4 ms·

Was the Soviet 1923 Male Birth Cohort Doomed by World War II? (2014)

15 points by soundsop 11y ago

moomin 11y ago
Although a classic case of Betteridge's Law, it's a fascinating article.
htns 11y ago
Despite having tried to google it a few times, I have never found a table of deaths by birth year over WWI or WWII for any country. You'd think it would be on Wikipedia. Even rough estimates would make for a nice blog post.
- FatalLogic 11y ago
  Don't you just need a general table of death rates for the 20th century? Such as this for the UK http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--_yGIwe9rks/TpwbBfZB6AI/AAAAAAAAARg/1v4Z78m--po/s1600/UK1901.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--_yGIwe9rks/TpwbBfZB6AI/AAAAAAAAAR... You can see the pattern you'd expect: a rise in the death rate, compared to the surrounding years, during the world wars. Though there are other peaks, such as the higher peak just before 1920, which is probably influenza, not WWI. edit: Oh, this doesn't show annual death rate by year of birth, which is what you were looking for
- MichaelCrawford 11y ago
  Look for actuarial tables. They are used to set life insurance rates.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    They frequently exclude WWII as an extraordinary event.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  A Google search for "world war 2 mortality demographics" pops this out: http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol13/16/13-16.pdf http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol13/16/13-16.p... It discusses problems with the records leading to difficulties in figuring out such statistics (they go on to model the death rate vs age for the war years). edit: Here's another interesting link from that search: http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/markharrison/entry/was_the_soviet/ http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/markharrison/entry/was_the_soviet...
dghf 11y ago
Possibly more shocking, more than 60% of men who were born in 1923 and still alive in 1941 would die during the War (assuming I've understood the article correctly and my maths is sound).
- juhanima 11y ago
  No. Surviving to 1941: 1,800, wartime mortality: 700, surviving to 1946: 1,100. 700/1,800 = 38%
  - dghf 11y ago
    Oops. You're right, I took the 1946 figure as the 1941 one (700/1100 > 60%). Still, 38% is pretty bad.
MichaelCrawford 11y ago
http://www.aircrewremembered.com/ http://www.aircrewremembered.com/
louithethrid 11y ago
Shocking is also how they died. On 40 years ago on our farm worked a heavily alcoholic tank-driver from the eastern front- when drunk he would ramble about what happend there. The sovjet officers told there hastily trained recruits that they had Anti-Tank-Guns who could penetrant german tanks. They could not. So the tank would drive along the dug emergency trench. One Tankchain in the trenches. They would fire. They would be crushed. Dont remember the length - but about one day of nightmarish driving of this.

15 points by soundsop 11y ago

Although a classic case of Betteridge's Law, it's a fascinating article.

htns 11y ago

Despite having tried to google it a few times, I have never found a table of deaths by birth year over WWI or WWII for any country. You'd think it would be on Wikipedia. Even rough estimates would make for a nice blog post.

FatalLogic 11y ago
Don't you just need a general table of death rates for the 20th century? Such as this for the UK http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--_yGIwe9rks/TpwbBfZB6AI/AAAAAAAAARg/1v4Z78m--po/s1600/UK1901.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--_yGIwe9rks/TpwbBfZB6AI/AAAAAAAAAR... You can see the pattern you'd expect: a rise in the death rate, compared to the surrounding years, during the world wars. Though there are other peaks, such as the higher peak just before 1920, which is probably influenza, not WWI. edit: Oh, this doesn't show annual death rate by year of birth, which is what you were looking for
MichaelCrawford 11y ago
Look for actuarial tables. They are used to set life insurance rates.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  They frequently exclude WWII as an extraordinary event.
maxerickson 11y ago
A Google search for "world war 2 mortality demographics" pops this out: http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol13/16/13-16.pdf http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol13/16/13-16.p... It discusses problems with the records leading to difficulties in figuring out such statistics (they go on to model the death rate vs age for the war years). edit: Here's another interesting link from that search: http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/markharrison/entry/was_the_soviet/ http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/markharrison/entry/was_the_soviet...

dghf 11y ago

Possibly more shocking, more than 60% of men who were born in 1923 and still alive in 1941 would die during the War (assuming I've understood the article correctly and my maths is sound).

juhanima 11y ago
No. Surviving to 1941: 1,800, wartime mortality: 700, surviving to 1946: 1,100. 700/1,800 = 38%
- dghf 11y ago
  Oops. You're right, I took the 1946 figure as the 1941 one (700/1100 > 60%). Still, 38% is pretty bad.

MichaelCrawford 11y ago

http://www.aircrewremembered.com/ http://www.aircrewremembered.com/

louithethrid 11y ago

Shocking is also how they died. On 40 years ago on our farm worked a heavily alcoholic tank-driver from the eastern front- when drunk he would ramble about what happend there. The sovjet officers told there hastily trained recruits that they had Anti-Tank-Guns who could penetrant german tanks. They could not. So the tank would drive along the dug emergency trench. One Tankchain in the trenches. They would fire. They would be crushed. Dont remember the length - but about one day of nightmarish driving of this.