AHC: US stays in Vietnam, and goes into Angola too

Eldritch Po l i t b u ro

How can the US a) not withdraw its forces from the fighting in Vietnam, and b) militarily intervene in Angola

Pretty sure you'd need a very special kind of president (crazy)

Soon after that the oil crisis hits
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Why would we want to go into Angola? The SADF was doing just fine as our catspaws. We didn't even have to aid them.
 

HeavyWeaponsGuy

Banned
MacCaulay said:
Why would we want to go into Angola? The SADF was doing just fine as our catspaws. We didn't even have to aid them.
Click to expand...

The powers-that-be took every possible chance with Angola specifically to make sure that Angola was not going to become an African Vietnam, State and other policymakers knew that Angola had all the makings of being "that one war we just had to stick ourselves into", and they knew the public wouldn't buy it.

More importantly however, is the fact that the US would have no choice but to reverse years of slow and steady drift away from the South African government, and it would throw away several important relationships with black African countries in the middle of a time where the Soviets were being particularly aggressive there. Save for a few states that trade with the South Africans as much out of necessity and opportunism as anything else (namely Zambia and Malawi, the latter whom had a president by the name of Hastings Kamuzu Banda who was very supportive of the West and of South Africa), not to mention of course the very real possibility of race riots and other serious (and quite frankly rather justified) unrest from the black community if the United States.

In short, it's a guaranteed firestorm, both at home and abroad, and that's before we find out how nasty fighting in Angola is.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
HeavyWeaponsGuy said:
The powers-that-be took every possible chance with Angola specifically to make sure that Angola was not going to become an African Vietnam, State and other policymakers knew that Angola had all the makings of being "that one war we just had to stick ourselves into", and they knew the public wouldn't buy it.

More importantly however, is the fact that the US would have no choice but to reverse years of slow and steady drift away from the South African government, and it would throw away several important relationships with black African countries in the middle of a time where the Soviets were being particularly aggressive there. Save for a few states that trade with the South Africans as much out of necessity and opportunism as anything else (namely Zambia and Malawi, the latter whom had a president by the name of Hastings Kamuzu Banda who was very supportive of the West and of South Africa), not to mention of course the very real possibility of race riots and other serious (and quite frankly rather justified) unrest from the black community if the United States.

In short, it's a guaranteed firestorm, both at home and abroad, and that's before we find out how nasty fighting in Angola is.
Click to expand...

Right.

But why would we want to?
 

superkuf

couldawouldashoulda said:
How can the US a) not withdraw its forces from the fighting in Vietnam, and b) militarily intervene in Angola

Pretty sure you'd need a very special kind of president (crazy)

Soon after that the oil crisis hits
Click to expand...

A is not impossible. Let general Abrams run the show instead of Westmoreland. Early vietnamization and counter insugrency instead of WW3 against guerillas. Keep the american troop numbers low, mine the North Vietnam habours early and some good PR on "why we fight". With some luck following this POD South Vietnam may survive.

B is more difficult. Why should the US military intervene in a post-colonial fight among three ex-guerilla movements? South Vietnam was at least a SEATO parcipiant and a recognized independent country - Angola was neither. If the US wanted to screw Angola it could force american companies to not buy angolian oil or use angolian habours. I think a large part of Angolas official income came from selling oil to US-based companies ... Boots on the ground would need a crazy president, since the Congress would claim it was an act of war needing their approval.
 
Julius Vogel

Julius Vogel

Angola would have some pretty big differences to Vietnam that should mean no intervention long before soldiers arrive. For one, there are no really effective, useful neighbours (only Zambia right?) akin to say China or otherwise, to funnel supplies/support though, for another, Angola was a long way from any potential supporter and required any supporter to be able to get to Angola without interception.

If America was going to get more involved, ala boots on the ground, surely they would first put in place a naval task group that would interdict the air and sea ports from unfriendly nations. The supporter would either need to break that blockade or funnel support through Zambia, who, if supportive, would be incredibly vulnerable to raids and rather an awkward conduit
 

AdA

Angola

To get the US directly involved in Angola, you need a Portuguese POD. Let's have General humberto Delgado seize power after he won the 68 election that was rigged by the government, and instal a democratic government with US support. Then let's have a slower transition to independence for Portuguese Colonies, not the, "we're out, you guys fight it out to see who rules this" way it was. We can have a US monitored election in Angola and when FNLA wins and MPLA tries to take over the country with Soviet/Cuban support lets have a joint US/Portuguese force deploy there to restore democratic order.

A US win in Vietnam requires a different South Vietanmese government more than it requires a different US commander.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top