What if?

[Ozz]

What if the anglos had not got involved in WWII. What if we had allowed our population to expand at the rate of Third World countries that is doubling every 20 yrs. Assume in 1945 populations as follows: Canada 10 million, Australia 10 million , Britain 50 million. In 1965 the figures would be: C 20m, A 20 m, B 100m. 1985: 40 40 200 In 2005: 80 80 400. Now obviously thre would be a mass movement from Britain to Canada, Australia ( I include New Zealand ) more realistic figures would be: 240m 240m 80m. Naturaly we would form a single nation with industrialisation of Canada and Australia.
A very powerful English nation of half a billion which in 2025 would reach ONE BILLION!
We would rule the world. Incidently without the UN ( never set up ) and communism the Third World would have remained at the paltry population levels of 1945.
That's why WWII was such a disaster for the English race.

[Marilyn]

You've already said that .. and its still hypothetical rubbish.

What if the anglos had not got involved in WWII. What if we had allowed our population to expand at the rate of Third World countries that is doubling every 20 yrs. Assume in 1945 populations as follows: Canada 10 million, Australia 10 million , Britain 50 million. In 1965 the figures would be: C 20m, A 20 m, B 100m. 1985: 40 40 200 In 2005: 80 80 400. Now obviously thre would be a mass movement from Britain to Canada, Australia ( I include New Zealand ) more realistic figures would be: 240m 240m 80m. Naturaly we would form a single nation with industrialisation of Canada and Australia.
A very powerful English nation of half a billion which in 2025 would reach ONE BILLION!
We would rule the world. Incidently without the UN ( never set up ) and communism the Third World would have remained at the paltry population levels of 1945.
That's why WWII was such a disaster for the English race.

[angelman]

Depending on which country you call 3rd World......

Spain, Portugal, most of Central America, most of South America to a large degree, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Iran etc etc.

I don't see any of those having this population explosion you were referring to.

[Akria]

It's not a case of 'allowing' populations to expand, unless you mean by immigration. As societies advance their birth rate has a tendency to decrease, particularly as women become more and more educated and gain more and more equal status with men, but also due to other factors.

Most developed countries around the world now have birth rates barely meeting replacement rate, and several are even below that.

And this is ignoring the catastrophic global and social effects of not getting involved in the Second World War. Even if you are particularly in favour of 'the English race', as you put it, would you really be willing to accept the cost of this - Nazi supremacy, widespread genocide on a scale which would make the Holocaust seem child's play, eugenics on a global scale and the complete and utter destruction of any semblance of personal freedom under Hitler's dominion?

[CaptCluster]

Although I am a fan of the Anglo-sphere argument myself two things have to be considered here:
Firstly, if history had not been played out exactly as it was, no-one born after the proposed divergence of history would have been born at all.
In other words, unless you were born prior to WWII you would not be here.

Secondly, large populations of self sufficient hunter gatherers whose numbers are self regulating by the availability of game and disease from overcrowding are not a problem and a small population burning coal etc. is sustainable. Its the overpopulation of our world by technically advanced communities which will bring about the destruction of our habitat and pretty much wipe out the majority of species.
In other words, it is too many too many people in the first world that is the problem, not the spear chuckers.