Cultural Effects of a Late 80s World War III

Essentially what it says on the tin. How does art and culture develop in the wake of the Third World War breaking out in the late 1980s?

Since I know that any such discussion depends heavily on the particulars of the war, here is a brief scenario ripped off from those of much better authors:

POD is 1985, with either Grishin or Romanov replacing Chernenko instead of Gorby. Tensions are much worse than OTL, as the US - USSR thaw that occurred under Gorbachev never takes place. Finally, during the summer of 1988 a major crisis develops between the US and USSR (let's say Iran collapses under sustained Iraqi chemical attack and the USSR swoops in to grab the oil). Tension builds across the Iron Curtain until finally the Warsaw Pact launches a full-scale attack against NATO forces on October 27, 1988. Hostilities break out across the world, from the Korean Peninsula to South Africa to Central America to North Africa/the Middle East as US and Soviet allies duke it out.

The war lasts roughly four months, long enough that Bush still succeeds Reagan as President roughly halfway through. Despite nearly being overwhelmed in the early days of the war by the sheer number of WarPac troops, NATO is able to hold on, and a stalemate develops in Central Europe. NATO is able to score some victories, however. Cuba is crushed very early on, and NATO superiority in the Med grants them victory in the Middle East.

In late January 1989, a combination of brilliant maneuvers and sheer luck allows NATO to turn the tide against the Soviets, even beginning to push into East Germany.

Tactical nuclear weapons are utilized by both sides in Korea and Germany in late February. Fearing a total strategic exchange, a faction within the Red Army and KGB overthrows the Soviet regime and negotiates a peace with the West. The USSR accepts the fall of many of their allies across the world, while both sides agree to a withdrawal to pre-war lines in Europe.

End result: NATO victory. Soviet client states such as Cuba, Libya, and North Korea have been decisively defeated, their governments overthrown, their territory occupied. Despite a status quo ante bellum peace, Eastern European communism collapses in mid-1989, the strain of war proving too much to bear. Only the USSR survives, held (mostly) intact by the military junta in power.

With that scenario in mind, try to brainstorm what 90s-present culture looks like in the wake of one of the most devastating conflicts in recent history. It can be as broad as general trends across society or as narrow as what a certain artist might do during and after WW3.

Some of my predictions for American culture:

- The US regards the war much more positively than much of the rest of the rest of the world, due to it being a clear victory and not suffering nearly the same sort of devastation as was wrought upon Germany or Korea. Still, the staggering losses incurred and the failure to completely defeat the USSR weigh heavy on the American psyche.
- Reagan-worship knows no bounds as he is remembered for providing strong leadership throughout the bulk of the war. Bush also goes down as one of the greats for his role in bringing the war to an end and leading America into a new age of peace. Likely reelected in 1992.
- WW3 films become all the rage throughout the 1990s and 2000s. WW2 films and WW1 films less prevalent - films like Saving Private Ryan might be butterflied away or reworked to fit into a WW3 context.
- Technothriller authors scramble to try and find a way to recoup from real life eclipsing their work. Tom Clancy takes a break from writing fiction and instead collaborates with historians and veterans to create a massive non-fiction novel detailing the Third World War through the eyes of soldiers, politicians, and civilians on both sides. Entitled something like Red Storm Realized or The Eagle and the Bear, the work is hailed as Clancy's magnum opus upon it's release in 1993. Meanwhile, Harold Coyle writes a book detailing his personal experiences in the war, comparing his fictional scenario in Team Yankee with the real thing.

Soviet culture:
- The humiliating defeat, loss of empire, and political and economic chaos creates a general sense of despair across the peoples of the Soviet Union. The military junta and it's security apparatus do their best to suppress dissent, fighting costly battles in the Baltics, the Caucasus, and parts of Soviet Central Asia to hold the Union together. The US and much of the world tacitly support the junta with economic aid while publicly condemning their atrocities, fearing either a nuclear Second Russian Civil War or the rise of a revanchist regime dead-set on reconquering Eastern Europe.
 
Last edited:

Wallet

Banned
Bush wins a second term in 1992. Him and Reagan are compared to Roosevelt and Truman.

No 90s economic boom though
 
A lot of video games, both Western and Japanese, would be using TTL's WWIII as a setting, especially in arcade shmups; heck a certain development group called Nazca might use the conflict as inspiration for their various arcade games both at Irem and SNK (making TTL's Metal Slug more different setting wise than OTL's loose WWII one). Kojima Hideo is goin' to have his mind blown at the sight of WWIII occurring and civilization didn't go boom (I always hate that kind of mindset but that's another story), and all of that is going to be a BIG influence on the fledging Metal Gear franchise and potentially others to come.

Oh and socialism and far left ideals in general would be less popular since the USSR came out as a wreck despite still standing and nobody likes a loser; though there'd still be apologists going around sayin' "(this hardliner dude) did nuthin' wrong" and think ALL the atrocities the Soviets before and during WWIII are "made up".
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
A war start in late October 88 puts the conflict a week or two before the US presidential election. Not saying Bush would lose it but it would have one heck of an effect on the very last stage of the campaign.
By the way, great idea for a story. Love it.
 
