This is an issue because it's an extremely unrealistic assumption. Population growth rate OTL for instance dropped by more than half between 1950-1980, to the point where Russia was below replacement rate even by 1980-81. Population growth slows down in response to increase in GDP per capita along with real resource constraints (which only goes away with increase in GDP per capita) and there is no real reason to think that removing the population loss from the first half the 20th century will change that.What would today's population of the former Soviet Union be if the Holodomor, WW2, Gulags, Mass Executions, Starvation During Collectivism etc were avoided? This also assumes a steady population growth rate.
Also, can you breakdown the population statistics by country please?
Thanks.
I'm pretty sure 1.7% on the average is way, way too high, the post-war baby boom was barely above thatRoughly 40 million loss, with OTL rate of 1.7% between 1946-1991 you are looking at 68 million more people in 1991 as a rough guess, totaly around 360+ million in 1991.
Of course, all of history would be different, but still.
I'm pretty sure 1.7% on the average is way, way too high, the post-war baby boom was barely above that
I was just appeasing the OP but per Wiki 1946 is at 170,548,000 and July 1991 is at 293,047,571, so about 1.7%.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union#cite_note-and-2