AHC: Make the 60s conservative like the 50s

Challenge: Avoid the cultural changes and countercultural movements of the 60s keeping this decade as conservative as the 50s were in the US and Western Europe.
 
Prevent the Vietnam War (have JFK or LBJ decide to wash their hands of the corrupt South Vietnamese regime, and it'll fade into the obscurity of other minor third-world crapsacks. Alternatively, have the Communists overrun the country in the mid-50s). Enact some civil rights legislation a few years sooner than IOTL and with greater force. This removes some of the biggest catalysts of the utter nonsense (such as the armed occupation of universities) that took place back then.

The Great Society gets properly funded as a result of no Vietnam War, and the US economy remains stronger into the mid 1970s.
 
Challenge: Avoid the cultural changes and countercultural movements of the 60s keeping this decade as conservative as the 50s were in the US and Western Europe.
Nostalgia for an age that never existed...

Honestly, this view of the 50s as conservative and stable is only sustainable if your only source on the era is TVLand retro sitcoms. The 50s were a tumultous era, filled with conflict. All of the conflicts of the 60s began in the 1950s, and some of the biggest events of the Civil Rights movement were in the 50s.

Second-wave feminism began in the 50s as well, and even avoiding the cultural rebellions among women, blacks, hispanics and beatniks, the 1950s also had more strikes and mass labor action than any other decade.
 
Nostalgia for an age that never existed...

Honestly, this view of the 50s as conservative and stable is only sustainable if your only source on the era is TVLand retro sitcoms. The 50s were a tumultous era, filled with conflict. All of the conflicts of the 60s began in the 1950s, and some of the biggest events of the Civil Rights movement were in the 50s.

Second-wave feminism began in the 50s as well, and even avoiding the cultural rebellions among women, blacks, hispanics and beatniks, the 1950s also had more strikes and mass labor action than any other decade.

Agree that the 50s had it fair part of conflicts and strikes but in general no major social and cultural changes happened until the second half of the 60s (even the earlier 60s could be seen as a continuation of the 50s )...

Some examples:

The Korean War never faced any antiwar movement so strong as Vietnam
The beatniks never grew as strong as the hippies
Swinging London would never be possible in the gray 50s London
 
The Korean War never faced any antiwar movement so strong as Vietnam

It was alot easier for democracies to control public opinion on a war when they simply read about it in the newspapers and hear about it on the radio, plus Truman put war time controls on those media sources as well.

With Vietnam there were no war time controls put in place by LBJ and people were seeing the war up close and personal each night in their living room which had a much more profound impact then hearing about it on the radio or in the newspaper after it had been screened through a government filter.
 
It was alot easier for democracies to control public opinion on a war when they simply read about it in the newspapers and hear about it on the radio, plus Truman put war time controls on those media sources as well.

With Vietnam there were no war time controls put in place by LBJ and people were seeing the war up close and personal each night in their living room which had a much more profound impact then hearing about it on the radio or in the newspaper after it had been screened through a government filter.

True...that's just one of the differences between the 50s and 60s.....why not imagine a POD were LBJ (or Kennedy or even Nixon) puts war time controls in Vietnam or the press is much more jingoistic than OTL?
 
Nostalgia for an age that never existed...

Honestly, this view of the 50s as conservative and stable is only sustainable if your only source on the era is TVLand retro sitcoms. The 50s were a tumultous era, filled with conflict. All of the conflicts of the 60s began in the 1950s, and some of the biggest events of the Civil Rights movement were in the 50s.

Second-wave feminism began in the 50s as well, and even avoiding the cultural rebellions among women, blacks, hispanics and beatniks, the 1950s also had more strikes and mass labor action than any other decade.
Yeah , all the strife from the 1960s was a result of the oppressive nature of the 50s. People who lived in the suburbs even hated the rules that they had to follow in the suburbs. My US history prof was saying the beatniks were a precursor to the hippies.
 
Some examples:

The Korean War never faced any antiwar movement so strong as Vietnam

It was the Vietnam of its day, though. A war which seemed bogged down and unending, and costly where it concerned lives and money. That would inform opinion of Vietnam later, with those against it saying it was gonna be another Korea, or was not going to even be like Korea. It ended up, along with some other problems, costing Truman a chance in 52.

The beatniks never grew as strong as the hippies
True. They were a niche in the culture. Then again, the people who were actually Hippies were limited in numbers too, though they were more transformative, and they created a culture where millions were "Near Hippies" or whatever you'd wanna call them.

The Beatniks also really didn't have a cultural message (forgive me if I'm wrong here). They were cafe, poetry, and bohemian culture, and a view on the culture that existed. The Hippies were many of the same things, but also peace and love and criticizing the man and being skeptical, and wanting to transform society to a way they thought was right.

Swinging London would never be possible in the gray 50s London
That had a big part in it being just after the war, and 50s London still recovering and having war time rationing and so forth.
 
Last edited:
It was the Vietnam of its day, though. A war which seemed bogged down and unending, and costly where it concerned lives and money. That would inform opinion of Vietnam later, with those against it saying it was gonna be another Korea, or was not going to even be like Korea. It ended up, along with some other problems, costing Truman a chance in 52.

