Decisive US victory in Vietnam

[guyverman1990]

Good day to you all once again. Today, I Thought it would be easier to speculate a much more recent historical divergence this time around.

My question is what if in Vietnam, the war ended in a decisive western victory as the title suggests? What would be the most feasible POV (point of divergence) in your vision? How would things go differently over the next 40 years? My guesses are that with the communist Viet Cong defeated, Communism itself will face a premature demise in Southeast Asia. Both the Khmer Rouge will end sooner and there would be no ruling communist regime in Laos in the present.

[eDGT]

Send in Dr Manhattan.

[orvillethird]

It would be rather difficult. The Vietnamese had been fighting for their independence for decades, and fought the PRC not long after unification. Further, Vietnamese were known for being rather independent. It would take a multi-pronged strategy- combine the "hearts and minds" approach with a more effective targeting of the VC, add in forays into the North, and perhaps omit Soviet and PRC support (the biggest part, perhaps being the PRC). Perhaps if Henry Wallace got the VP nod instead of Harry Truman, we could see the US encouraging Vietnamese independence...and perhaps the Communists being defeated...by US ally Ho Chi Minh.

[rinkou]

I think the main issue with these sorts of scenarios is that a singular PoD is really too simplistic a plane to be thinking on when we want to go with a lot of these large-scale, generalized counterfactuals. Like, there's plenty of reasons that the Vietnam War and other historical events turn out the way they do, and trying to pinpoint any one thing won't be enough to really make for a plausible change in outcome. We're looking at a complete systemic change going much, much, further back.

The first issue, like Orville mentions is that the Vietnamese people were very largely in support of the Communist regime, both in the north and the south. It's also a pretty hard country to occupy. If we're supposing overwhelming American ground force and occupation inch-by-inch, you're looking at both a much more costly war in terms of civilian and American casualties, and one that would be even more unpopular at home and abroad. There just isn't the political will to commit to the sort of occupation necessary to temporarily pacify Vietnam.

From where you're standing, this probably looks like a 50k casualty run of bad luck. Truth is, game was rigged from the start.

[Epic History]

Jan 31, 2016 20:23:40 GMT guyverman1990 said:

Good day to you all once again. Today, I Thought it would be easier to speculate a much more recent historical divergence this time around.

My question is what if in Vietnam, the war ended in a decisive western victory as the title suggests? What would be the most feasible POV (point of divergence) in your vision? How would things go differently over the next 40 years? My guesses are that with the communist Viet Cong defeated, Communism itself will face a premature demise in Southeast Asia. Both the Khmer Rouge will end sooner and there would be no ruling communist regime in Laos in the present.

Nixon dies during the 1968 Primaries thanks to a hapless Hunter S. Thompson with a lighter (OTL event, believe it or not). With Nixon out and Rockefeller still disgraced, Ronald Reagan clinches the nomination with help from Strom Thurmund. Reagan goes for an earlier Linebacker II and mines the harbors sooner, bringing North Vietnam to its knees while the VC have already been slaughtered as per OTL during the Tet Offensive. You'd probably get a Paris-like analogue by 1970, and a US under Reagan would be willing to do additional Linebackers as needed to maintain the peace. By the late 1970s, the PRC will have already soured on the North and continued US support should've stabilized the ARVN enough that they can hold out that forced unification by the North will no longer be feasible.

[rinkou]

You cannot strategically bomb your way into a successful occupation.

[Epic History]

Feb 1, 2016 4:09:14 GMT rinkou said:

You cannot strategically bomb your way into a successful occupation.

The US never, to the best of my knowledge, planned to invade and occupy the North. The OP was simply asking for a victory under the OTL US goals (Secure South Vietnam), which was actually accomplished by the US until Watergate happened and sucked out the political will to keep the support going in the critical period. 

[rinkou]

Feb 1, 2016 6:57:55 GMT Epic History said:

The US never, to the best of my knowledge, planned to invade and occupy the North. The OP was simply asking for a victory under the OTL US goals (Secure South Vietnam), which was actually accomplished by the US until Watergate happened and sucked out the political will to keep the support going in the critical period. 

You're right, my mistake. I was walking in generally and lost sight of the ground situation.

Moving on this assumption then,  I doubt we see a propped up South Vietnam as that strong or stable a state. It takes the ROK until the 90s to finally depose its military rulers, and arguably, a lot of what spurred that was the strong economic growth it started seeing under its export economy. South Vietnam, on the other hand, has a largely underdeveloped industrial sector regionally, and doesn't have the sort of port systems we saw in South Korea.

Whether or not this spurs any sort of widespread discontent is another topic. Though that also brings up the question of whether the US sends more development aid afterward, how effectively that aid is used, and if any further incidents with North Vietnam flare up.

