Scrapping civilization: the cost in human lives
The growth of the population of Tsarist Russia in the XIX-XX centuries. characterized by high rates and constancy. From 1810 to 1914 the number of inhabitants of Russia, excluding Poland and Finland, increased from 40.7 to 161 million, that is, 4 times (!). The maximum growth rates were observed during the reign of Emperor Nicholas II. During the period from 1897 (the first all-Russian census) to 1913 (the last peaceful year of the Russian Empire) its population increased from 116.2 million to 159.2 million, that is, by 37% in 16 years. In fact, it was during these years that a large Russian people was formed in imperial Russia, which was able to endure the difficult trials of the coming XX century.
Based on these tendencies, the great Russian scientist D. I. Mendeleev in his work "To the Knowledge of Russia" (1906) was able to make his famous forecast of the size of the Russian State in the twentieth century. Mendeleev's research is based on the 1897 census and data from the Central Statistical Committee of Russia on the number of annual births and deaths in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It contains data for all provinces of Russia. Moreover, according to the age structure, 12 groups of peoples and social status. A significant place in D. I. Mendeleev is concerned with studies of the demographic processes of foreign countries: from Europe to India, China and Japan, from the United States of America to Argentina.
Mendeleev's main idea in the demographic part of this work: "The most important and humane goal of any" policy "is more clearly, simpler and most tangible expressed in the development of conditions for human reproduction." Even now, 100 years after Mendeleev's work, at the beginning of the 21st century, this conclusion is of considerable interest for today's Russia, clearly naming the goal to which people who care about the true welfare of their country should strive.
The actual increase in the population of Russia at the end of the 19th century, estimated for 50 provinces of the European part of Russia, ranged from 1.44% to 1.8% per year. For his long-term forecast, Mendeleev adopted a conservative figure of 1.5% per year. According to the results of his research on "human reproduction", Mendeleev estimated that the population of the Russian State should have been expected by 1950 - 282 million; by 2000 - 590 million
The validity of this prediction can be easily verified using the example of the United States. Assessing the natural reproduction of the US population and the expected growth in the twentieth century, Mendeleev concluded that in the United States by the middle of the twentieth century, 180 million inhabitants should have been expected. In fact, the US population reached 181 million people by 1960. Consequently, the degree of accuracy of D. I. Mendeleev for the United States is very high.
Thus, it seems quite obvious that the main reason for the discrepancy between D. I. Mendeleev's real situation is the social cataclysms that Russia experienced in the twentieth century. A reservation should be made here - D. I. Mendeleev in his forecast was careful and took a very modest for the then Russia population growth of 1.5% per year. If the population of Russia grew in accordance with these parameters, then at the beginning of 1914 it would have amounted to 159.4 million. In reality, according to the official data of the Central Statistical Committee (CSK) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, the total population as of January 1, 1914 was was already 173 million people. It should be noted that in Soviet historiography, the official data of the CSK were declared exaggerated. However, even the Soviet "corrected" data give 166.7 million at the beginning of 1914.people of the population. Consequently, the population of Russia has exceeded the forecast of the beginning of the twentieth century by 7.3–13.6 million people. This excess is a consequence of the successes in education and medicine achieved by the Russian Empire during the reign of Nicholas II, which D. I. Mendeleev at one time. The difference fully covers both direct and indirect losses from the First World War, which is confirmed by the available expert estimates of the population in the territory of the former Russian Empire at the end of 1918 (i.e. the end of the First World War) - about 180 million people. Mendeleev's forecast gave 171.75 million people on this date. This excess is a consequence of the successes in education and medicine achieved by the Russian Empire during the reign of Nicholas II, which D. I. Mendeleev at one time. The difference fully covers both direct and indirect losses from the First World War, which is confirmed by the available expert estimates of the population in the territory of the former Russian Empire at the end of 1918 (i.e. the end of the First World War) - about 180 million people. Mendeleev's forecast gave 171.75 million people on this date. This excess is a consequence of the successes in education and medicine achieved by the Russian Empire during the reign of Nicholas II, which D. I. Mendeleev at one time. The difference fully covers both direct and indirect losses from the First World War, which is confirmed by the available expert estimates of the population in the territory of the former Russian Empire at the end of 1918 (i.e. the end of the First World War) - about 180 million people. Mendeleev's forecast gave 171.75 million people on this date.man. Mendeleev's forecast gave 171.75 million people on this date.man. Mendeleev's forecast gave 171.75 million people on this date.