True. They were a niche in the culture. Then again, the people who were actually Hippies were limited in numbers too, though they were more transformative, and they created a culture where millions were "Near Hippies" or whatever you'd wanna call them.

The Beatniks also really didn't have a cultural message (forgive me if I'm wrong here). They were cafe, poetry, and bohemian culture, and a view on the culture that existed. The Hippies were many of the same things, but also peace and love and criticizing the man and being skeptical, and wanting to transform society to a way they thought was right.

That had a big part in it being just after the war, and 50s London still recovering and having war time rationing and so forth.

Absolutely right in all points...the challenge here is to transform the 60s in a kind of "extended 50s", where Vietnam antiwar movement is muted like Korea's, the Hippies remained a niche and London remained grey and stiff (ok, no rationing anymore).
 
Absolutely right in all points...the challenge here is to transform the 60s in a kind of "extended 50s", where Vietnam antiwar movement is muted like Korea's, the Hippies remained a niche and London remained grey and stiff (ok, no rationing anymore).

The best I think you can have is the 60s being more peaceful, like the 50s, but not totally conservative and stodgy. The Boomers were gonna change things, and take the initiative to do something, no matter what you do. And instead of OTL militants and radicalism being birthed out of things dragging on and degenerating, and the peaceful people being beaten with batons and arrested and molested, the 60s could keep to peace, love and flower power and stuff transforming, but without the violence and extremes. That's as easy as removing the Vietnam war. The Hippies still exist, the Boomers are still gonna be the boomers and transform things/try to, and take on society, and be skeptical, and all the lovey stuff happens, and Civil Rights still happens and all those movements, but you avoid things like the Weather Underground and Militants, and the extreme skepticism and lack of faith in the established anything, which would get even more extreme with Watergate, and you'd avoid the extreme cleavages and schisms in society we have today. And maybe in such a society, you could even save the fedora.

But to have the 60s as conservative as the 50s is hard.
 
Ah yeah, the perpetual Pleasantville scenario, how sweet. Once again, I'll give a detailled explanation why exactly this is bullshit beyond the mere reality-is-unrealistic mantra:

If you were born in, say, 1925, you'd live a childhood in the Great Depression, not really seeing a relief of it before the war, then engage in combat during the war as an (post-)adolescent and either be held captive or engaged in rebuilding, and only enjoy a post-war boom, depending on your country, from 1950-55 onwards when you'd be 25 to 30. Your formative years were full of hardships and now as you have some kind of rest, you want to enjoy your work and leisure and just left alone. These were the active adults that would form the 50s.

If you were born in, say, 1940-45, you may have grown up the very first years in ruins, but your formative years were simply hit by the swing of the economic miracle. And as you feel fed (and grow up well fed), you develop the cultural and mental resources to feel fed up and rebel. When you get into an active age as discussed about the fellas before, then you go in 1965-70 now.

These different days have been formed by completely differing mentalities. Hence we have a generation conflict and Pleasantville in the 60s is bullshit. Quod erat demonstrandum.
 
Ah yeah, the perpetual Pleasantville scenario, how sweet. Once again, I'll give a detailled explanation why exactly this is bullshit beyond the mere reality-is-unrealistic mantra:

If you were born in, say, 1925, you'd live a childhood in the Great Depression, not really seeing a relief of it before the war, then engage in combat during the war as an (post-)adolescent and either be held captive or engaged in rebuilding, and only enjoy a post-war boom, depending on your country, from 1950-55 onwards when you'd be 25 to 30. Your formative years were full of hardships and now as you have some kind of rest, you want to enjoy your work and leisure and just left alone. These were the active adults that would form the 50s.

If you were born in, say, 1940-45, you may have grown up the very first years in ruins, but your formative years were simply hit by the swing of the economic miracle. And as you feel fed (and grow up well fed), you develop the cultural and mental resources to feel fed up and rebel. When you get into an active age as discussed about the fellas before, then you go in 1965-70 now.

These different days have been formed by completely differing mentalities. Hence we have a generation conflict and Pleasantville in the 60s is bullshit. Quod erat demonstrandum.

To add onto this, the 50s were an era of a return to normalcy. The world for the adults of the 50s had been, up to that point, largely a clusterfuck. There was an unprecedented period of economic depression where just getting by barely took a huge effort for most and people weren't sure if or when it was gonna end, there was a dust bowl, Fascism was rising in Europe, and there was eventually an unprecedented World War where everyone was involved by either helping the war effort at home or going over seas to face the fear and horror of actual combat. You had a collective generation go through that. And they licked it, and the 50s was their time to enjoy things.
The 50s therefore became a period of keeping your head down and enjoying the good life. The Middle class was growing, you could get a very good job with extremely good benefits and good pay across the nation, you could finally afford a car, a washing machine, and a television. In the political realm, Liberals became ok sitting back and letting Ike be Ike. Kids were growing up Spock babies, in this world where their parents were well off and the Middle class was at its peak. Teenagers, for the first time, had power in this Capitalist powerhouse that was the United States. And teenagers, as youth is want to do, started being rebellious, growing their own culture, dancing to rock n' roll, driving fast cars, and all that, or at least they thought the idea of all those things was sexy and alluring. That also adds onto the statement of BS of the ideal 1950s: there was more to Grease than there was to Leave it to Beaver. Leave it to Beaver was the ideal everyone of the 50s aspired to; an ideal is important to all societies, and at all periods of time, as it keeps order and gives purpose, but no one can ever attain it fully.

