Why The 50s?

[Manchu]

Was typing up a reply to Machinegunkelly's thread, where he proposes a post-apocalyptic setting (which is to say, an alternative history) that picks up during the 1940s, but realized I was going way off topic and should probably make my own thread.

Turns out, there actually was an apocalypse, in the sense of a world-changing catastrophe, underway during the 40s. But the "post-apocalyptic" world that resulted, i.e., the 1950s, was characterized not by loss and despair but rather soaring confidence. The "Four Horsemen" of the very apocalypse that ravaged the world during the 40s (before and after WW2 itself ended) - let's name them Ideology, Industry, Technology, and Mass Movements - became the very wellsprings of prosperity and hope in the 50s.

Just like in so many of our gritty fantasies, this real-life post-apocalyptic world was ushered in by atomic warfare. And of course the inhabitants of this real-life post-apocalyptic world were haunted by the memory of war. These horrors drove the survivors to build, both physically and emotionally, a brighter world from the ashes. But the threat of further war, and ultimately atomic war, hung like a pall over such efforts. The 1950s were thus by turns both cheery and morbid. Optimistic and paranoid. Cynical and naïve.

This paradox created what I'd propose to be the hallmark of the post-apocalyptic genre: wry, fatalistic humor. A world of armored school buses, roving bands of raiders armed with scavenged sports equipment, fortresses built out of strip malls, and so on. The post-apocalyptic fantasy setting is basically a grim joke: What would civilized people give up everything for? Nothing (allegorically). Hence the notion of a "regressed" society where the survivors prize disposable, nutritionless  Twinkies and worship the would-be instruments of their own suffering, unexploded nuclear missiles.

It's absurd. And so it's also kind of funny. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that Post-Apoc, as a genre, is not really about any old society-crumbling diaster but, more specifically, the underlying silliness (whether one plays it up or prefers a "drier" approach) of said disaster. So it kind of has to be the 50s. Things were perhaps a mite too dour both before and after.

[Cherno]

I wouldn't categorize WW2 as a cataclysmic event, especially if the USA is concerned. After all, apart from Pearl Harbor and the occasional stray Japanese balloon, the mainland never experienced the horror of war the same way places like Europe and the Far East & Pacific did. Furthermore, even in these regions of the world where the war raged, it was at no point "world-ending" in an all-encompassing sense like it is commonly associated with in post-apocalyptic fiction.
I also wouldn't call the 50s cynical. Prosperous, hopeful, naive, and paranoid, yes. But that this combination spawned the comic-book violence of Mad Max & Co, I don't see. I also don't think that the fashion and equipment style of the post-apocalyptic marauder that is seen as the standard today was actually meant to be humorous. It was a profilic costume designer who created the clothing style of Mad Max' bandits that was, in my opinion, a realistic yet striking choice for the road warriors.  The whole concept of using scores of supercharged vehicles to roam the blasted landscape for fuel is kind of silly but probably done more for the coolness factor than for humurous effect.

I hope this will lead to an intersting discussion!

[commissarmoody]

Its a long read, but this is a 1951 magazine publications view of the events and aftermath of a successful world war 3. Successful for the U.N. and western powers that is. 
they proposed the idea of world war 3 kicking off in 53 and end in 56 with Soviet internal collapse. Atomic Weapons are tossed around like hot potato's but, they didn't have enough to completely destroy the world at that time. So convictional and unconventional warfare is still used to win the day.

https://www.docdroid.net/LjUq5xg/colliers-weekly-27-october-1951.pdf#page=4

[Manchu]

WW2 absolutely ravaged Europe and parts of Asia. As far as the US is concerned, the people bore the scars rather than the land. Men carried the physical apocalypse they experienced (and prosecuted) in the Old World home with them to the New, in their souls as surely as in their bodies. Cynicism was certianly one portion of that trauma. Read up on the Red Scares, for instance. More broadly, post-war prosperity was a two-sided coin. Material technologies created abundance; psychological technologies marketed it. The age of mass media conditioning was upon us. Before long, there would be landfills brimming with discarded disposable consumer goods - the real-world equivalent of the post-apoc "wasteland" of fiction.

[FramFramson]

One of the core aspects of PA is that in an apocalypse most everyone dies and most technology is destroyed or cannot be reproduced or repaired (due to lack of knowledge). In WWII we didn't really lose any technical capacity and while we suffered the largest total deaths in human history, this was only 2% of the human population at the time.