However, as you know, the First World War is only the beginning of the disasters that befell Russia in the twentieth century. In the course of the fratricidal civil war, the main losses fell not on those killed on the fronts on both sides (their number is the easiest to determine - about 1 million people), but on the death rate of hunger and epidemics caused by the collapse of the country's single economy. A huge negative role was played by the Red Terror in its most massive forms (decossackization and repression against the Orthodox clergy), as well as the emigration of millions of Russians abroad. Obviously, in 1918-1922. the birth rate in comparison with the pre-revolutionary period has decreased.
Promotional video:
However, in the 1930s. the country was swept by several waves of repression as a result of collectivization and dispossession, which led to a large number of excess deaths. These losses cannot be accurately calculated and vary from one researcher to another, but in any case, the count goes to the millions. To this should be added those who were shot during the years of the "Great Terror", as well as those who died in exile and camps from difficult conditions. The birth rate fell sharply during the famine of 1932-1933. and since then it has not reached its previous indicators, continuing to generally decline over all subsequent years, which was a natural consequence of the final destruction of the Russian community. We only note that out of the first 23 years of Soviet power (1918-1940), 9 years (1918-1922 and 1931-1934.) had previously incredible violent deaths and very low fertility rates.
The result of the social experiments of the Soviet regime is easy to see at the beginning of 1941. Return in 1939-1940. territories torn away from Russia during the civil war made its borders comparable to the borders of the Russian Empire. According to Mendeleev's forecast, 220.5 million people should have lived in them (excluding Poland and Finland), not counting about four million residents of Khiva and Bukhara, whom D. I. Mendeleev counted separately. In reality, at the beginning of 1941 there were 194.1 million people in the USSR. Consequently, 30 million people is the price of social experiments in the early period of Soviet power.
Of the first three decades of Soviet power, 16 years were characterized by supermortality and low birth rates (both as a result of the government's policy and for reasons independent of it), and the remaining 14 years in terms of natural growth did not represent any significant differences from the realities of the Russian Empire.
Nowadays, researchers have reached the classified archives and, on the basis of all available data, have come to the conclusion that the overall mortality rate of the USSR population in 1930 was not 18-19 ‰, but 27 ‰; and in 1935 its value was, accordingly, not 16 ‰, but about 21 ‰. The overall mortality rate in Russia was even higher than in the USSR as a whole (27.3 ‰ in 1930 and 23.6 in 1935). For comparison, even in the year of the first all-Russian census of 1897, almost forty years earlier and with a completely different global level of medicine, the mortality rate in the Russian Empire was 29.3 ‰!
Thus, no special merits of the Soviet government in demographic development and health care, capable of justifying the damage caused to the population of Russia in 1917-1922, are not observed.
According to Mendeleev's forecast for 1960, 302.5 million people should have lived within the borders of the then USSR, even if the population of Poland and Finland is not taken into account, considering their separation inevitable. If we assume that Russia would have developed according to an alternative model “without revolution”, but would have taken part in the Second World War and would have suffered the same losses, then its population in 1960 would have amounted to 255 million people. Consequently, the existing difference of 40 million is the price of Soviet power in the period 1918-1960. in dry numbers.
The next stage is the destruction of morality
If before the war and immediately after it less than a tenth of marriages ended in divorce, then in 1965 - already every third.
It should be noted that it is the Soviet government that belongs to the dubious glory of the first government, which allowed an abortion that was not motivated by anything other than a woman's desire. IN AND. Lenin was a consistent supporter of "the unconditional repeal of all laws against abortion." He saw in this the protection of "the elementary democratic rights of a citizen and a citizen" and on November 19, 1920, abortion was legalized in Russia. The countries of Western Europe legalized it much later. The first country to allow abortion outside the socialist camp (abortions were introduced in the socialist countries of Eastern Europe, China and Cuba) was Great Britain, where the law appeared only in 1967 with the coming to power of the Labor Party.
In 1964, the RSFSR set, according to their number, a record that has not yet been surpassed by anyone in the world - 5.6 million. The relative maximum (also not surpassed by anyone) was in 1968 - 293 abortions per 100 births. This means that almost 75% of all conceptions ended in abortion! In later years, the numbers fluctuated, but before the collapse of the USSR, their number in the RSFSR did not fall below 4 million per year. In total, in the period 1957-1990. nearly 240 million abortions have been performed!
Apart from the USSR, no other country in the world has ever known such a disregard for the life of the unborn. These are the hundreds of millions of Russian citizens whom we “missed” in “normal” forecasts.
Thus, the reasons for the collapse of the birth rate in Russia, which is observed now, and which most demographers quite reasonably consider a demographic catastrophe, are not due to the liberal reforms of the 1990s.
