Demographics of T2K Poland

[Adm.Lee]

Off the top of my head, I think you may be onto something, with one exception. IIRC, wasn't NATO's 1997 drive months long? While that would increase casualties among Poles, I don't think it would result in inordinate amounts of prisoners. (Of course, there could always be a division or two surrounded). Anyway, there's one hard-fought campaign eastward across Poland, one rapid westward withdrawal, and then it's pretty stable there through '98 and '99, right?

As for using the Poles as a screen for Soviet troops, that would depend on how many Soviets were pulled to go to China (right now, I forget). There were six Soviet armies in East Germany (4-5 divisions each, a half-dozen of those were East German), and 2 Polish and 1 Soviet army in Poland (half of the Soviet army's divisions were Polish). Nearly half of the Polish divisions are reservists, but that shouldn't matter by spring of '97. So you're talking about at least a quarter of the Pact forces in Poland are Polish. If I were the Pact theater commander, I'd certainly be backstopping the Polish forces with Soviet ones, but they wouldn't be covering the whole line, and I read the situation as more than a speedbump that slowed NATO down.

All that said, I think there will be a dire shortage of military-age men in villages and cities, but not an absence. There could be draft exemptions for key workers as well as draft dodgers and black marketeers, desertions and/or marauders. Oh, and discharged wounded veterans.

I hadn't considered what NATO might do with its EPWs, though. Recruiting them for anti-Soviet forces would seem a natural thing, even if they would have to overcome the anti-German and anti-invasion attitudes of the Poles. (Hmm, something else to fit into my hobbyhorse of the '00 offensive as driven by desire to push a Polish defection.)

Final answer: I was going to argue, but I think I'll agree with you.

[Legbreaker]

Poland is essentially a wasteland in my mind. Some areas are worse off than others, but I think it's Black Maddonna which gives us the best indication of just how bad it can get when it states there's only 3% of the prewar population still in Silesia by autumn 2000 (it give population numbers before and after, the maths is easy from there). Granted, that's possibly the worst part of the country, however it gives us a good indication of how the rest of the battlefield fared.

[Webstral]

I agree that young men aren't going to be on the farm in Poland. They're either carrying weapons or pushing up the daisies. Between chemical weapons, tactical nuclear weapons, strategic nuclear weapons, and the high tide/ebb tide cycle of conventional war across Poland, the place is wreck. Marked and unmarked minefields, UXO, persistent chemical weapons, industrial chemical spills, razed buildings, destroyed bridges, radiation... The only good news is that by 2000 the bodies will have decayed (or have been eaten) to the point at which they no longer present a disease hazard.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Poland is essentially a wasteland in my mind. Some areas are worse off than others, but I think it's Black Maddonna which gives us the best indication of just how bad it can get when it states there's only 3% of the prewar population still in Silesia by autumn 2000 (it give population numbers before and after, the maths is easy from there). Granted, that's possibly the worst part of the country, however it gives us a good indication of how the rest of the battlefield fared.

That could be a regional thing. Certain parts of Poland are likely more or less wasted than others.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Raellus

That could be a regional thing. Certain parts of Poland are likely more or less wasted than others.

Some of the challenge articles mention this, with a few towns (Sopot for example) being pretty much intact.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

That could be a regional thing. Certain parts of Poland are likely more or less wasted than others.

Exactly right. Silesia is bound to be at the worse end of the population spectrum and the numbers don't account for those people who have simply up and left the area. Mind you, they don't account for recent arrivals either.

However, take a look at the city populations pre and post war and you'll see a very dramatic decrease there too. Might not be 97%, but it's still very significant. I think Krakow has 100,000 post war from a pre war figure of 740,000 in 1996 (www.unece.org/env/europe/workshop/krakow.e.pdf). That's still just 13.5% of prewar and many of those post war numbers are refugees from other areas (robotniki, etc).

It's also worth noting Krakow was not nuked, nor was it subject to any significant military action.

[atiff]

Krakow wasn't hit, but Nowa Huta was (3 x 20kT airbursts). There would be some effects, as these circles show...

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/...50.07799&yd=20
(zoom out a step, and click also on 0.25 psi = breaking windows)

[atiff]

A couple of thoughts:

One thing about the current state of Poland is finding a way to feed the populace that exists. I struck this first thinking about Krakow. If it has 80-100,000 people there, how much farmland is required to support it? Without going into details, I made a rough model for it all, and came up with Krakow needing 800-1,000 square kilometers of farmland to support it. Say 30km x 30km. Hence there must be farming villages around in the area. And so forth...