There have actually been a few true apocalypses in human history (in the sense of "Almost everyone dies"), but they're well past and we don't tend to think of them that way.

The two most important ones are:

1) The genetic bottleneck tentatively linked to the Toba eruption 75,000 years ago. Based on genetic studies it's been firmly determined that all modern humans were reduced to just 3000-10,000 individuals at some point between 50,000 and 10,000 years ago (and that many primates and other species were similarly affected). About 75,000 years ago there was a massive eruption in Indonesia, which resulted in several years of global cooling and possibly accelerated the advance of an ice age. It's also estimated that 75,000 years ago was about the time the modern human population as we know it left Africa (in spite of there being evidence of earlier migrations). So the current working theory is that a core population of humans survived in Africa, as well as a few scattered pockets elsewhere (e.g. south India) from earlier migrations.

Of course tool use was largely unaffected as enough of the survivors knew the existing crafting techniques to carry on, but the overall human population would have been devastated on a scale not seen before or since.

2) The North American Epidemics. As is well known now, the Native American populations of North, Central, and South America suffered devastating losses to smallpox and other European diseases. From initial contacts before serious colonization efforts began, diseases spread along existing trade routes wiping out whole populations.

North America was most severely affected with more than 90% fatalities. In this case, a vast amount of infrastructure was abandoned or fell into disuse. Surviving tribes still maintained knowledge for tool-and-clothes making as those were widespread enough to survive, but large organized projects, such as the cities - yes cities - of the Mississippian mound-building societies or the Iroquoian Confederation, were wiped out (proto-urban populations obviously suffered the most from disease outbreaks).

This is why when serious colonization and exploration efforts started penetrating the continent they found it "empty". For instance, many early settlers in New England came upon carefully tended groves of trees, weeded grasslands, and such and proclaimed that the land had been given to them as God's bounty. In reality they were seeing a wasteland, the former farmed areas of semi-nomadic peoples who'd carefully tended to land to encourage productivity but whose tribes and in some cases entire civilizations been completely wiped out by disease. In reality, pre-colombian North America had actually been a very busy place, teeming with human life and activity.

South American societies were also profoundly affected, but had some time to recover and their more permanent forms of building using stone allowed survivors to retake cities which were empty or depopulated, though some civilizations (especially northern Mexican ones) disappeared entirely. Still, there were huge wars and vast conflict which resulted from the sudden population drop. Again, this was all before Europeans dealt with such peoples and in some cases before Europeans had even contacted them, so almost no Europeans understood what had happened, out side of a few curious monks or priests who made inquiries in both North and South America and who recorded local accounts of plagues of biblical proportions in the then-recent past (and who's surviving accounts, limited as they are, have been invaluable to modern understanding of the disasters).

In essence, The Americas after roughly 1510 or so were a post-apocalyptic land in all senses except ecologically (though more so North than South).  

In addition to the two examples above, there are also some near-apocalypses in human history which show some similar effects which can be drawn on if we want to see the effects of a real PA setting.

1) The "Biblical" flood. It's now known that the Black Sea widely expanded to its current boundaries in a relatively short period around 10,000-7000 years ago. It's hotly debated as to HOW quickly this happened (as a relatively short "deluge" or more gradually, or some mix). What we do know is that it and associated Mediterranean flooding had a profound impact on human culture, with flood myths of a past disaster appearing in nearly all subsequent near eastern and Mediterranean societies (the oldest being Mesopotamian stores from approximately 7000 years ago). This flood may have also been responsible for the fall of the original Cretan Greek civilization known as "The Greek Dark Age" - even if it did not actually flood them out, it may have disrupted trade routes and displaced the coastal populations the Greeks traded with or settled colonies in, leading to chaos, abandonment of many cities, and much migration.

2) The fall of the Western Roman Empire. While a recent modern trend in historiography was to argue that Western Rome did not "fall" but merely transitioned to a post-Roman early feudal society, more recent research has confirmed there was indeed severe depopulation, starvation, loss of trade, and an huge overall fall in the real standard of living, occurred during and after the Fall. Additionally, it's well known that a great deal of technology (such as concrete manufacture) or at least the population and knowledge base to maintain much of the infrastructure had fallen apart in the West. Many who did have knowledge of mechanical or engineering processes probably migrated east where they could still find work, worsening the shortage and leading to a wide amount of disrepair.

3) The Black Plague. The Plague took fully 30%-35% of the human population across Eurasia. However, this is a case of apocalyptic events being oddly positive in the long run. Enough of the population survived that the vast majority of technical knowledge was retained and infrastructure was not so heavily degraded as to make it unusable (though some towns and regions were abandoned in areas where local death rates were very high). After the initial disaster, the aristocracy had lost much capital and surviving workers were able to demand higher wages, leading to decreased income disparity and a more dynamic and prosperous economy. This was in fact the earliest stage of the demographic and economic changes which would lead to the Renaissance. Of course this sound great from a distant perspective, but the people at the time had to suffer as thousands around them died horrible, inexplicable deaths, in some cases entire families or towns would leave no more than a lone, scarred survivor or two.  

So, there's a great deal of different ways in which apocalypses have affected human populations, including the creation of Apocalypse myths themselves which nearly every human religion has some variation of. In all cases however, the survivors are generally a haunted people, traumatized in ways which are not overcome until living memory of the immediate disaster passes away.

[carlos marighela]

Then there's Phil Collins. Most have us have survived but how many of us are just hollowed out husks of people, haunted and emotionally scarred by his frequent repetition on FM radio?

[FramFramson]

Then there's Phil Collins. Most have us have survived but how many of us are just hollowed out husks of people, haunted and emotionally scarred by his frequent repetition on FM radio?

[Doug ex-em4]

@Fram Framson - thank you for an interesting, informative and provocative post. I greatly enjoyed reading it and it spurs me to delve further.

Doug

[Corporal Chaos]

Very thought provoking and informative. So much taken for granted. Thanks for the insights.

[Manchu]

@commissarmoody

Thanks for that link - an authentic example of exactly what I am talking about. The psychology of the writing seesaws between self-congratulation and grim determination. Meanwhile, the articles are interspersed with cheery advertisements aimed at the newly-minted middle class, i.e., the survivors. We see a painting of the nuclear annhilation of Moscow following closely on the heels of some sparkplug ad featuring a laughing boy playing on his sled. The overall effect is schizophrenic.

@FramFramson

Thanks for chiming in. Although your historical examples* don't tend to support your thesis, I think it's correct in terms of a literary analysis of the post-apocalyptic genre. There is a striking theme of regression; a sense that the world of "the elders" was superior, especially technologically, to the wasted world on this side of the apocalypse. This is yet another reason why the 1950s are the ideal Launch Point for alternative timelines involving apocalyptic disaster: a technological apogee that culminates in global catastrophe.

*Some scientists claim ancient humans survived the genetic bottleneck by developing "technology" (in terms of conceptual understanding and language) necessary to subsist on a novel food source: shellfish.

[warlord frod]

Its a long read, but this is a 1951 magazine publications view of the events and aftermath of a successful world war 3. Successful for the U.N. and western powers that is. 
they proposed the idea of world war 3 kicking off in 53 and end in 56 with Soviet internal collapse. Atomic Weapons are tossed around like hot potato's but, they didn't have enough to completely destroy the world at that time. So convictional and unconventional warfare is still used to win the day.

https://www.docdroid.net/LjUq5xg/colliers-weekly-27-october-1951.pdf#page=4

Best part of this whole thing was the Bill Mauldin cartoons 

I think the problem with this work of fiction was that it was overly optimistic on the effectiveness of Atomic Warfare. I am old enough to recall the "Duck and Cover' drills that we all knew would save no one if a full-blown nuclear war began. If the blast didn't kill you the fallout would. That many nuclear attacks would have resulted in greater devastation and psychological impact. IMHO. That being said, the question remains would such a conflict lead to a PA world like those we portray in our fiction?

The dilemma I see with the PA mythos is it is based on mankind as a whole reverting back to their baser instincts. The break down of society and the rise of lawlessness results in violent attempts to gain power and/or simply survive. The whole thing boils down to waring over very scarce resources in order to survive from day to day. We add into that mutation and disease that is proliferated by atomic destruction or biological warfare/natural disaster and we have a gruesome kill or be killed world setting.