Already in the late 1980s - early 1990s. demographic forecasts were published, from which it followed that depopulation in the USSR was to begin at the beginning of the XXI century. According to the calculations of demographers, even with the stabilization of age and total fertility rates (as well as age-specific death rates) at the 1990 level, the decline in the Russian population should have begun between 2006 and 2010, that is, 40-45 years after the country has developed a regime of narrowed replacement of generations. Thus, the liberal reforms of the 90s. did not cause depopulation, but only accelerated the already inevitable process, the foundations of which were laid in the USSR.
The fact is that the science of demography in the modern world distinguishes three types of population reproduction:
The first, "traditional" or "patriarchal," dominates an agrarian or early industrial society. The main distinguishing features are very high birth and death rates, low life expectancy. Having many children is a tradition and contributes to the better functioning of the family in an agrarian society. High mortality is a consequence of the low standard of living of people, their hard work and poor nutrition, insufficient development of education and medicine. This type of reproduction is now typical for many underdeveloped countries - Afghanistan, Yemen, Bangladesh and most of the countries of Black Africa.
In a significant part of developing countries (Mexico, Brazil, the Philippines, etc.), the “traditional” type of population reproduction has changed over the past decades. The mortality rate dropped to 6-10 ‰ due to medical advances. But the traditionally high birth rate remains largely unchanged. As a result, population growth is very high here - 2.5-3.0% per year. It was these countries with the second - "transitional" type of population reproduction that predetermined the high growth rates of the world's population in the late XX - early XXI centuries.
The third, so-called "modern" or "postindustrial" type of population reproduction. This type of reproduction is characterized by low fertility, close to the average mortality rate, low natural increase and high average life expectancy. It is typical for economically developed countries with a high standard of living for their inhabitants. Low fertility here is closely related to the deliberate regulation of family size, and the mortality rate is primarily affected by the high percentage of elderly people.
If you look at the already examined demographic model of Russia in the twentieth century, you will find that it does not correspond to the drawn scheme. For imperial Russia, as well as for the overwhelming majority of countries of the world at the beginning of the twentieth century (with the exception of part of the countries of Western Europe), the traditional type of population reproduction was characteristic. The set of measures initiated by the government of Nicholas II for a large-scale change in health care could lead to a gradual transition to the second type of reproduction, but was interrupted by the First World War. Under Soviet rule until the 1960s. the traditional type of population reproduction remained. Not a single year of this period gives an ultra-high growth rate of 2.5-3% per year typical for a "transition" period. As a result, due to the huge number of years characterized by supermortality, Russia did not even fulfill Mendeleev's forecast made according to the "traditional" model! The truth of history is that this forecast, which seemed incredible to our contemporaries, was underestimated, since Dmitry Ivanovich did not have the knowledge and methods that modern demography has!
Even if we assume that imperial Russia, which escaped the Soviet coup, would have remained until the 50-60s. XX century within the framework of the traditional type of reproduction, and would not have carried out a massive health care reform (a historically unlikely option, but theoretically possible), then during these years of the "antibiotic revolution" it would still inevitably have passed to the second type of reproduction, like China, India, Latin countries America, that is, it would have followed the same path as the rest of the world.
However, the Soviet government “presented” Russia with an almost instantaneous (within less than ten years) transition from the first to the third type of reproduction - and to its worst (depopulation) version.
To understand what we have lost, it is enough to build another model based on the model of the most civilizationally close to us BRICS country - Brazil. Let us assume that according to the concept of the demographic transition until 1950, the population of Russia would have grown according to D. I. Mendeleev, and then at the same rate as in Brazil. Then, in 2000, 722 million people would have lived within the borders of the USSR, and the problem of narrowed reproduction of the population would not even stand before today's generation of politicians (TFR in Brazil in 2000 was equal to 2.2 births per woman). In reality, 287.8 million people lived on the territory of the CIS with the Baltic countries in 2000, that is, the difference with the alternative model is more than 434 million people.
If the comparison with distant Brazil does not seem convincing enough, then one can pay attention to that part of the Russian Empire that suffered the least socio-demographic losses - Central Asia, where there was no famine in the 1930s and 1940s, collectivization was soft, and the social transformations of the communists have never been able to destroy the traditional Muslim family. These territories numbered 11 million in 1897, 23 million in 1959 and 64.3 million today. It is noticeable that the dynamics of the population of Central Asia is similar to the Russian demographic model "without Soviet power" built in this study.
One involuntarily recalls the speech of Archpriest Alexander Ilyashenko, the rector of the Moscow Church of the All-Merciful Savior, at the Dialogue of Civilizations forum held on the island of Rhodes: “If the Russian people at the beginning of the 20th century had not departed from faith in God, then the population of Russia today would be 640 million … payment for the social upheavals of the last century, primarily for the revolution, which was the result of a departure from faith."
Therefore, it should be clearly understood that in socio-demographic terms, modern Russian society is abnormal, and has been in this state for 70 years already.