What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Modern What would be the long term effects on European cultures & societies in the event of a WWIII in the 1960s?

Mark Poe

The majestic cock
Writing Champ
Based on some old book I read a long time ago so I don't remember the title or anything, and yeah thread title is a word salad. I remember reading about it mentioning that if WWIII broke out in the 60s (the usual nukes fly and people die kind of thing) Europe would most likely suffer a lot (mild understatement perhaps), and having a generation dying and a lot of stuff being smashed for the 3rd time in as many generations in the same century. The book postulate that the effects on various European cultures and societies in the long term this time around would be extremely negative, as it became "obvious" that any long term planning (economically, politically, etc.) is pointless as there's always something that will come along and destroy everything within a generation or 2. This would have a significant knock on effect of hindering any post war recovery.

So what would the be the effects on various European cultures & societies in the aftermath of a 60s era nuclear WWIII? This thread is less concerned with the geopolitical situation (or lack of). Assuming a general WWIII scenario in the late 60s in which the USA is gravely mauled, USSR & PRC effectively cease to exist as coherent geopolitical entities, and Europe getting wrecked (again, the 3rd time in as many generations).

The questions being, would people lose hope in attempting any significant rebuilding as there seems to be no point in doing so as everything will be destroyed anyways come another generation? How would the '1 apocalyptic war per generation' compared to the constant warfare of the pre-modern era of European history? (in terms of effects on people and cultures in terms of long term planning and such).
 
The US had... actual nuclear superiority until ~ the 1970s or so and a lot of the scares with the soviets were carefully crafted propaganda moves by the soviets. The bomber scare is quite literally the USSR making sure no one outside of the Air Force notice that the decals were the same (as in 'flew the same bombers over Moscow several times' and no one really picked up on this).

The damage to the US would be comparatively minimal compared to the USSR and friends.
 
The damage to the US would be comparatively minimal compared to the USSR and friends.
Already mentioned, (in which the the USA would be merely mauled instead of cease to exist like the USSR & PRC).

But that's besides the point of the thread, which is about the long term cultural impact of WWIII (well more like the cumulative impact of 3 world wars in as many generations).
 
Incalculable, to say the least since this only opens the door for the next round to be nuclear and coming in about two generations down the line.

If you want to have something similar to the new situation now presented, take Strangreal from Ace Combat, give it the ability to produce lots of nukes (in-verse there simply isn't enough weaponizable material to build the nukes in the first place) with the willingness to use them, and simply wait in lunar orbit...

... yeah, forever war is the best case scenario.
 
cultures & societies in the aftermath of a 60s era nuclear WWIII
This is actually easy. They will cease to exist, as WW3 will turn Europe practically inhabitable.

It was supposed to be a main battleground of the WW3 that would see the fighting after the initial nuclear exchange, with a good deal of remaining nukes being used there.
 
The odd village composed of cancer stricken refugees living in the bombed out remints of buildings would still exist... give or take. Probably. Maybe. It's only the 60s, nuclear arsenals weren't that large yet.
 
The odd village composed of cancer stricken refugees living in the bombed out remints of buildings would still exist... give or take. Probably. Maybe. It's only the 60s, nuclear arsenals weren't that large yet.
With nothing of original culture or society left - which answer your question.

Yes, nuclear arsenals of 60's weren't big yet, but Europe was only battleground where what they had could be effectively used by both sides, on smaller area (than USA or USSR) with significantly larger population density, with much more weapons concentrated there. Conventional war supported by remaining nukes would be fought there until there isn't much left there to fight over.

Yes, US had advantage over USSR in hitting first, but that wouldn't matter that much in Europe, it is comparison in number of strategic bombers and IBCMs use between the superpowers.
 
Most of the cities would be utterly destroyed (The USSR was planning on nuking Vienna and Paris to demoralize the west for example), culturally the effect would be catastrophic. Imagine the utter destruction of every center of learning, art, history and pile on top the destruction of every economic center and your transportation infrastructure being wrecked.

Add on to this that there would be large scale armies at least in the opening days, the armies that aren't destroyed may indeed fall apart and now you have roaming armed men looking for food and shelter. There will be no Marshall plan. The United States has been mauled and depending on the abilities of our surviving government may split apart into competing successor states. Even if the US holds together (which is certainly possible) you still have a nation where several of its largest cities were bombed to rubble and millions are dead or dying. It'll take decades to rebuild.

Meanwhile the center of gravity shifts to South America. I would include Africa but they're still in the grips of decolonization and likely will explode with the destruction of Europe. There will be follow up wars in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

Europe during all of this is now a sparsely populated backwater. Their culture likely devolves to the village and town level as local government is the only thing coherent. While they won't slide to medieval levels I think, I do think food production will be their overriding concern. Young women are likely kept in indoors, as I can tell you from my NBC classes that your standard house can actually protect you from a good amount of the fallout after the bombs stop dropping, the biggest concern will be avoiding contaminated water and food. Filtration can do a lot for that but it can't stop everything. A Lot of the heavy work that might expose you to radiation falls to the older men, in their late 30s to their 50s. They've already had children so if they can't pass on birth defects and if they get cancer they are strong and healthy enough to survive long enough to be some of use before death. Cancer does become more common in Europe than anywhere else and people learn to accept dying younger than elsewhere. In some places they may adopt a tradition of euthanasia for those incurably ill. Other places may double down on religion, blaming modernity and secularism for their destruction. European children will be told that their forefathers built mighty empires across the globe but they grew prideful and greedy and destroyed themselves fighting over the spoils. It is likely they will be very risk averse. Others will possibley throw themselves into rebuilding themselves into the exact image of what was lose, expect bigger, better, bolder. They want to reconnect the communities and bring back their nations, rebuild shattered monuments, rise from the ashes.

