Why was there no post WW1 baby boom like the post WW2 one? Weren't

>>1538326
Two words: GI benefits.

>>1538326
everybody died from the flu

For Americans? Because it wasn't that important.

By May of 1918, six months before the armistice, over a million men made it to France but only half or so of them had seen any combat. Not lots of combat, any. At all. By the end there were two million.

All in all, it was a short war with minimal casualties. World War 2, on the other hand, was longer and involved 12 million Americans in 1945. That's a long time to be away from home and rationing for the war effort.

GI benefits also helped, as did the expansion of housing in the suburbs.

>>1538326
>The 1920s was also a time of economic prosperity

Kind of. The "roaring twenties" was not representative of middle America. The US was mostly rural at this time and crop prices were depressed in the wake of the armistice. There was a recession after the war because wartime production had to be tapered off. The world economy was also weak after WW1. GB & France were saddled with crippling war debt. Parts of France became uninhabitable, millions were being resettled. The process of demobilization was fraught with difficulty. Germany, who was the economic giant of Europe, had all her overseas interests dismantled and her production crippled. IIRC global trade didn't reach 1914 levels until like 1938. It's also important to keep in mind that something like less than 5% of Americans even owned stock during this time so soaring stock prices meant nothing for your average family.

I would think it also mattered to same degree that WW1 disrupted a period of unprecedented prosperity & growth whereas WW2 on the other hand lifted the US out of the Great Depression. When WW2 was over things were better than they had ever been for many Americans, but after WW1 there was little tangible benefit for your average American and for many things were actually worse.