AH Challenge: South Vietnam survives
- Thread starter MrHola
- Start date
Easy.
No Watergate. A stronger Nixon continues support for South Vietnam after the America pullout.
North Vietnamese invasion defeated. South Vietnam survives.
Definetly stays seprate from the NOrth.
The only reason the Germanies united is because the Wall fell. Note that nothing like that has happen in Vietnam.
No Watergate. A stronger Nixon continues support for South Vietnam after the America pullout.
North Vietnamese invasion defeated. South Vietnam survives.
Definetly stays seprate from the NOrth.
The only reason the Germanies united is because the Wall fell. Note that nothing like that has happen in Vietnam.
Well, I think it is possible that a full US commitment could see the south vietnam administration survive, but the land and its population would be dead, unless the US radically changed its methods of war.
I don't know my SE Asian history or geography all that well, but is there any chance that the South Vietnamese could pull a Taiwan?
There are, as already outlined, three basic possibilities.
The first is keeping Diem alive, as he seemed to have the potential to rally South Vietnam (with enough American assistance, of course).
The second is a Korean style situation with large American forces permanently committed. This probably relies on the Tet Offence being seen for what it was—a crushing defeat of the Viet Cong & a blow to North Vietnamese ambitions. (Of course in the US it was seen in pretty much the opposite light.)
The third is no Watergate. That means Nixon keeps the money, equipment, and air support flowing and the North Vietnamese get their ass kicked.
Pick your favourite, and we can probably find a POD.
The SEAsian benefits are fairly large: no Pol Pot, no boat people, no Chinese-Vietnamese war, and a generally more stable environment. The benefits to America, conversely, are mostly negative: a continuing expensive commitment and major public relations problems at home.
The first is keeping Diem alive, as he seemed to have the potential to rally South Vietnam (with enough American assistance, of course).
The second is a Korean style situation with large American forces permanently committed. This probably relies on the Tet Offence being seen for what it was—a crushing defeat of the Viet Cong & a blow to North Vietnamese ambitions. (Of course in the US it was seen in pretty much the opposite light.)
The third is no Watergate. That means Nixon keeps the money, equipment, and air support flowing and the North Vietnamese get their ass kicked.
Pick your favourite, and we can probably find a POD.
The SEAsian benefits are fairly large: no Pol Pot, no boat people, no Chinese-Vietnamese war, and a generally more stable environment. The benefits to America, conversely, are mostly negative: a continuing expensive commitment and major public relations problems at home.
Archibald
Banned
Not exactly the subject of this thread (maybe) but I'd like to consider this hypothesis.
In brief, Mr Monk, can we imagine that South Vietnam survive without american involvement in 1964 ?
Kennedy assassinated or not is not the most important point here, maybe we can keep Johnson as president.
In brief : the plot to assassinate Diem is scrapped by Kennedy around october 1963.
Diem more or less manage to hold south vietnam, enough to avoid a direct american involvement.
Johnson replace the direct involvement by two major contributions
- Advisors, CIA, special forces, mercenaries (in short, everything aside american soldiers!)
- massive FMS sales starting in 1965.
I'm more interested in aircrafts; there would be massive deliveries of F-5A Tigers (yes, I know it happened in OTL) but also one or two sqadrons of F-8 Crusaders, maybe A-3B Skywarriors for conventional bombing, and so on...
I even thought about B-47B/E Stratojets which were massively withdrawn of USAF inventory at the time.
Imagine a SVNAF "Rolling Thunder" with second-hands B-47s instead of USAF B-52s ?
I recognize this last idea is not very realistic : B-47s were hard to maintain and difficult to fly even for SAC... SVNAF is probably way too weak to support such bombers!
Bigger than defeat?!
If the war ends what PR problem are talking about?
South Korea is not a PR problem.
Bigger than defeat?!
If the war ends what PR problem are talking about?
South Korea is not a PR problem.
I am not certain but he may have referred to the probable increased access to south vietnam by the media. In Korea, mostly the north was bombed, and the press couldn't get good pictures of that, or they didn't want to. In Vietnam, the majority of the bombing fell on the south, and if the war had continued it may have been intensified. Imagine the PR problems for any government accused of genocide (or at least mass murder, since genocide implies a deliberate destruction).
