Likely Impact on Population Figures In the Event Of The Following-

What would be the impact on population be as a result of the following not happening -
1 No World War 1, I presume a higher European population today and of course there would have been no World War 2, The Spanish Flu still happens, though it almost certainly had its origins in the trenches.
2 No World War 2, what would be its impact on Europe's and the world's population today, I'm presuming a WW2 in this scenario. Is there any possibility that it could actually be smaller as there will be no post war boom?
3 No direct US military involvement in Vietnam has what impact on the US population today?
 
What would be the impact on population be as a result of the following not happening -
1 No World War 1, I presume a higher European population today and of course there would have been no World War 2, The Spanish Flu still happens, though it almost certainly had its origins in the trenches.
2 No World War 2, what would be its impact on Europe's and the world's population today, I'm presuming a WW2 in this scenario. Is there any possibility that it could actually be smaller as there will be no post war boom?
3 No direct US military involvement in Vietnam has what impact on the US population today?

No WW1 means that unrestricted European migration to North and South America continues longer than OTL.

In European the casualties were offset by no emigration. Britain and Italy may a lower population in 1920 than OTL.

There is no post war baby boom. Europe's population by 1939 probably not much diff than OTL but the population of the US/Canada/Argentina is much higher.

WW2 losses were offset by a post war baby boom that continued into the 1960's.

For an idea of Europe without a world war look at the demographics of Switzerland and Sweden.

Russia is the biggest winner. No WW1 dead. No Civil war. No Stalin genocide and no WW2. Russia alone could have 200 million people today.
 
The population of Russia would likely be approaching 500 million, possibly more. I actually did some growth statistic calculations with this for a SW game based off of pre-WW2 population growth rates, losses during WW2, increased infant mortality, etc along with the absence of a Holodomor or the major post WW2 famine. There was also a fairly large Russian baby boom which was stunted by the losses in WW2. Without that it would almost certainly rival the American one.
 
The population of Russia would likely be approaching 500 million, possibly more. I actually did some growth statistic calculations with this for a SW game based off of pre-WW2 population growth rates, losses during WW2, increased infant mortality, etc along with the absence of a Holodomor or the major post WW2 famine. There was also a fairly large Russian baby boom which was stunted by the losses in WW2. Without that it would almost certainly rival the American one.

I think the birth rate in Russia would have entered demographic transition long before. Also emigrants would be free to go to North and South America.
 
I think the birth rate in Russia would have entered demographic transition long before. Also emigrants would be free to go to North and South America.

You're probably right about that, though the scenario is pretty vague so we don't have much background material other than no major disasters in Russia on the scale of WW1, WW2, the Holodomor, etc which leaves a lot of possibilities open.
 
Personally I doubt the advent of no Vietnam, on population size atleast, would cause no real visible differences.

However, as wars typically have so many people killed or wounded and in general just changed, the actual effects could affect everything... WWIII ANYONE?:eek:
 
Personally I doubt the advent of no Vietnam, on population size atleast, would cause no real visible differences.

However, as wars typically have so many people killed or wounded and in general just changed, the actual effects could affect everything... WWIII ANYONE?:eek:

No Vietnam War could feasibly buttefly Pol Pot. It's a stretch but it could happen.
 
No Vietnam War could feasibly buttefly Pol Pot. It's a stretch but it could happen.

Not quite that large a stretch really, wars change everything.
There were thousands of potential leaders that ended up dead because of the Vietnam War, and its fairly difficult to be a bad leader when compared to Mr Pot.

Without a government thats completely inept and hated in the South it also means that Pol Pot isn't such an obvious option.
 
Russia is the big winner from this but also Germany. They lost 6 million people in the 2nd World War and unlike Britain in both wars and Germany in WW1 many of them were women and children. Frankly you can loose 5% of your adult male population and it won't have a significant effect demographically in the long term. Without WW2 you might have 90 to 100 million Germans, and without such a disastrous inter-war period the very rapid demographic transition which Germany underwent would be slower meaning possibly 110 or at the max 120 million today.
 
