WI: The Post-War Baby Boom Never Happens

[THE KINGFISH]

You're going to need to screw the US in the War, badly. Soviet level badly where the population losses are so bad so constantly that any Baby Boom cannot make up for the dead. That in itself will make for a different economic, social and psychological situation after the War.

You would need to have WW2 completely become life or death for the continental US during the war. The war would need to physically feel desperate. It was in a lot of places but I mean absolutely desperate. You can do whatever "spice" you want for the details: a competent and unnaturally successful Italy, Japan hitting Pearl Harbor worse and with early success in the Pacific, the Germans managing a breakout with the Battle of the Bulge that does not win the war but prolonged it, and probably better terror weapons that hit the US (like the Japanese plan to release plagues really working). And despite all that, you need to walk that fine line of the Axis not winning but not losing for longer and with greater harm to the US.

The emphasis is not fewer Boomers. Though that would happen, it's a red herring. The emphasis would be on a recovering, tired War Generation in a world with a different mood. The parents would be a generation of Survivors and the OTL Boomers would be the children of survivors trying to make something out of a broken humanity that has exhausted itself fighting bullies.

Or maybe, since the Baby Boom only happened a year after WW2 ended, Operation Unthinkable is actually given the greenlight by the Allies, and thus have to face the meat-grinder that is the Soviet Union. Though keep in mind this depends on how strong the Soviets were at the time. Not to mention, this is a different scenario in and of itself.

Without the boomers, or the demographic weight they had IOTL, how would this effect the social changes of the 1960s and 1970s? Would America - and the rest of the world - be more conservative?

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Or maybe, since the Baby Boom only happened a year after WW2 ended, Operation Unthinkable is actually given the greenlight by the Allies, and thus have to face the meat-grinder that is the Soviet Union. Though keep in mind this depends on how strong the Soviets were at the time. Not to mention, this is a different scenario in and of itself.

Without the boomers, or the demographic weight they had IOTL, how would this effect the social changes of the 1960s and 1970s? Would America - and the rest of the world - be more conservative?

I would mute that and let it be more mundane. Reality is mundanity peaked with odd blessings and curses (and the consequences run off of that for as long as they will). Operation Unthinkable was unrealistic. But the US/UK and USSR getting into a shooting war or a unofficial war for a few years in settling the peace is more realistic (shooting matches and battles here and there, similar to the Sino-Soviet situation on the border). That may be the case if the atomic bomb is delayed but everyone still wants to avoid refighting WW2 in full; everyone is exhausted.

 

[Basils]

Not out of the total population. The Boom might be smaller by a million or so (given miraculous conditions for the Axis), but that's a drop in the bucket.

IMO, the only way to avoid the Boom is not to have the Depression, or the war, and probably not have both. Otherwise, you're getting delayed gratification (or delayed ability to have or support kids).

True. Even with less men the surplus females will find ways to have kids.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

True. Even with less men the surplus females will find ways to have kids.

Extraordinary circumstances lead to extraordinary outcomes. I'm trying hard not to go full scifi breeding culture in my brain but it may be something like that.

There could be a subtext to the culture of getting married and having large families. And there could be a culture of unmarried women staying in the workplace to make up for necessary economic needs and economic growth to support large families. I feel like there's going to be a long population readjustment with some bottlenecks.

There may be earlier investment in, development of and cultural acceptance of artificial insemination and fatherless families (supported by the larger family unit and government investments) depending on how severe the male deaths are.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

True. Even with less men the surplus females will find ways to have kids.

I recall an interesting radio broadcast which included the observation that post-war attitudes to unmarried mothers in the soviet Union were strongly influenced by the demographics. With a shortage of men and massive overall population loss, he argued that single mothers were both inevitable and necessary and that drove a shift in popular and government attitudes. I can't say for sure if he was right, but it sounds reasonable.
Add that driver (even if weaker in western allied nations) to the returning troops eager to make up for lost family time and feeling that the world is a good place for children, and then add improved understanding of healthcare and its provision so that more babies and mothers survive and some form of baby boom looks almost unavoidable.

 

[Basils]

Extraordinary circumstances lead to extraordinary outcomes. I'm trying hard not to go full scifi breeding culture in my brain but it may be something like that.

There could be a subtext to the culture of getting married and having large families. And there could be a culture of unmarried women staying in the workplace to make up for necessary economic needs and economic growth to support large families. I feel like there's going to be a long population readjustment with some bottlenecks.

There may be earlier investment in, development of and cultural acceptance of artificial insemination and fatherless families (supported by the larger family unit and government investments) depending on how severe the male deaths are.

I don’t think there would be artificial insemination so much as people would look past single mothers. Or people would wink and pretend to not notice that a man has two families.

 

[Basils]

I recall an interesting radio broadcast which included the observation that post-war attitudes to unmarried mothers in the soviet Union were strongly influenced by the demographics. With a shortage of men and massive overall population loss, he argued that single mothers were both inevitable and necessary and that drove a shift in popular and government attitudes. I can't say for sure if he was right, but it sounds reasonable.
Add that driver (even if weaker in western allied nations) to the returning troops eager to make up for lost family time and feeling that the world is a good place for children, and then add improved understanding of healthcare and its provision so that more babies and mothers survive and some form of baby boom looks almost unavoidable.

I’ve read the same thing. Having a surplus of women. Especially the crazy levels the USSR had made the mating dynamics very different.

 

[Impossible_Quail_250]

Still, weren't most of them unsafe even by that era's standards?

 

[Emperor Norton I]

I don’t think there would be artificial insemination so much as people would look past single mothers. Or people would wink and pretend to not notice that a man has two families.

I think it would be a mix of suppression leading to psychosis and then gradual openness in subsequent generations (over several generations) and a mix of an accepted and open new normal. And then placing things on top of those two elements.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

This may all also lead to earlier pushing towards full automation in industry. That will be interesting.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

This may all also lead to earlier pushing towards full automation in industry. That will be interesting.

History - even when stopping at 2010 to avoid current politics - suggests that when there's a choice between investment [1] or encouraging immigration to provide cheap labour, investment almost always loses out.

[1] including training, machinery, innovative practices, automation

 

[Basils]

I think it would be a mix of suppression leading to psychosis and then gradual openness in subsequent generations (over several generations) and a mix of an accepted and open new normal. And then placing things on top of those two elements.

But overtime they would be less surplus females, and the problem would have to correct itself. That or in like Russian society the way men act towards women would be changed. So I think you’ll see a decline and happiness where people are married, or people want to get married.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

History - even when stopping at 2010 to avoid current politics - suggests that when there's a choice between investment [1] or encouraging immigration to provide cheap labour, investment almost always loses out.

[1] including training, machinery, innovative practices, automation

But overtime they would be less surplus females, and the problem would have to correct itself. That or in like Russian society the way men act towards women would be changed. So I think you’ll see a decline and happiness where people are married, or people want to get married.

That is true or at least possible. However, it would take time. People do not live in the settled but what is settling. The uncertain element is how people react to or what they plan during that settling period. There are going to be social, political and economic consequences to both the massive deaths, the lack of males and the moods of how to fix things. That may include things that are feel good failures (because humans are human).

For example, if there is massive immigration, you're going to have the matters of integration into American society and probably nativist racism. Of note, if the US is hit this badly, is the rest of the world going to be in any better shape? If the world is even worse off, there may not be enough people to make enough of a dent.