None of the events that have transpired to date have created this kind of dystopian world. Local regions may in some small way resemble the exaggerated picture we are using for brief periods. But to date, mankind has generally overcome and sought to make a better society. (Japan and Germany for example) The level of devastation necessary to create the PA worlds we portray would probably lead to mankind's extinction.

[Arlequín]

In the '50s there weren't enough bombs to wipe out the human race and the delivery system was the vulnerable bomber. Duck and cover was in fact a life saver if you found yourself at the periphery of a nuclear blast. It was only the advent of the ICBM in the Late '50s that changed the playing field and by the Mid-60s we entered the world of mutually assured destruction.

The '50s were a period of paranoia, be it over; the atom bomb, communism, juvenile delinquency, motorcycle gangs, hot rodders, rock and roll, comic books and racial equality. Decent society and law kept these in check (sarcasm). Without law society would break down and the preservation of society against barbarianism was a dominent theme in '50s PA literature ('The Earth Abides', 'Alas Babylon' etc). The movie 'Panic in Year Zero' (1962) is pretty much the end piece for that kind of fiction.

This fear and paranoia was juxtaposed with the optimism of technology, particularly as regards nuclear science. Flying cars and all that Jetsons jazz was just around the corner, so the 'Fallout' picture of the future to come is pretty much how people saw things going back then.

When you move into the '70s and '80s life after nuclear war becomes much more depressing and unthinkable. Get past the fall of the Eastern Bloc and other forms of Armageddon are searched for instead.

So for me it has to be the '50s, I just wish figures went in that direction and not towards raiders with '80s mohicans and bondage wear.

[commissarmoody]

So for me it has to be the '50s, I just wish figures went in that direction and not towards raiders with '80s mohicans and bondage wear.

I think only Atomic Cafie by Beirgade games even attempted to go that rout.

[carlos marighela]

The problem with such a broad brush is that whilst it may get the house painted quicker it does rather obscure the view out of the windows.

A few, random points. Leaving aside George Miller's, admittedly seminal, contribution to the genre*, it is an overwhelmingly US centric genre. So I suppose addressing it in those terms makes sense but it doesn't impart any home truths about the rest of the world.

Britain for example was still under rationing and undergoing a retreat from Empire and the slow dawning realisation that it was a second or third rate power in the 1950s as Suez was to conclusively demonstrate. Yet, if you glance through magazines of the day, there's every bit as much optimism if not more so about 'the New Elizabethan Age'. Britain still had industries that counted for something, including an aircraft industry that still managed to lead the world in some respects.

France would have had a different set of pre-occupations, mired by overlapping colonial conflicts.  Brazil was, by the mid '50s, going through a period of considerable optimism with Kubitschek as President and the fifty years in five mantra ringing in peoples ears. China? A wholly different kettle of fish, etc, etc, etc.

For all the attention on McCarthyism (technically speaking, a hangover from the 1940s) I'm far from convinced that the 1950s were any more or less paranoid than any other decade of the 20th Century you care to nominate. Even the Red Scare in the US was hardly new. In the first half of the century it was wobblies, bolsheviks and organised labour that provided the bogeymen. Then of course you have the perrenial favourite:race paranoia. African-Americans, Mexicans, West Indians, Asians, Eastern Europeans, Middle Easterners etc, etc. Tick as appropriate.

I can recall people in the 1980s and it seems that there are now more of them than ever there were who claim/claimed to have been petrified at the prospect of nuclear war. I can't say I shared that particular fear to any great extent, even when Ronnie Raygun was at his most strident.

So, there is no universal trope and I'm not sure any particular decade should carry the honour of persistent existential paranoia. Maybe if you were an Armenian in 1916 or a European Jew in 1945 but then that's not really paranoia is it? More like lived experience.

*Which brings us back to George Miller and the Australian input. Looking back, Mad Max is an incredibly prescient film, prefiguring the HIV epidemic that was rolling across the globe but was yet to have a convenient scientific handle attached to it. All those of acres of leather clad flesh, straight from a Tom of Finland drawing, with a chisel jawed and oh so butch Mel Gibson in the lead. More homo-erotic content than a convoy of Priscillas and all set in a dystopian, post-apocalyptic near future.

[commissarmoody]

I know that after an apocalypse would be the perfect time to strap on some leather and form fitting tights. All of that rugged mil-spec kit, ruck sacks filled with MREs, water, medical supplies and ammo are for suckers.