A war start in late October 88 puts the conflict a week or two before the US presidential election. Not saying Bush would lose it but it would have one heck of an effect on the very last stage of the campaign.

My thought was that it would actually boost support for Bush, as the nation 1) wants experienced leadership to lead them through the most serious crisis the US has yet faced and 2) does not want to go through the troubles of transitioning right smack dab in the middle of WW3.


By the way, great idea for a story. Love it.

I can't tell if you're serious or if you're getting onto me for ripping you off :p.

In any case, thanks.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
Genuine appreciation for the story idea.
Thinking on it, yes it could only help Bush. He might be campaigning from a bunker though.
 
...

Tactical nuclear weapons are utilized by both sides in Korea and Germany in late February. Fearing a total strategic exchange, a faction within the Red Army and KGB overthrows the Soviet regime and negotiates a peace with the West. The USSR accepts the fall of many of their allies across the world, while both sides agree to a withdrawal to pre-war lines in Europe.

....

Waiving away wide use of strategic nuclear weapons is wishful thinking. During my last six years of military service in the 1990s copies of the Soviet war plans trickled into the west, & some uncomfortable bits of ours circulated. Getting to the core of it my somewhat educated take is there was maybe a 10% chance strategic nuclear weapons would not be used, & they would have been used within a few hours of a actual NATO/PACT war starting. The leaders on both sides & their decision systems were wound up to tight for deliberate reasoning to be engaged in.

But assuming no strategic nukes, the destruction from tactical weapons across Germany & adjacent battlefields would leave much of Europe unrecognizable today. The scale at which we intended to use these weapons, in the opening hours and further into the first days was not trivial. The idea of a gradual tit for tat escalation was not a realistic one. Conventional NATO/PACT war speculation is fun. I've gamed many of those battles, but the reality was very likely global massacre.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
I think the cultural effects are the least of anyone's worries.

What about the humanitarian and ecological catastrophe resulting from the use of tactical nuclear weapons?
 
Waiving away wide use of strategic nuclear weapons is wishful thinking. During my last six years of military service in the 1990s copies of the Soviet war plans trickled into the west, & some uncomfortable bits of ours circulated. Getting to the core of it my somewhat educated take is there was maybe a 10% chance strategic nuclear weapons would not be used, & they would have been used within a few hours of a actual NATO/PACT war starting. The leaders on both sides & their decision systems were wound up to tight for deliberate reasoning to be engaged in.

But assuming no strategic nukes, the destruction from tactical weapons across Germany & adjacent battlefields would leave much of Europe unrecognizable today. The scale at which we intended to use these weapons, in the opening hours and further into the first days was not trivial. The idea of a gradual tit for tat escalation was not a realistic one. Conventional NATO/PACT war speculation is fun. I've gamed many of those battles, but the reality was very likely global massacre.
Killjoy, IMO the whole thing of using nukes soon after hostilities break out is no more different than the likelihood of chemical weapons being used in WWII; if we're lucky enough not to have the chemical genie broken out then we might be lucky if the nuclear genie doesn't get summoned, though to be fair, given how prevalent nukes are in the Cold War, they might be more likely to be used than chemical weapons did in WWII. I get that both sides planned to use them to an extent IOTL, but well plans change and the best anyone can have is perhaps no nukes in the process for at least the early stages but what do I know, maybe it wouldn't work out that way or maybe not.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
Killjoy, IMO the whole thing of using nukes soon after hostilities break out is no more different than the likelihood of chemical weapons being used in WWII; if we're lucky enough not to have the chemical genie broken out then we might be lucky if the nuclear genie doesn't get summoned, though to be fair, given how prevalent nukes are in the Cold War, they might be more likely to be used than chemical weapons did in WWII. I get that both sides planned to use them to an extent IOTL, but well plans change and the best anyone can have is perhaps no nukes in the process for at least the early stages but what do I know, maybe it wouldn't work out that way or maybe not.

I've argued the same point before. The thing is that no one knows because it never happened. Nukes would probably be used but that doesn't mean they would.
The sketched scenario by the OP has their use though and that gives way to the probability that if some are, all are.
 
A unclassified item appeared in the old US Field Artillery Journal back in the mid 1990s. A German Colonel who took command of a East Germany artillery regiment during unification included a brief description of the PACT war plans the East Germans handed over. There were five plans covering various strategic contingencies. All provided for the first strike use of PACT nuclear weapons in the first hour of hostilities. The East German officers in the artillery regiment were trained to assume NATO would also use nuclear weapons at the start. From elsewhere my take is the Soviet planners saw no difference between atomic strikes and strikes by conventional artillery or aircraft. They intended to bring the maximum firepower to bear on the enemy as rapidly as possible.
 
Multiple TV shows in the 1990s and 2000s would have their protagonists as veterans of the war against the USSR like how numerous '80s heroes were Vietnam veterans.
 