The US media were getting a lot of nasty images home, and Tet woke them up to the extent of what was going on.
Winning in Viet Nam means, even without the sudden Tet style wake-up call, that the US public sees a lot more of what the government is willing to do.
Unlike Korea (heavy bombing, no Viet Cong insurgency, WWII style battles) Viet Nam has a major insurgency, it has nasty jungle warfare, it has the US doing all the things it did IOTL Viet Nam except even more of it.
Remember "winning" in Viet Nam still leaves you with adventurous North Vietnamese prone to invasion, a possible resurgence of the Viet Cong, a government that is much worse than the South Korean government, and so forth.
Public relations also depends on which victory scenario we want. Nixon/no Watergate & RFK (see below) probably gets the best press, Diem alive the second best—Tet PR victory and LBJ's second term is probably the worst press.
(A fourth way to win the Viet Nam is have RFK live, win the nomination, win the general, and do Vietnamization faster/earlier than Nixon.)
Certainly as F-4s come into service older planes can be given to the South Vietnamese, but I doubt heavy bombers or top-of-the-line stuff is needed. Without direct American involvement the Chinese and USSR will not engage in quite the one-up competition they did IOTL; the relative air edge of the ATL South Vietnamese might be as large as the US edge was. (Depending more on training than anything else, probably. What would be most useful is Top Gun & Bombing School / South Vietnamese edition.)
As with OTL what matters most is the Viet Cong. South Vietnam, backed by indirect American assistance, can beat the North Vietnamese. However neither South Vietnam nor the Americans can beat the Viet Cong without either a Tet analogue that is equally bad for the insurgency or the really dirty/effective counter-insurgency tactics which means pretty bad PR problems for the US government.
Winning in Viet Nam means, even without the sudden Tet style wake-up call, that the US public sees a lot more of what the government is willing to do.
Unlike Korea (heavy bombing, no Viet Cong insurgency, WWII style battles) Viet Nam has a major insurgency, it has nasty jungle warfare, it has the US doing all the things it did IOTL Viet Nam except even more of it.
Remember "winning" in Viet Nam still leaves you with adventurous North Vietnamese prone to invasion, a possible resurgence of the Viet Cong, a government that is much worse than the South Korean government, and so forth.
Public relations also depends on which victory scenario we want. Nixon/no Watergate & RFK (see below) probably gets the best press, Diem alive the second best—Tet PR victory and LBJ's second term is probably the worst press.
(A fourth way to win the Viet Nam is have RFK live, win the nomination, win the general, and do Vietnamization faster/earlier than Nixon.)
Certainly as F-4s come into service older planes can be given to the South Vietnamese, but I doubt heavy bombers or top-of-the-line stuff is needed. Without direct American involvement the Chinese and USSR will not engage in quite the one-up competition they did IOTL; the relative air edge of the ATL South Vietnamese might be as large as the US edge was. (Depending more on training than anything else, probably. What would be most useful is Top Gun & Bombing School / South Vietnamese edition.)
As with OTL what matters most is the Viet Cong. South Vietnam, backed by indirect American assistance, can beat the North Vietnamese. However neither South Vietnam nor the Americans can beat the Viet Cong without either a Tet analogue that is equally bad for the insurgency or the really dirty/effective counter-insurgency tactics which means pretty bad PR problems for the US government.
Archibald
Banned
How long would South Vietnam had lasted ? I think a communist victory is more likely, its only a matter of time...
would this scenario works ?
Ok, a kind of Tet offensive happen, is crushed by Diem in an awful way.
Then scandal happen because of course Diem regime has been heavily backed by Johnson administration.
It would be a kind of irangate, but wouldn't disturb the whole country as the Vietnam war did (because US soldiers are not directly involved).
But the date of this Viet Cong offensive and the following scandal is very important because of the 1968 election!
If it happen before the election it can prevent Johnson being candidate (a bit like what happened in OTL).
But if it happen around 1969 (long after the election...) Johnson is clear.
South Vietnam survives only until 2000 and after that, it will merge to North Vietnam.
Last edited:
