An unwinnable war still benefits the state if it helps maintain hegemony over their ~⅓ of the world's public consciousness. Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.
Obviously war can benefit the state so it becomes a simple cost benefit analysis. Execution does seem to be irrational when you could instead force them into a lifetime of involuntary servitude.
I assume you're giving numbers from one specific year?
I'm not asking to imply you've cherry picked numbers, just that giving stats like that (number of actions for a country with no defined time period) is only telling half the story, and even though that half was enough to make your point I think the other half is worth including for the sake of curiosity :)
The same state that sends its youth off to die in wars? Or that executes them when it so chooses?