The 60s generation were the kids of the WW2 generation; the New Frontiersmen were the children of the New Dealers. They weren't spoiled brats, as many state to try to deride them, but they had not been worn on by the things their parents had. Their parents, for the most part, thought keeping your head down and just enjoying things in the age of Big Government, Big Cars, Big Benefits and Big Pay Checks was the thing to do. Their kids thought the thing to do was to make a difference and address the problems and ills of society, and not just sit back and think everything was ok and that everything you were told was the truth. When John Kennedy called these kids to volunteer themselves to the cause of making things better, I'm not sure whether his call or the generation's momentum to be transformative and to make a difference came first, but it certainly symbolized that this was a generation that was going to try to do big things to make things better and to change the bad to good and address the ills society had.

If you want a more conservative 60s, and one which resembles the real 50s more so than the Leave it to Beaver make believe 50s, I again think that the best you can do is make the period more peaceful. You cannot stem the tide; that generation had a rendezvous with destiny. But you can stop the bad that came, when things got too violent in the face of brutality and continued cruelties, and things go to extreme, and that healthy skepticism for some became an all out belief that men in power were evil or conspiratorial or total tyrants, and stop that belief in changing society from turning into, for some, a fanatic crusade that would be won through spilling the blood of those deemed evil.
That's really as easy as preventing Vietnam. Vietnam was like a crowbar which beat onto society and made cracks, and beat on the existing cracks on society till they got bigger and bigger, and then jammed itself into them and wedged them open.
I mostly think you get Flower Power and Hippies all the same, except none of the extremes and wicked, out of such a thing. Though maybe with some PODs you could stem the rise of the Hippies, make them a Beatnik niche, and send most kids into suites and ties and off to join the Peace Corps.
 
The 1950s, the decade of McCarthyism, the Direct Action Civil Rights movement, the fear of the Missile Gap, the Korean War and the foundation of the Warsaw Pact, the Hungarian Uprising, the US government having to send the military to the South to make uppity racists behave themselves......if that's peace, I'm not sure I want to know what not-peace is. :eek:
 
Agree that the 50s had it fair part of conflicts and strikes but in general no major social and cultural changes happened until the second half of the 60s (even the earlier 60s could be seen as a continuation of the 50s )...

Some examples:

The Korean War never faced any antiwar movement so strong as Vietnam

Not quite. It faced some of the same challenges (namely that it was an illegal and unilateral executive action), had a lot of the same problems (corrupt dictatorship v. totalitarian nationalist dictatorship with at the time better claims to actually represent Korea), but after the Chinese crossed the Yalu Korea turned into a regular conventional war of Great Powers and thus the USA was able to stabilize that. Against Marshal Tito tactics in Vietnam it never did this, and Korea was a very deceptive precursor of Vietnam for Westmoreland and company (not least because Syngman Rhee *never* developed a popular basis, it was fear of the KPA that saved his sorry ass, not anything he did).
 
As other's have said it's really difficult to have to the 60's be a repeat of the 50's because the world had changed and even though it's overstated the boomers were different from the previous generation. Though the vast majority of that generation weren't long haired hippies at Woodstock but people who got a job, got a house, got married at started their "boring"/"decent" depending on your POV lower middle-class life.

However if you want a repeat of the 50's in the 60's I think the best way is to have a worse 50's. Have Hungary blow up into a East-West war or have Korea expand and drag on, basically make the generation maturing in 1965-70 undergo hardship and suffering (older brothers/uncles/fathers going off to die overseas, rationing, general sense of fear and suffering etc.) during their formative years i.e. 1955-65.
 
As other's have said it's really difficult to have to the 60's be a repeat of the 50's because the world had changed and even though it's overstated the boomers were different from the previous generation. Though the vast majority of that generation weren't long haired hippies at Woodstock but people who got a job, got a house, got married at started their "boring"/"decent" depending on your POV lower middle-class life.

However if you want a repeat of the 50's in the 60's I think the best way is to have a worse 50's. Have Hungary blow up into a East-West war or have Korea expand and drag on, basically make the generation maturing in 1965-70 undergo hardship and suffering (older brothers/uncles/fathers going off to die overseas, rationing, general sense of fear and suffering etc.) during their formative years i.e. 1955-65.

Other POD could be a more muted post war economic boom....if GDP had grown in the 2% range instead of OTL 4% competition for jobs during the 50s and 60s would evaporated part of the countercultural movements....a POD to this could be a less beneficial GI Bill, higher oil prices since the 50s or some kind of haircut or cap to the war bonds that matured during the late 40s and 50s
 
Top