While I agree areas of Poland are wasteland, I think there needs to be large tracts of land that are farmed to support the people who are around. The Eastern European Sourcebook says there are about 9 million in Poland in 2000 (from pre-war 36 million). Doing a bit of digging, I came up with about 160,000 square kilometers of 'open' (farmable) land in Poland. To support 9 million, using the numbers in the paragraph above, I need to use 90,000 sq km of farmland - say half the open land in Poland. Hence my vision of Poland looks a bit different to some others, and also to canon in places (a notable instance being what I worked out for Czestchowa, which is still inhabited in places). When I looked at it, I couldn't make all the canon sources 'agree'; so I just adapted to fit my train of thought.


Finally, on population, while I agree with the idea of masses of young men being drafted, etc, there will also be mass depopulation events that effect the young and the old. Both of these groups at the ends of the age curve will be massively affected by the breakdown of civilization; lack of medical care, and lack of supporting 18-50 year-olds will spell the deaths of many. In the final wash, I actually feel there will be an age demographic that is similar (but not the same) as pre-war. I think the thing that will skew it most is the relative abundance of women versus men in the 18-50 group.

Happy to discuss more!
Andrew

[Webstral]

How much farmland is needed in Poland depends a great deal on variety of factors. The more I learn about food production, the more I understand that a) I know very little and b) many factors play into the yield in calories of a given acreage of land. Regarding Poland, we probably can assume that the crops being grown in Poland in 1997 are generally well-suited to the climate, the soil, the rainfall, etc. Obviously, there will be some exceptions. How much human labor goes into each acre affects the output. Farmland used for large-scale farming prior to the war may be in good condition, or it may have been turned into a hydroponic medium by petrochemical farming. It’s possible for a single productive acre to feed five or more people, provided half or more of the people are working a crop well-suited to intensive agriculture and the farmers know what they are doing. Rice and sweet potatoes are good examples of crops that perform well with [different kinds of] intensive agriculture.

The breakdown of order in Europe will prompt a consolidation of the population into defensible communities. This is not new news, but the consolidation of the population will favor labor-intensive use of smaller parcels of land over prewar norms. This will be true in most locations where security is an issue. (One could even say that security is an agricultural resource on par with water, sunlight, good soil, and labor.)

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by atiff

One thing about the current state of Poland is finding a way to feed the populace that exists. I struck this first thinking about Krakow. If it has 80-100,000 people there, how much farmland is required to support it? Without going into details, I made a rough model for it all, and came up with Krakow needing 800-1,000 square kilometers of farmland to support it. Say 30km x 30km. Hence there must be farming villages around in the area. And so forth...

While I agree areas of Poland are wasteland, I think there needs to be large tracts of land that are farmed to support the people who are around. The Eastern European Sourcebook says there are about 9 million in Poland in 2000 (from pre-war 36 million). Doing a bit of digging, I came up with about 160,000 square kilometers of 'open' (farmable) land in Poland. To support 9 million, using the numbers in the paragraph above, I need to use 90,000 sq km of farmland - say half the open land in Poland. Hence my vision of Poland looks a bit different to some others, and also to canon in places (a notable instance being what I worked out for Czestchowa, which is still inhabited in places). When I looked at it, I couldn't make all the canon sources 'agree'; so I just adapted to fit my train of thought.


Finally, on population, while I agree with the idea of masses of young men being drafted, etc, there will also be mass depopulation events that effect the young and the old. Both of these groups at the ends of the age curve will be massively affected by the breakdown of civilization; lack of medical care, and lack of supporting 18-50 year-olds will spell the deaths of many. In the final wash, I actually feel there will be an age demographic that is similar (but not the same) as pre-war. I think the thing that will skew it most is the relative abundance of women versus men in the 18-50 group.

I like your train of thought. Numbers scare me a bit so I'm going to go ahead and trust your maths here.

I agree that the Polish population c.2000 would be skewed towards young women. Like I said, the appearance of a group of young men on a settlement's doorstep would likely cause quite a stir. On the one hand, there's a chance at acquiring some protection and potential mating partners (with the paucity of the local young male population). On the other, there's a very real chance of sexual violence being perpetrated by the visitors.

I hate to go there, but I think rape would be unfortunately common in Poland c.2000. I know that Poland is traditionally very Catholic, but I wonder if abortion would be more common c.2000. With limited proper medical care available, abortions would likely cause quite a lot of patient (i.e. mother) deaths.

Either way, I reckon that there would be a lot of single mothers in Poland, c.2000.

This is probably fodder for a second thread, but do you think that the Polish military would start conscripting young women at a greater rate once the war was well and truly under way on its territory?

It would be interesting to see someone put together a realistic group of all-female militia/mutual defense force.