Population Growth without the Great War

De von Of

Has anyone ever calculated population growth without the Great War?

What would the population numbers of Europe look like in 1950, assuming no great conflicts or territorial changes (however likely that is)?

This should factor in new medical developments and a without world wars generally better economical situation if possible. (For example: German population not only shrunk from about 64.8 million [1910 Census] to 60.9 million[1919 Census], due to war casualties and territorial losses, but also had a much reduced population growth after the war [presumably due to economic hardship])
 

Mikestone8

In the case of the UK, not a lot of change.

In the years leading up to WW1, GB was losing as many people by emigration as she would subsequently lose in the war itself - and these, like the war casualties, were disproportionately young men. So the true manpower cost of WW1 fell not on Britain but on Canada, Australia and other places which missed out on the emigrants.
 

ryhs

As for Russia, it would mean around 3 millions not dying in the WWI, another 10 millions in RCW(I include 1921 famine here), not to mention 1931-1933 famine being far less extreme without collectivization, so another 5-8 million could have survived, and then 26 million deaths in WWII. Out of these numbers at least a half would be ethnic russians, the second in numbers would be ukrainians.
And I don't include unborn children here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top