Thinking about multiple world wars in the 20th

tqm111

Banned
I was on my way into work today and I was thinking about how civilian car production in the US was essentially halted during WW2.

And it got me thinking about mobilization and about how the entire economic engine of the US was geared towards winning the war.

I also thought about how the war consumed massive amounts of men and reasources for years at a time. That after the war, entire continents were exhausted physically, materially, psychologically.

Then I wondered
What if there were multiple WW2 type wars in the 20th Century?
One that's four or five years long every ten years or so.

And by that I mean, wars where major first world nations (specifically including the US) threw their entire society's reasources into obliterating other first world nations.

So this is what I came up with. It's just some rough notes I jotted down.

1945 World War II Ends

1950-1953 Korean War

1956-1961 World War III - US and NATO vs USSR and Warsaw Pact - Fought in Central and Western Europe and Britain. Major British cities are oblinterated. Soviets come to dominate Central and Western Europe and Briain. The Anglisphere divides.

After the war, the US moves toward isolationism, including removing troops from Japan and Korea.

1969-1973 World War IV - US vs Japan. The US, still recovering psychologically and military from its defeat in World War III loses to a resurgent Japan. Major devistation of the US West Cost from Japanese bombers and ballistic missiles. Hawaii and Alaska are invaded. The US cedes them both to Japan after the War. After the war, the US remembers that isolation doesn't work and takes a more active role in the world.

I figured I'd finish with a bang...

1982-1990 World War V - United States vs USSR & Japan. Major trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific warfare. Major exchanges of conventional ballistic milliles. Communist Chinese go to war with USSR-Japan with US Assistance. Provoked by Soviet agents, Mexico invades the US. US enlists Brazil and Columbia to attack Mexico. Mexico brings in Venezuela. Argentina and Chile also enter the war on opposit sides. Australia joins the war on the US side. India comes to the aid of its biggest trading partner: Japan.

So just to recap:
US
China
Brazil
Columbia
Australia
vs
USSR
Japan
Mexico
Venezuela
India

I thought of some things that you'd only see in a World War, that you wouldn't see in a smaller conflict like Korea or Iraq.

War Drama
Island Hopping
Massive mass production of war materials
Major disruption of trade
Mass armor attack
Strategic bombing and city obliteration
Massive Amphibious Landings
Human wave attacks
Unrestricted submarine warfare
Paratrooper drops
Retaliation bombing
(Yes, I know we saw human wave attacks in Korea and paratrooper drops in Iraq.)

Social Effects (During and after the war)
Conscription
The notion that everyone serves
Victory gardens
People who remember the last war
Rationing
Rapid progress in race relations
Censorship
Rapid tech advances
Widespread egalitarianism
War bonds
War posters
Shortages
Returning vets
Entertainment industry producing propaganda
Rapid wartime promotions
All production geared towards the war

So those are just some random ideas and subjects I had.

The other thing was, if the US lost half a million men each time, what would be the social effects?

The other question I scribbled on my sheet was:
When does it go nuclear?
I had envisioned conventional war, but I hadn't envisioned a total nuclear conflict. I suppose its not unreasonable that small numbers of nukes could be dropped.

So I wanted to throw this brainstorming out there to get feedback.
 
One thing that seems unlikely is that Japan would attack the United States in 1969. I guess maybe the loss to the USSR caused a resurgence in anti-American sentiment, but it seems odd.

I don't know enough about the topic to say definitively, but it also seems unlikely that Japan and the USSR are allies.

As for the effects of five World Wars in the 20th Century: horrific. I can see the collapse of the United Nations in 1956 and no more attempts made. The world is going to be shell-shocked and rather grim. Imagine Europe after the war globally. In addition, if the US loses half a million soldiers each war, that's going to cripple the demographics of the country. Even the USSR is going to have trouble absorbing four major wars in less than 80 years. I think that authoritarian to dictatorial governments will be the norm.

You mentioned improved race relations, but I think you're going to see a bunch more racism toward Asians. I can see the United States becoming more Caucasian.
 
also after/if you start dropping nukes.. WW IV may take a while to get moving as no one in their right minds are gonna want a repeat. there is a good reason why we haven't had WW III no one wants to be radioactive.

and i doubt that they WOULDN'T be used by a loosing side to stem the tide. Hell our whole defense of Western Europe depended on strategic nukes.
 

Rebel

Banned
Yeah, no, the US won't give up Europe without lots of nukes going to the USSR. And the US has quite the edge in quality and quantity of those.
 
Very interesting concept (although a bit amicentric).
Maybe a WW V breaking out over the Chinese-Indian conflict (other nations dragged in later) would balance it a bit.
 
Very interesting concept (although a bit amicentric).
Maybe a WW V breaking out over the Chinese-Indian conflict (other nations dragged in later) would balance it a bit.


Only problem being that the world would still be reeling from a WW III and IV.. way to much carnage.. The people would just absolutely freak out in mass revolutions at any though of wars.

I really dont think we would get to IV.. the dogs of war would be unleashed in III not to return to their respective leashes. Full out war would be totally consuming. Chemical, Biological, Nuclear.

I would think that 5 would be more along the lines of a horse drawn canons, bows and arrows and clubs..

WW III is gonna do major damage to Europe/Russia/America/Canada/Korea/Japan and more then likely China/India and Mexico and the Mid-East...

So whats left..
 
World War 3 in 1956 means Operation Dropshot takes place. Dropshot's planners even estimated the war would occur in 1957.

Without huge changes to the US, USSR, and the nuclear inventory available to both - changes which the OP has not mentioned or even hinted at - the USSR dies, Britain dies, continental Europe is savaged, and the US is "merely" badly damaged.

I must agree with the other posters who suggest a nuclear WW3 in the 1950s means no additional wars aside from inconsequential brushfire spats involving minor powers anywhere on the planet.
 
The problem with WW3 is that the Russian knew they would lose. Files released years after the fall of the USSR indicated that high level officials knew that Russia couldn't sustain their economy at its current rate.

That's why there was they had to hold onto Europe for as long as possible. Europe had the resources and land needed to keep the Russian economy afloat. The problem is that in a nuclear war, even if Russia won they would have lost what they were actually after.

My best advice would be to edit the time line a little further back. Make it so nuclear weapons were never invented.

The war was pretty much won for the Allies, the use of the nukes shortened it by at least two years. The outcome wouldn't be that much different except that Stalin would have probably considered invading Europe a lot more seriously.
 
Top