What if the United States would have written off South Vietnam as a lost cause early on in the Vietnam War and not supported it? Would the draft still be in place?
South Vietnam Written off as a Lost Cause, Early
- Thread starter Montgomerie Ward
- Start date
assuming the USA didn't go intervening somewhere else... the nation would be vastly better off economically, socially, morale... no vast amounts spent on propping up SV and armaments, no protests, no sense of dismal failure in the 70s. The downside would be the lack of military weaponry testing/upgrading. The war did serve as a testbed for such things as helicopters, the M16, etc, and the bugs were worked out in the field. Not to mention the development of fighter pilot skills. If the US found itself in a scrap later on, it might find itself scrambling to improve weapons and skills in a hurry...
Alternate History
Banned
The North would have won an easy victory, of course. I think Ho would have become a lot more moderate, perhaps moving closer to the non-aligned nations, once Vietnam was consolidated and he didn't so urgently need Soviet and Chinese aid (of which there would have been less anyway due to the smaller demand). The way I see it, his socialism was mostly about securing national independence and opposition to the USA, more of a 'national liberation' than genuine commitment to an international revolution. The USA probably wouldn't have liked him either way and might have tried to fund coups, which may or may not have succeeded. Vietnam is in a much better shape though, no matter what.
TFSmith121
Banned
Good move
Staying out in the 1950s in the most painless; withdrawing after the anti-Diem coup would be an easy delta as well.
The resultin RVN "might" even be neutralized; if there is a Communist takeover, they will be the aggressor, with the obvious reaction and perceptions. The Vietnamese could play the Soviets and Chinese off against each other and take more of a "Titoist" approach to the Cold War.
Cambodia and Laos probably remain neutral, and Thailand is the "front-line" Western-aligned state in SEA.
Hundreds of thousands of people do not die in a decade of conflict.
The U.S. maintains selective service through to the end of the Cold War.
Best,
Staying out in the 1950s in the most painless; withdrawing after the anti-Diem coup would be an easy delta as well.
The resultin RVN "might" even be neutralized; if there is a Communist takeover, they will be the aggressor, with the obvious reaction and perceptions. The Vietnamese could play the Soviets and Chinese off against each other and take more of a "Titoist" approach to the Cold War.
Cambodia and Laos probably remain neutral, and Thailand is the "front-line" Western-aligned state in SEA.
Hundreds of thousands of people do not die in a decade of conflict.
The U.S. maintains selective service through to the end of the Cold War.
Best,
By the time of the anti-Diem coup, there were already thousands of "advisors" fighting on the side of the Vietnamese. Plus, the anti-Diem coup was largely seen as JFK's fault- a South Vietnamese collapse after that would have hurt the Democrats politically.
How difficult would it have been to stay out after the Korean War ended in 1953? Because I've heard arguments that American entry into the Vietnam War was inevitable by the time the Korean War ended and counterarguments that Eisenhower could have just "given up" ALL OF VIETNAM and not just North Vietnam after Diem Bien Phu without a serious loss of credibility or serious political consequences.
Flocculencio
Donor
The knock on social effects in the US would be huge.
For one thing you'd have a much less vibrant counterculture (and therefore lose the effect it had when it went mainstream in the late 70s)
For one thing you'd have a much less vibrant counterculture (and therefore lose the effect it had when it went mainstream in the late 70s)
TFSmith121
Banned
The MAAG was a few thousand in 1963
The MAAG was a few thousand in '63, iirc; the US had more troops on the ground in Lebanon in the 1950s intervention and pulled out; hell, there was probably a larger footprint at Wheelus AFB when the Libyans asked the USAF to leave.
Same for North China in 1945-46, or the ROK before 1948.
DDE was smart enough to stay out of Vietnam in the 1950s; even the commitment during the Kennedy Administration was marginal.
Best,
The MAAG was a few thousand in '63, iirc; the US had more troops on the ground in Lebanon in the 1950s intervention and pulled out; hell, there was probably a larger footprint at Wheelus AFB when the Libyans asked the USAF to leave.
Same for North China in 1945-46, or the ROK before 1948.
DDE was smart enough to stay out of Vietnam in the 1950s; even the commitment during the Kennedy Administration was marginal.
Best,
Yes, we probably wouldn't have had the New Left, at least not as we know it in OTL. There would still be a bit of influence from the civl-rghts movement, but I don't think that would impart the same degree of bomb-throwing urgency that you got from Vietnam.
