WI: No Baby Boom?

If the U.S. had taken more casualties in WWII, could the post-war "Baby Boom" have been curbed to the point that the United States has a significantly smaller population than OTL? What sort of effects would this have on post-war American society?
 
I'm trying to figure out how to make this happen without having something that would create it's own massive butterflies seperate from no Baby Boom like longer and nastier Depression or WWII.
 
well in the short term you would have a major drop in population, followed probably a less crime problem because of less unemployment, and overall less people, as well we wouldnt have the social security problem in which it is bankrupting the country going on;.
 
I'm trying to figure out how to make this happen without having something that would create it's own massive butterflies seperate from no Baby Boom like longer and nastier Depression or WWII.

But butterflies can be fun!

How about a WWII in which the Soviets are less successful in the east, an allied invasion of Europe initially fails, and after all of that, Japan needs to be invaded?
 
How about "the pill" is invented in 1940. It goes to Europe with GI's to be swapped along with Lucky Strikes and Candy. It stays at home with the girls left behind with the 4F's. And when the GI's return, the baby boom is stunted...
 
How about "the pill" is invented in 1940. It goes to Europe with GI's to be swapped along with Lucky Strikes and Candy. It stays at home with the girls left behind with the 4F's. And when the GI's return, the baby boom is stunted...

Would that do it though? The parents of the Boomers were largely actively seeking children so I don't think birth control will do anything. In many ways the Boom is a reaction to the stunted marriage and birth rates during the '30s and '40s.
 
Legal birth control in the 1920s as a result of a stronger Eugenics movement?

I wonder if that would make a different Boom since stronger Eugenics could see "superior" people encouraged to breed as much as possible while the "inferior" people are encouraged or forced not to breed?
 
The Baby Boom had as much to do with postwar affluence and the rise of suburbia as anything involving the number of returning WW2 vets. Take away one or the other, or both, and I think you're likely to see a lower birthrate. The parents of the Boomers weren't just the WW2 generation, they were also the children of the Great Depression, many of whom endured a great deal of hardships growing up. In a sense, their desire to settle down and have a family in a comfortable suburban house was a reaction to the circumstances of their own childhoods.

Frankly, I have a hard time coming up with a scenario that doesn't result in a much higher birthrate short of wiping away America's post-war prosperity unless you drastically change the course of the war. While a return to Depression was much feared after the war, in hindsight, it was pretty hard for the US economy to fail when it was the sole undamaged major power on the planet and normal consumer demand, suppressed by rationing during the war, returned with a vengeance.

Even suburbia was pretty much inevitable; there was a big housing shortage in the immediate postwar years and, with vast tracts of undeveloped land and a return to civilian auto production, suburbia was an easier and cheaper solution to the housing problem than large urban building projects.
 
Seems simple enough, just have the atomic project pushed back long enough that someone stupid decides to take Japan island by island. The resulting death toll would take care of the rest, Japan will not have enough people to be a great power any more though.

Have a nice day.
-MRegent
 
If the U.S. had taken more casualties in WWII, could the post-war "Baby Boom" have been curbed to the point that the United States has a significantly smaller population than OTL? What sort of effects would this have on post-war American society?
More casualites may led to... even bigger "Baby Boom", it's natural reaction to compensate demographic loses, for example Poland and Soviet Union, had highest birth rates in Europe in 1950s (population growth reached 19,5‰ in 1955 in Poland)
 
The above poster's remarks about suburbia are very accurate, as well. To me, it seems to avoid the 'Baby Boom' you have to do a combination of three things: (A) make birth control legal earlier. Basically the sexual revolution of the 1920s is more like the sexual revolution of the 1960s. (B) Avoid the dispersion of people from the cities to the suburbs, most likely by avoiding the development of the automobile as a mass vehicle. Basically, automobiles remain playthings for the rich and well-to-do. No idea how to do that. (C) Less casualties in World War II, or a shorter war.


(B) might make (A) nigh impossible, though. It can be argued that the automobile did more for the sexual revolution in the United States than the pill did, because the automobile allowed for teens and young adults to get away from the watchful eye of their paternalistic small towns and neighborhoods and engage in sexual activity that would have been rare if not unheard of before the 1920s (which was the original sexual revolution, of course)
 
Top