Waiving away wide use of strategic nuclear weapons is wishful thinking. During my last six years of military service in the 1990s copies of the Soviet war plans trickled into the west, & some uncomfortable bits of ours circulated. Getting to the core of it my somewhat educated take is there was maybe a 10% chance strategic nuclear weapons would not be used, & they would have been used within a few hours of a actual NATO/PACT war starting. The leaders on both sides & their decision systems were wound up to tight for deliberate reasoning to be engaged in.

But assuming no strategic nukes, the destruction from tactical weapons across Germany & adjacent battlefields would leave much of Europe unrecognizable today. The scale at which we intended to use these weapons, in the opening hours and further into the first days was not trivial. The idea of a gradual tit for tat escalation was not a realistic one. Conventional NATO/PACT war speculation is fun. I've gamed many of those battles, but the reality was very likely global massacre.

IIRC, in Seven Days to the River Rhine the Soviets expected widespread usage of tactical nukes against Poland, the Germanies, Belgium, Denmark, Italy and Austria (but not any on Britain or France; evidently the Soviets thought that if they refrained from nuking the nuclear powers directly they just might keep the exchanges localized to Central Europe, though they probably knew that a snowball in Hell had better chances).

Seeing as I wanted to have something of a culture left in Europe after the war, I opted to handwave away widespread usage of nuclear weapons. Perhaps Soviet leadership decides that they want a "clean" victory - perhaps limited to the neutralization of West Germany and breaking NATO apart as a viable entity - and realize nukes would almost certainly mean total annihilation (though they clearly change their minds once the war turns against them). That does get my brain jogging, though - is there any chance that WW3 could be fought like Seven Days to the River Rhine and it not escalate into the apocalypse?

Back to topic:

Germany and much of Central Europe would bear deep, deep scars after the war. As the main battlegrounds of WW3, they will have lost innumerable soldiers and civilians (with many, many more wounded) and their infrastructure will have been horrendously damaged. Much of their land will have been contaminated by the usage of battlefield nukes and persistent chemical agents. There would be deep resentment toward not just the USSR, but likely NATO as well (though probably to a lesser extent). If German reunification does occur, it will be a much more somber affair, with the added complications of the war's aftermath. The US and NATO will do their best to create a "new Marshall Plan" to help Central Europe (as well as the recently-freed Eastern European nations), but it might not be enough.

Assuming the Scorpions survive the war, we're not getting "Winds of Change". We're getting songs a bit like "Crossfire" but a hell of a lot bleaker.

In general, I think, the war would result in a much more pessimistic 1990s than the one we got. After fighting three world wars in one century, the world (Europe in particular) isn't going to have a very bright outlook for the future, especially with a surviving albeit weakened USSR still hanging around.
 
Last edited:
I think the cultural effects are the least of anyone's worries.

What about the humanitarian and ecological catastrophe resulting from the use of tactical nuclear weapons?

Well, yes, no one is going to care too terribly much about culture right after World War III.

Thing is, it's still something worth considering. Look how much today's culture was shaped by WW2. How we still portray Nazis as the Ultimate Evil and use the word Hitler as a pejorative though most of us weren't even alive at the time. Look at the rise of pessimism and nihilism in post-war Europe after WW1. Look at the scars that Vietnam left on the American psyche, look at how the stereotype of the crazy 'Nam vet wormed it's way into popular culture. Go further back and see the scars the American Civil War and it's aftermath left on the US. To this day we still argue about the Confederate flag.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that something as big as World War III in 1988 is bound to drastically change the cultural landscape that many boardmembers grew up in, and it's interesting to speculate how that might look. How would the 1990s look if the US victory in the Cold War had been obtained only through the blood of hundreds of thousands of it's sons and daughters?
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
How would the 1990s look if the US victory in the Cold War had been obtained only through the blood of hundreds of thousands of it's sons and daughters?

So, only the US was fighting in this war, and NATO wasn't involved? What about all the countries affected, Germany, Korea for example, how will their culture develop after being repeatedly nuked?

No more Kraftwerk albums? No K-pop?
 
So, only the US was fighting in this war, and NATO wasn't involved? What about all the countries affected, Germany, Korea for example, how will their culture develop after being repeatedly nuked?

No more Kraftwerk albums? No K-pop?

I was just trying to give an example. In the US the 1990s are generally remembered through nostalgia goggles as a nice, peaceful time where America was the undisputed king. WW3 might alter that perception at least somewhat.

I did give something of an example of how Germany might turn out two posts back, though if someone more culturally literate than me could help out that would be nice.
 
Last edited:
WWIII alternate history - books by popular authors like Turtledove as well as various threads on internet forums like this one becomes the dominant sub-genre in Alternate History.
 
WWIII alternate history - books by popular authors like Turtledove as well as various threads on internet forums like this one becomes the dominant sub-genre in Alternate History.
Yeah. Quite a bit of the cultural energy relating to WWII would be redirected to WWIII.
 
Top