blocker preventing me from responding to correct post so I had to respond to you foshizzle. Great software we've got.
Posted on 6/23/16 at 1:01 pm to ChewyDante
quote:
In fact, the Nazis began placing an emphasis on encouraging large families to help account for this.
They did more than just place an emphasis on birthing "pure Aryans", they went so far as to set up a virtual state sponsored whore breeding program for any girl physically old enough to bear children...
LINK
They even gave out a medal for it....
Posted on 6/23/16 at 1:07 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Some perspective.
Germany 1914: 68 million people
Russia 1914: 166 million people
USA 1914: 92 million
Germany 1939: 80 million
Russia (USSR) 1939: 169 million (note that their population only went up 3 mil between the wars)
USA 1939: 132 million
Russia 1946: 10 people
Mostly joking, but a lot of estimates have Russian losses in WWII (military and civilian) in the range of 40 million. It's absolutely staggering how many people Russia lost in both World Wars after losing around 3.5 million people in WWI
Posted on 6/23/16 at 1:16 pm to MLCLyons
quote:
Russia 1946: 10 people
Mostly joking, but a lot of estimates have Russian losses in WWII (military and civilian) in the range of 40 million. It's absolutely staggering how many people Russia lost in both World Wars after losing around 3.5 million people in WWI
Yeah becuase in WWI they just threw people into the front lines sometimes with little or no weapons.
In WWII they suffered millions of civilian casualties due to Germany's failed invasion of Russia. The battle of Stalingrad and the siege of Leningrad are among the longest and most bloodiest battles in human history.
Posted on 6/23/16 at 1:23 pm to 1BamaRTR
quote:
Yeah becuase in WWI they just threw people into the front lines sometimes with little or no weapons.
They did the same in WWII.
Posted on 6/23/16 at 1:33 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Crazy that the German pop went up 12 mil after a world war and massive depression.
Well if you walked away from living years in a trench, basically waiting your turn to die, then a depression is a cake walk. Not to mention the female to male ratio had to be insanely high after WWI so there's that plus years of no poon and living in a trench.
I can easily see how that population boom occurred.
Posted on 6/23/16 at 1:36 pm to wryder1
Yes, but without access to medical care during a depression, I would imagine mortality rates, especially infant mortality rates, are quite high.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News