In short there are several different paths that could be taken.
 
@forum viking, this isn't 1983-1985 where the US and USSR had enough nukes to quite literally nuke the planet twice -or even thrice- over, this is 1963 or so. The US held the strategic ordinance advantage -something that the USSR wouldn't have parity with until the 1970s, that's why the entire Cuban Missile Crisis went down in the first place because the USSR's ICBM force absolutely sucked in terms of reliability while their IRBMs were pretty comparable to the US's- while the USSR at this time still relied on SSBs and bombers for first and second strike capability... and even then most of those SSBs require a 30+ minute launch sequence on the surface. Add to the fact that the US had a healthy interceptor force on hand in North America, the Americas will receive minimal damage overall. What the USSR had an advantage in is tactical nukes, and most of those were deployed in Europe and later the USSR/Chinese border.
 
@forum viking, this isn't 1983-1985 where the US and USSR had enough nukes to quite literally nuke the planet twice -or even thrice- over, this is 1963 or so. The US held the strategic ordinance advantage -something that the USSR wouldn't have parity with until the 1970s, that's why the entire Cuban Missile Crisis went down in the first place because the USSR's ICBM force absolutely sucked in terms of reliability while their IRBMs were pretty comparable to the US's- while the USSR at this time still relied on SSBs and bombers for first and second strike capability... and even then most of those SSBs require a 30+ minute launch sequence on the surface. Add to the fact that the US had a healthy interceptor force on hand in North America, the Americas will receive minimal damage overall. What the USSR had an advantage in is tactical nukes, and most of those were deployed in Europe and later the USSR/Chinese border.


I am aware of the differences between the 1980s and the 1960s, that's why the US is maimed and not destroyed. Not to mention under 1980s engagement plans South America would be nuked to. However everything I've seen led to me that several American cities are getting wrecked. I've seen at best conflicting data about the interceptor forces so I think you're leaning your weight on a hollow reed. So I stand by my statement. Europe cannot count on aide from the US in rebuilding and will be reduced to rubble.
 
I am aware of the differences between the 1980s and the 1960s, that's why the US is maimed and not destroyed. Not to mention under 1980s engagement plans South America would be nuked to. However everything I've seen led to me that several American cities are getting wrecked. I've seen at best conflicting data about the interceptor forces so I think you're leaning your weight on a hollow reed. So I stand by my statement. Europe cannot count on aide from the US in rebuilding and will be reduced to rubble.
Here's the thing, unless you turn the US into radioactive glass, you're not going to put the US down for long. As long as the Mississippi River area is intact along with a handful of other vital locales, the US is going to spring right back up. Russia, on the other hand, has practically all of it's industrial and economic capability in a handful of spots which are far easier to target.

Geography is key and the US's geography is pretty much an I win button unless you are willing to throw enough nukes to turn the US into radioactive glass. Would Marshal Plan 2.0 be as extensive as it's predecessor? No it wouldn't. Will it be enough? It'll have to be because of geopolitical goals of the US being essentially 'no one touches US shores' with the caveat that isolationism is only going to make problems that would become US problems only worse.
 
Here's the thing, unless you turn the US into radioactive glass, you're not going to put the US down for long. As long as the Mississippi River area is intact along with a handful of other vital locales, the US is going to spring right back up. Russia, on the other hand, has practically all of it's industrial and economic capability in a handful of spots which are far easier to target.

Yeah... No. You don't just "spring up" from having entire cities, most of them your major ones wiped out. It takes years, if not longer to rebuild and deal with the lost of people, knowledge and production. During that time there is going to be little appetite for involvement in foreign affairs.

Geography is key and the US's geography is pretty much an I win button unless you are willing to throw enough nukes to turn the US into radioactive glass. Would Marshal Plan 2.0 be as extensive as it's predecessor? No it wouldn't. Will it be enough? It'll have to be because of geopolitical goals of the US being essentially 'no one touches US shores' with the caveat that isolationism is only going to make problems that would become US problems only worse.

"My voters in New York are homeless and not sure where their next meal is going to come from and you want to shovel millions of dollars at the people who started all this? Fuck off Mr. President!"

Good luck getting that through the Senate. You'll need it.

Also there is no magic I win button. That's sloppy thinking and you should be able to do better than that. Geography is an advantage but that's all it is. Advantages are good, but you can still lose with advantages. Without the institutions and systems that good hard work and clear eyed men and women put into place to reap benefits for us and our children the US could easily be a large under developed nation, like Mississippi for example. Geography doesn't magically ensure you'll get a proper working government and good infrastructure. Look at Singapore, their success has more to do with their government policies then their geography. They just take good advantage of that geography.
 
The USSR collapses sooner than later and the Eurasian Hemispheric Confederation is established by Britain the US and China.
 
Back
Top Bottom