I just watched a documentary on the eastern front of WWII, and the death toll was so horrific for Germany, Ukraine, and Russia.
I was wondering how the loss of all those young men affected the population. With so many men of marriagable age dead, did the birth rate plummet in the years, say 1945-1950?
There were so many dead that it seems incredible that there are lots of Germans, Ukrainians, and Russians alove today, just 60 years later.
Just my two cents,
While it is a common view that WWII caused drastically population drops worldwide, the reality is that the millions that died were a small percentage of the entire population. The countries you mentioned didn’t lose half their fertile men or even a quarter.
According to these sites, Germany started the war with over 80 million peopleand lost 3.5 millionduring the conflict. That’s about a 5% drop in population. The fatalities were probably replaced before the war even ended.
An exception may have been the Jews where six million died. Jewish population growth definitely suffered has a result. Hitler came pretty close to reaching his goal.
Are there any statistics that compare male/female ratios and the effects after the war?
Now this is not entirely due to the war, as Russian males drink and die heroically:
Is modern war different then older war styles?
How many did he miss?
Israel’s population is 7,282,000 according to wiki, an millions more Jews elsewhere (13.2 overall). Even if their numbers doubled in 60 years, he was still several million people away from his goal. Given that many Jews lived in places like America, even if he had won, he wouldn’t have been able to wipe them out, unless the American government cooperated.
blinks
I never realised that.
There was never any danger of the Holocaust really wiping out the Jewish people.
Hmmm.
Funny what you realise when your typing away.
EDIT: I assue I don’t need to point out that any mass murder is wrong, it’s just that I always thought of the Holocaust as being aimed at destroying the Jewish race.
It was (not just Jews but anybody who didn’t fit in Hitler’s grinder, as we know). Hitler wouldn’t have minded conquering the whole world if he could have.
AFAIK he had no desiegns to subdue America.
“No plans” doesn’t mean he would have been happy with all the unacceptables in the world piling up in America, or that he expected America to let them, or…
My mother doesn’t have any plans to kill my grandparents. Doesn’t mean she expects or wants them to survive her.
I think the U.S. Civil War had a bigger impact on population levels than World War II. Basically, a huge percentage of the young, marriage age men were killed. This left many single girls without husbands and it’s not coincidence that in the late 1800’s, you see women getting into college and so forth.
Anyone have exact stats. on what percentage of American men were killed in the Civil War(both sides, obviously)?
Here are the death totals from all American wars:
As you can see, the Civil War killed about 2% of the population of the U.S. In comparison, World War II killed about .3% of the population of the U.S. I presume that you would approximately double this (since the vast majority of the deaths were men) to get the proportion of men killed. So maybe 4% of the men in the U.S. were killed in the Civil War. If you limited it to the men most eligible to become fathers, ones over 18 and under 40, you would probably again approximately double the proportion, since the men killed in combat were generally over 18 and under 40. So the proportion of men of an age to be likely to become fathers killed in the Civil War was probably somewhat less than 10%.
The number of European Jews and thus the explicit target figure for the Final Solution at Wannsee was estimated in the conference protocol (section III) as at least 11 million.
Perhaps worth noting that the reason that the final death toll was “only” half this seems to be mainly because they never got their hands on the majority of Soviet Jews. For Jews in the nations already occupied by the Third Reich before Barbarossa the death tolls routinely ran to >95% of the Wannsee targets.
There is probably 5-10% of a given population that would like to reproduce, but can’t due to poor looks, poor social skills, or just plain bad luck. If you eliminate some of the competition, there is a pool standing by to take up that slack.
Deaths were not only due to battle but also to causes attributed to the general state of war or occupation: collateral deaths, disease, cold, starvation, forced labor, etc. Poland, which suffered two (or in the east, three) invasions and occupations lost about 20% of it’s prewar population. Especially in eastern Europe then, civilian deaths lowered the gender disparity in total war-related deaths.
Heh, I originally misread this as “Wii and effects on birthrate.”
I wonder?
Man, they have a game for everything.
I wonder what you do with the controller ???
Naaah, I’m not sure I really want to know.
Wiki says 10% of Germans died.
But whether its 5% or 10%, that will have a bigger effect on population that if that were just a random population sample. The vast majority of those deaths were young men. If half of men between 20-30 died, that would be less that 10% of the overall population.
So even a statistically ‘small’ percent of the overall population died, if they are mostly young elligible men, that can have a huge effect on the birthrate.
Well in the UK the birthrate rocketed after the Yanks arrived 
“The Yanks are coming over there, over there”
What?
Different websites say different things. On further review, it appears the 3.5 million number is too low.
Another interesting nugget is that after WWII, Europe and especially Germany became an area of mass migrations of peoples. My guess is that it would be difficult to count the actual population accurately.
All being said, the death of that many young men is bound to have an impact, I just don’t think it is as much as many people would guess.