Personally I doubt the advent of no Vietnam, on population size atleast, would cause no real visible differences.

However, as wars typically have so many people killed or wounded and in general just changed, the actual effects could affect everything... WWIII ANYONE?:eek:

In the Vietnam war, it reached the point where over 50 percent of Americans knew someone who died in Vietnam. Those were a lot of people who could have gone on to do a lot.
 
In the Vietnam war, it reached the point where over 50 percent of Americans knew someone who died in Vietnam. Those were a lot of people who could have gone on to do a lot.

58,000 dead in a population of approx 190-200 million at the time. I suspect more Americans would have died in traffic accidents during that time.
 
Russia is the big winner from this but also Germany. They lost 6 million people in the 2nd World War and unlike Britain in both wars and Germany in WW1 many of them were women and children. Frankly you can loose 5% of your adult male population and it won't have a significant effect demographically in the long term. Without WW2 you might have 90 to 100 million Germans, and without such a disastrous inter-war period the very rapid demographic transition which Germany underwent would be slower meaning possibly 110 or at the max 120 million today.

Actually during WW2 Russia lost something like 20% of its adult male population.
 
Actually during WW2 Russia lost something like 20% of its adult male population.

I aware of that but demographically that had less affect than it also losing 5-10% of its fertile (18-35) female cohort. To oversimplify massively a society with 100 women and 1 man will survive where a society with 100 men and 1 woman won't.
 
I aware of that but demographically that had less affect than it also losing 5-10% of its fertile (18-35) female cohort. To oversimplify massively a society with 100 women and 1 man will survive where a society with 100 men and 1 woman won't.

Somewhat obvious... but extremely problematic

Except for the 1 guy scenario... I don't think he'll be that unhappy:D

In the 2nd one all the guys would end up killing each other anyways..
 

Delta Force

Banned
I had an alternate timeline for a nation sim I made with the PoD in 1920. I made some statistics for it and I recall that the USSR had around 300 million people and Germany had around 88 million people by 1950 (when the game started) without World War II or the Holodomor. The USSR in the timeline had only one of the Baltic States though.

No World War II and Holodomor sees the USSR with a population similar to what it had in the late 1980s and sees Germany with a population close to what it is today. In both cases the 1950 populations are still around 8 million higher than the historical peak populations of the countries.
 
The United States had about 58,000 soldiers killed in Vietnam, but remember there was the equivalent amount of suicides amongst those who served subsequently!
My OP on No WW2 effects on population, obviously assumes a WW1 happening.
Re no WW1, would the Spanish flu a much more substantial killer have happened any way?
 
In the Vietnam war, it reached the point where over 50 percent of Americans knew someone who died in Vietnam. Those were a lot of people who could have gone on to do a lot.

American deaths in Vietnam were around 50 - 60k. This isn't nothing, but on the demographic scale its fairly negligible.
 
My OP on No WW2 effects on population, obviously assumes a WW1 happening.
Re no WW1, would the Spanish flu a much more substantial killer have happened any way?

Spanish Flu would have been bad but WW1 both slowed it's spread (because of less travel) and made it worse (because of unhealthy trench environment for soldiers and reduced calorific intake for civilian populations increasing vulnerability).
 
Russia would still have had its revolution, and it might have gone on a lot longer, much like the Chinese revolution lasted nearly 30 years before it finally ended in a unified state, or Mexico which had convulsions from 1911 to 1938.

And I feel Turkey would have had its revolution too. But Absent the war, Turkey would have held onto its empire, much like China did. Turkey might even have bit off large chunks of Russia, as the Attiturkist revolution was a lot better run than the Russian revolution. The Attiturk folks had more on the ball, and I don't know of any Russian politician who was remotely on the ball.

I even think the Haspburgs might have gone along with the solution Norway Sweden wound up with. One family member is king of Hungary, another is emperor of Austria, etc.
 
Top