I still think the drug culture, and possibly the hippies more generally, would still have emerged, though minus whatever impact the antiwar-based movements had on them. No Weather Underground to spring Dr. Leary from jail, for example.
TFSmith121
Banned
A non-aligned and stable Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos
A non-aligned and stable Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos probably causes some interesting ripples in the Sino-Soviet and Sino-American relationships, as well as the mutual relationships between the U.S., USSR, PRC, India, Pakistan, and Iran.
The decoupling of South Asia from the Cold War to a greater extent, based on the success of Finlandization in SEA?
Or a stronger rivalry in South Asia and Iran because of SEA "not" becoming an arena of direct and proxy conflict?
Best,
A non-aligned and stable Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos probably causes some interesting ripples in the Sino-Soviet and Sino-American relationships, as well as the mutual relationships between the U.S., USSR, PRC, India, Pakistan, and Iran.
The decoupling of South Asia from the Cold War to a greater extent, based on the success of Finlandization in SEA?
Or a stronger rivalry in South Asia and Iran because of SEA "not" becoming an arena of direct and proxy conflict?
Best,
TFSmith121
Banned
Cambodia was already neutralist...
Cambodia was already neutralist...
Thailand is likely, and given the relative stability of the nation, it probably would be able to handle the stresses of the era.
Malaysia and the PI had already had and defeated their communist insurgencies by the 1960s, and have the benefit of being separated (essentially) from any exterior sources of supply for insurgents.
I think the most interesting question is how a stable Vietnam(s) (the RVN could survive, simply as a neutral state, or it could unify with the North) functions in terms of playing the Soviets off against the Chinese, and vice-versa.
One interesting delta in all this is if the US plays the China card earlier or later than historically.
Best,
Cambodia was already neutralist...
Thailand is likely, and given the relative stability of the nation, it probably would be able to handle the stresses of the era.
Malaysia and the PI had already had and defeated their communist insurgencies by the 1960s, and have the benefit of being separated (essentially) from any exterior sources of supply for insurgents.
I think the most interesting question is how a stable Vietnam(s) (the RVN could survive, simply as a neutral state, or it could unify with the North) functions in terms of playing the Soviets off against the Chinese, and vice-versa.
One interesting delta in all this is if the US plays the China card earlier or later than historically.
Best,
TFSmith121
Banned
Sino-Soviet border conflict was in '69;
Sino-Soviet border conflict was in '69, but there had been tensions and deep disagreements between the two powers since Krushchev's de-Stalinization, which continued after Brezhnev took power...
If SEA is essentially "Finlandized" since the early 1960s, I could see the obvious mutual interests between the US and PRC coming to the fore earlier than 1971.
The flip side is that with no conflict in SEA from the late 1950s/early 1960s, it is possible the US bet on India in the Kennedy Administration might bear fruit, which is an entirely different delta... especially if the Sino-Indian conflict occurs on schedule.
NE Asia, I think, remains a stalemated military front, as historically, with Japan and the ROK firmly in the US camp and the DPRK trying to negotiate the walk between the USSR and the PRC...
The ROC is in an interesting situation - without a big power conflict in SEA, they may be able to work their way to a "Republic of Taiwan" which puts them in the realm of the Phillippines - a US ally, but not anything to delay US and Chinese rapprochement. It's a stretch, but the SEA conflicts (including Cambodia and Laos) really colored a lot of strategic thinking in the 1950s and 1960s; that may not be as present in "this" world (sans Vietnam War with a capital W).
Indonesia may break for the West earlier, as well.
There are some ripples that reach out to Iran and SW Asia, as well, of course.
Best,
Sino-Soviet border conflict was in '69, but there had been tensions and deep disagreements between the two powers since Krushchev's de-Stalinization, which continued after Brezhnev took power...
If SEA is essentially "Finlandized" since the early 1960s, I could see the obvious mutual interests between the US and PRC coming to the fore earlier than 1971.
The flip side is that with no conflict in SEA from the late 1950s/early 1960s, it is possible the US bet on India in the Kennedy Administration might bear fruit, which is an entirely different delta... especially if the Sino-Indian conflict occurs on schedule.
NE Asia, I think, remains a stalemated military front, as historically, with Japan and the ROK firmly in the US camp and the DPRK trying to negotiate the walk between the USSR and the PRC...
The ROC is in an interesting situation - without a big power conflict in SEA, they may be able to work their way to a "Republic of Taiwan" which puts them in the realm of the Phillippines - a US ally, but not anything to delay US and Chinese rapprochement. It's a stretch, but the SEA conflicts (including Cambodia and Laos) really colored a lot of strategic thinking in the 1950s and 1960s; that may not be as present in "this" world (sans Vietnam War with a capital W).