[huojin]

Factors I see that are an obstacle:

*Diem is already long dead by this point, and for all else he may have been, he was undoubtedly the most stable leader South Vietnam had.
*The Tet Offensive was not a victory for the US, it was a defeat. Yes the Viet Cong and PAVN failed to achieve their main goals, but it destroyed the US government's position at home along with all perceptions that the war was being won. The Vietcong invaded the US embassy, for crying out loud.
*Topped with the fact that on the back of this the US elected to drastically reduce the number of troops to bring in, plus days after Tet the greatest single weekly casualty report of the war, and 1968 went on to become the deadliest year of the war thus far. Not to mention his popularity (in part as a result of the war) was tanking so badly, LBJ chose to pull out of the presidential primaries.
*Nixon interfered with US foreign policy to delay Johnson attempting to resolve the war already by 1968 - I wouldn't say Reagan and co. would do the same, as Nixon was an uncharacteristic degree of dirtbag.
*Strategic bombing of the North didn't kill a single civilian or military leader in the entire war - in large part thanks to Soviet ships in the Gulf sending info to the North Vietnamese. Linebacker did a lot of serious damage, but it still failed to end the war favourably for the US.

Honestly, by the late 1960s the war is already lost for America. They've been looking for an easy way out for a while, having come to terms with the fact that there's just no winning here.

I'd agree with rinkou, you really have to go back further to find a point where "victory" is plausible. Because yes, you could say you just want to secure South Vietnam. But that's essentially part of what was agreed in Paris anyway - all it took was America out of the way for the North to renege and invade, and Congress wouldn't appropriate the funds to go back.


I'd also recommend The Fog of War (with Robert McNamara in it) to anyone interested in Vietnam, it's deeply enlightening.    

[orvillethird]

OTL, more bombs were dropped in SE Asia by the US and allies (7.6 MILLION tons) than were dopped in WWII (Only 2.15 Million). The bombing pace was such that WWII-vintage weapons were brought out of stockpiles and dropped, with disastrous consequences in one case (USS Forrestal fire).

[crustyoldssg]

well,during the Tet offensive,we totally shattered 8 NVA main force divisions and delivered a decisive defeat to the enemy,but it was reported to be a US defeat.Had the media been more responsible,public opinion would have been different,and the political will for a successfulll conclusion to the war would have been there

[crustyoldssg]

Feb 1, 2016 4:09:14 GMT rinkou said:

You cannot strategically bomb your way into a successful occupation.

Exactly.You HAVE to have boots on the ground,and being a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom,I know all too well the whole hearts and minds thingie

[huojin]

Feb 2, 2016 19:28:03 GMT crustyoldssg said:

well,during the Tet offensive,we totally shattered 8 NVA main force divisions and delivered a decisive defeat to the enemy,but it was reported to be a US defeat.Had the media been more responsible,public opinion would have been different,and the political will for a successfulll conclusion to the war would have been there

It's not about media responsibility, it's the fact that the perception had been that the war was close to being won - a fact endorsed by the government and the majority of the media establishment - when the reality was that the communist forces had the capabilities to strike where they should have been least able to, holding off US and ARVN troops from recapturing Saigon for lengthy periods of time, and even occupying the US Embassy in Saigon. Yes it was a defeat in the short term, but it showed the gap in credibility between what the government said was happening and what was actually happening.

You can't tell people they're winning a war for years and then stick by that when you're shown to be just as vulnerable as when you started.

[crustyoldssg]

well,the media has consistently taken the enemy side-we saw that clearly at Sadr City,where we shattered the Mahdi Militia but all that the leftist media reported was the 20 United States cavalrymen who fell,while briefly mentioning that "a number" of insurgents had been killed.Well,2000 IS a number.....

[huojin]

Feb 2, 2016 23:08:48 GMT crustyoldssg said:

well,the media has consistently taken the enemy side-we saw that clearly at Sadr City,where we shattered the Mahdi Militia but all that the leftist media reported was the 20 United States cavalrymen who fell,while briefly mentioning that "a number" of insurgents had been killed.Well,2000 IS a number.....

I was unaware that keeping your populace informed of the actions of their government and the costs those actions have, particularly in human lives, constituted aiding the enemy. Well shit, guess everyone from the editorial boards of the New York Times and Washington Post to the senior editors and anchors of every major newscast should get ready for a knock on the door and subpoenas to appear on treason charges.

Welcome to the legacy of the governments lying to their people for decades. Enjoy your stay.

[orvillethird]

One thing to put in perspective regarding the Vietnamese. Forget politics. They were good at fighting guerilla war, be they the Montagnards or regular Vietnamese. The tale is told of General Giap ordering the reprinting of a guerilla war manual, which dealt in the construction of boobytraps. The manual in question was not a product of whatever Soviet group aided the VC with advisors, nor was it a product of the OSS back when they were helping the Vietnamese fight the Japanese. It was written to help fight off other foreign invaders- the Mongols.
By the way, if the South won in Vietnam, the PRC might invade- as they did OTL. (Of course, OTL, the PRC got defeated by the North Vietnamese.)

