So with the glory of WWII movies waning and no Vietnam war to make movies about, would Korea somehow have become popular as a war movie theme? Or did war movies in general reach their expiration date?
It was Vietnam that killed for some time the glory of old WW2 films, once the deep unpopularity sunk in, however they rebounded in the 90s. The big difference is the depiction of war as an ugly, but honorable affair has gone out the window.
What would American pop culture look like, particularly in the 60's and 70's, without a full scale Vietnam War? (Assume, for the sake of this thread, that JFK surviving is our PoD.) If we still see familiar things (like the Counterculture, New Wave, etc), what changes?
I thought that initially too, though his debut was in early 1963, so maybe not.Tony Stark´s origin story would be altered , too.
yeah, without 'Nam i can see films with the kinda-sorta message of "war is glorious" persisting; it was the realities of war exposed in Vietnam which kinda killed them IOTL iirc
I'm surprised how many answers here look for butterflies in the 1980's, rather than short term effects in the 60's or 70's.
One easy example of the latter -- Muhammad Ali is not drafted.
I thought that initially too, though his debut was in early 1963, so maybe not.
I've heard it said (tho I can't credit the source with reliability) that two things created the U.S. drug problem: KMT losing the Civil War, leading to ex-ROC Army leaders becoming drug warlords; & AUS vets doing dope in the 'Nam & bringing the habit home. Take out the war, you've more/less made the Drug War unnecessary.mudhead said:How much responsibility did the US involvement in the Vietnam War have for the much wider use of recreational drugs in US society? I've read/seen stuff about conscripts (and it was a conscript war, mainly) going out there, never having used drugs, and coming back as regular users.
Corrupt poverty stricken third world countries with a communist insurgency on one side and an American supported President who is not actually in controll of much would still have been there without Vietnam. Therefore the opportunity for an American military besoted by Counter Insurgency theory to get into a similar mess, with similar cultural results is there. The mindset that led to the early war statement 'Vietnam is the right war in the right place at the right time' will not go away because the location shifts to Lebanon or Columbia or wherever.
I'm not seeing how the war impacts fashion so much. IMO, it's more about what is/isn't "okay" in a business environment, & that's going to be more about the number of women, & the number of professional women. A woman who wants to be taken seriously isn't going to dress like Ally McBeal (except on TV).1940LaSalle said:Absent Vietnam, I suspect the mods might have prevailed. That might have a significant impact on social customs and fashion; e.g., skirts / heels for women might not have become as much of a rarity as they are today.
Well, might the war have affected that, by having a large number of men fighting overseas? Or did Vietnam not have that kind of impact on workplace gender ratios?I'm not seeing how the war impacts fashion so much. IMO, it's more about what is/isn't "okay" in a business environment, & that's going to be more about the number of women, & the number of professional women.
I've heard it said (tho I can't credit the source with reliability) that two things created the U.S. drug problem: KMT losing the Civil War, leading to ex-ROC Army leaders becoming drug warlords; & AUS vets doing dope in the 'Nam & bringing the habit home. Take out the war, you've more/less made the Drug War unnecessary.
I wouldn't think so. Suits have been standard for decades; even WW2 didn't alter it, AFAIK. (Yes, women's fashions then differed.) I don't think fashion really feels the effect of war so much; I could be wrong, tho.John Fredrick Parker said:Well, might the war have affected that, by having a large number of men fighting overseas? Or did Vietnam not have that kind of impact on workplace gender ratios?
Glad to oblige.joho6411 said:Yes! Yes! Yes! to that!
Thank goodness someone brought this up!
Kuomintang officers, in order to support themselves did in fact do this!
Hooray!!! Somebody on AH.com actually knows some history!
That's disturbingly likely.joho6411 said:As an aside to the OP, in my TL, we don't get involved in Vietnam but...instead we (our gov't) decides to aid the Portuguese in both Angola and Mozambique.
So... we still get to do some napalming in a tropical palm tree lined setting. Except...this time...it's in Africa.
As an aside to the OP, in my TL, we don't get involved in Vietnam but...instead we (our gov't) decides to aid the Portuguese in both Angola and Mozambique.
So... we still get to do some napalming in a tropical palm tree lined setting. Except...this time...it's in Africa.
Would it really be comparable to Vietnam, though? How wound the enemy supply lines work?That's disturbingly likely.
I wonder if that changes the course of the Carnation Revolution somewhat, perhaps Portugal remains a slightly more centrist military dictatorship for longer with the eyes of the US focused on aiding Portugal.As an aside to the OP, in my TL, we don't get involved in Vietnam but...instead we (our gov't) decides to aid the Portuguese in both Angola and Mozambique.
Would it really be comparable to Vietnam, though? How wound the enemy supply lines work?