Indonesia may break for the West earlier, as well.
There are some ripples that reach out to Iran and SW Asia, as well, of course.
Best,
With early communsit victory and unified Vietnam who knows what happens. US might see Vietnam as proof of communis agressive expansion and would see Cambodia as place where it stops. Or write it and Laos off and concentrate on Thailand, but that might be problematic if almost entire SE Asia goes red.
No Vietnam War = An American Golden Age? (At least until 1973 and the Oil Crisis)
For the USA the advantages would by far outweigh the disadvantages.
No direct involvement in Vietnam probably means more money for NASA between 1965 and 1975. Therefore: a few more Moon landings in the early 1970s; the first of 4 Skylabs launched in 1969 instead of one launched in 1973; more unmanned space probes in the 1970s including the Voyager Mars probe instead of the cheaper Viking; and the USAF Manned Orbial Laboratory, would not have been delayed and then cancelled.
Peversely no Vitenam War might mean larger American armed forces in the 1970s. So much larger that there might not be the "Reagan Buildup" of the 1980s because they were already that large.
In the case of the US Navy a force of 15 attack carries might be maintained in the 1970s instead of being run down to 12. Furthermore enough 20-knot amphibious shipping might be built to transport 1.5 or even two full Marine Expeditionary Forces instead of only one.
No Vietnam War also means a smaller national debt and less debt interest, which would pay for some of the increases in the size of the American armed forces after 1975.
If the larger American armed forces couldn't find enough volunteers then it would have to maintain the draft.
For the USA the advantages would by far outweigh the disadvantages.
No direct involvement in Vietnam probably means more money for NASA between 1965 and 1975. Therefore: a few more Moon landings in the early 1970s; the first of 4 Skylabs launched in 1969 instead of one launched in 1973; more unmanned space probes in the 1970s including the Voyager Mars probe instead of the cheaper Viking; and the USAF Manned Orbial Laboratory, would not have been delayed and then cancelled.
Peversely no Vitenam War might mean larger American armed forces in the 1970s. So much larger that there might not be the "Reagan Buildup" of the 1980s because they were already that large.
In the case of the US Navy a force of 15 attack carries might be maintained in the 1970s instead of being run down to 12. Furthermore enough 20-knot amphibious shipping might be built to transport 1.5 or even two full Marine Expeditionary Forces instead of only one.
No Vietnam War also means a smaller national debt and less debt interest, which would pay for some of the increases in the size of the American armed forces after 1975.
If the larger American armed forces couldn't find enough volunteers then it would have to maintain the draft.
Last edited:
Wouldn't the economic issues of the 1970s still hit the US hard enough for a downsizing of the military and/or NASA?
RousseauX
Donor
Because the military technology starting to come out of the 1970s (computerization etc) meant that large conscript armies are increasingly obsolete and military forces are much more efficient when they are capital rather than labor intensive. Therefore a well educated, motivated volunteer army trumps a conscript one.
If you want an example of this, see Gulf War 1991, Saddam's mass conscript army probably would have done decently against the US if both sides used 1950s era technology, but got tore apart using 80s-90s era tech.
The US didn't use a mass-conscript army though, it was based on selective service. Conversely, it's easier to have a well educated army if you do it that way, rather than all-volunteer (think about who's volunteering). To think that Saddam would have done better with a volunteer army (if he somehow gets them...) is to misidentify the cause of his defeat, doctrine, tech and air supremacy.
For an example of 'mass conscript', look no further than the Prussians in the 19th century and up to WWI. Their force was not worse off for having mandatory service, and their population based was well educated. Just look at what happened to the professional army of France in the 1870-71 war.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, American conscription isn't necessarily mass-conscription. It's just compulsory service based on how many men the military needs, and how many they need to fill the gaps between suitable volunteers and desired total under arms.
TFSmith121
Banned
True - "who knows what happens" with this large of a
True - "who knows what happens" with this large of a delta and the time frame of 1955-65...
Thailand seems the obvious US ally in SEA; maybe more of a relationship with Malaysia, and more extensive aid to the RoP and possibly Taiwan and Indonesia, depending upon events there.
Best,
True - "who knows what happens" with this large of a delta and the time frame of 1955-65...
Thailand seems the obvious US ally in SEA; maybe more of a relationship with Malaysia, and more extensive aid to the RoP and possibly Taiwan and Indonesia, depending upon events there.
Best,