[Epic History]

Feb 1, 2016 20:33:02 GMT huojin said:

*Diem is already long dead by this point, and for all else he may have been, he was undoubtedly the most stable leader South Vietnam had.

Would you please elaborate on this a bit?

*The Tet Offensive was not a victory for the US, it was a defeat. Yes the Viet Cong and PAVN failed to achieve their main goals, but it destroyed the US government's position at home along with all perceptions that the war was being won. The Vietcong invaded the US embassy, for crying out loud.

While it certainly hurt domestic morale, there was certainly enough political will to keep the fighting going for almost five years. Indeed, Nixon even escalated the conflict and yet still managed a decisive re-election. Tet also destroyed the VC as a coherent and effective fighting force, which resulted in the NVA having to do the heavy lifting to win from then on. 

*Topped with the fact that on the back of this the US elected to drastically reduce the number of troops to bring in, plus days after Tet the greatest single weekly casualty report of the war, and 1968 went on to become the deadliest year of the war thus far. Not to mention his popularity (in part as a result of the war) was tanking so badly, LBJ chose to pull out of the presidential primaries.

The troop draw-down(s) is actually an indication of US success, particularly thanks to the COIN operations devised by Creighton Abrams. The VC had been destroyed enough that the US could remove troops (Easing homefront tensions), while still holding strong in South Vietnam and even taking the fight to the enemy as we saw with Cambodia. IIRC, Hearts and Minds style actions were particularly effective after 1968.

*Nixon interfered with US foreign policy to delay Johnson attempting to resolve the war already by 1968 - I wouldn't say Reagan and co. would do the same, as Nixon was an uncharacteristic degree of dirtbag.

This wouldn't really be an obstacle, as an earlier Linebacker II would bring the Communists to the table and force them to make an agreement.

*Strategic bombing of the North didn't kill a single civilian or military leader in the entire war - in large part thanks to Soviet ships in the Gulf sending info to the North Vietnamese. Linebacker did a lot of serious damage, but it still failed to end the war favourably for the US.

With regards to leaders, a failure to remove any with bombing does not prevent a victory as WWII's aerial destruction of Germany showed. In fact, in many cases it can be counter-productive to waste resources on it. As to Linebacker II, combined with the mining of harbors which cut off Soviet aid, it brought about the Paris Agreement. It's important to note that North Vietnam, due to its lack of a sizable domestic military industry depended upon foreign imports from nations like the USSR. During the bombings, they lost around 80% of their military supply line. That lack simply meant the NVA could function as an effective conventional force, and Tet as has been previously stated destroyed the unconventional threat of the VC. 

I'd agree with rinkou, you really have to go back further to find a point where "victory" is plausible. Because yes, you could say you just want to secure South Vietnam. But that's essentially part of what was agreed in Paris anyway - all it took was America out of the way for the North to renege and invade, and Congress wouldn't appropriate the funds to go back.

Post-Watergate, the scenario you paint is true. Paris secured South Vietnam (Fulfilling the OP), but after Nixon was removed the political will to maintain the agreement was lost. 1974 showed the ARVN could, with American logistical aid, stand on its own. Had the political will remained, 1975 would never have happened as another Linebacker would've been ordered and re-supplied South Vietnamese units would've easily blunted the NVA. And in my estimation, 1975 was the last point the DRV could've achieved victory as the Inter-Communist split was really starting to take hold (And thus the PRC now presented a Northern threat).

[crustyoldssg]

Jan 31, 2016 20:23:40 GMT guyverman1990 said:

Good day to you all once again. Today, I Thought it would be easier to speculate a much more recent historical divergence this time around.

My question is what if in Vietnam, the war ended in a decisive western victory as the title suggests? What would be the most feasible POV (point of divergence) in your vision? How would things go differently over the next 40 years? My guesses are that with the communist Viet Cong defeated, Communism itself will face a premature demise in Southeast Asia. Both the Khmer Rouge will end sooner and there would be no ruling communist regime in Laos in the present.

More success with the Vietnamization program would have yielded huge dividends,but from what my Viet Nam vet brethren tell me,Marvin the ARVN was as useless as screen doors on a submarine.We used similiar tactics in Iraq and Afhganistan,with mixed results,but from what I understand,in Viet Nam,it was a total debacle,with US forces carrying the brunt of the load.

[guyverman1990]

If the South Vietnamese/US Forces win, perhaps China would want to fight harder once they invade, because they'd be all the more intimidated due to capitalists winning a war at their doorsteps.

[abdulhadipasha]

An occupation wouldn't go any better than Iraq did, which was one of the easiest places to occupy - all the population lives in a flat river valley. Now imagine a larger population with major outside support with jungle everywhere. The only way we could have won was if we had removed the impetus for Communist victory, which would mean coming up with a scenario to radically reform the South. It's difficult to see why we got involved in the first place - the Domino Theory proved correct, but there were only two dominoes, and was losing Laos the end of the world?

The best bet is for Roosevelt to support decolonization of Indochina after WWII. Then we would have had a happy and grateful ally.