AHC: US Victory in Vietnam

Inspired by an argument in Politiyank, with a POD of 11-1-1955, have the US backed South Vietnam survive to the present day. For bonus points, have all of Indochina become capitalist.

E: also, ya know: don’t genocide Indochina and replace them with American settlers, or cause a nuclear war, or some other mass death scenario.
 
Last edited:

Marc

Donor
For more bonus points, have no Vietnam Memorial, along with no 2 million civilians dead, and several hundred thousand South-east Asian military dead on various sides.
 
Inspired by an argument in Politiyank, with a POD of 11-1-1955, have the US backed South Vietnam survive to the present day. For bonus points, have all of Indochina stay capitalist.

The bonus is impossible, due to there already being a ... well, USSR backed North Vietnam. Does it count if North Vietnam falls/reforms/reunifies at some point?
 
I'd think short, sharp spoiling offensives into the North might be very beneficial for reducing the intensity of the fighting in the south in order to strengthen the government there. Make these offensives extremely intense but very limited in duration, I'd even send Airborne and Marines deep into the north for a few days coupled with A linebacker stlye air offensive and pull out before China can react.

Given the Norths poverty losing much of their stockpiled equipment and destroying their infrastructure would place a great strain in their ability to sustain the insurgency in the south, making regular COIN efforts there more effective.
 
William Lind has argued that the problem is that a country can't fight another country's insurgencies for it. Once a government fighting an insurgency introduces foreign troops, its own population pretty much unites against the foreigners. This has happened again and again in history, so I think he is correct on this. One good historical example of this dynamic is the American War of Independence itself.

The problem is that without the Vietnam War happening, would anyone have learned this lesson? Otherwise the tendency would be to treat Vietnam as a rerun of Korea.

Now colonial powers have defeated insurgencies in their colonies. But these were colonies that were formally annexed or otherwise tied to the metropolitan country, and it was clear to the locals that there would be no "going home" for the colonial power, they would be here to stay. If you could settle Vietnam with Americans, even better. I'm assuming that something like this was off the table with the historical USA and the historical Cold War.

A more realistic strategy would have been to make it clear that any American assistance would be directed against North Vietnamese aggression and support for the Vietcong, but not against the Vietcong themselves, the Republic of Vietnam would be on their own against this. So no American ground forces in the country. Air support operating from bases in the Philippines and Thailand would still happen, and you could even do the IOTL bombing of North Vietnam though my impression is that it didn't accomplish much. The ARVN could be trained in the Philippines. At the most, but American units up against the North Vietnamese border so the North Vietnamese don't get any ideas about getting their regular army involved, and this could include doing something like the "Macnamara Line" and going into the adjacent portion of Laos. But nothing in any of the provinces not bordering North Vietnam.
 
Vietnam is pretty capitalist and friendly with the USA now, so if the Republic of Vietnam survives to the fall of the Berlin Wall, assuming that is not somehow butterflied away, you would probably get a negotiated reunification. It would have resulted in something alot like IOTL Vietnam, without the Communist symbolism. However, the history of Cambodia would be completely different, and almost certainly better, with any alternative Indochina war.
 

thorr97

Banned
"Have the US backed South Vietnam survive to the present day."

Simple! And you wouldn't even need a POD set back in the 50s.

Just have the Watergate break in not get detected. No detection, no "Plumbers" getting called in. No cover-up, no Constitutional Crisis and Nixon doesn't have to resign. Nixon thus remaining "large and in charge" come '75 there's then no abrogation of America's treaty obligations to the Republic of Vietnam. Those treaties upheld, the NVA's offensive just becomes a repeat of all their previous offensives and only succeeds in producing massive casualties among the Communist forces.

Every year after '75 would thus see South Vietnam's economy improve and strengthen. As of '74 the South's security situation was far more stable than it had been in over a decade. The Communist backed insurgency there had been well and truly shattered even the '72 Offensive by the North didn't change that. So, if the '75 Offensive is similarly crushed by the South & US air support then life in the South keeps improving at an accelerating pace. Leaving the North further and further behind both economically and militarily.

Thus by the 80's end, South Vietnam would be leading the Tiger Economies of the region. And once the Soviet Union falls so to would be its support of the North. Faced with China's resurgence and embracing of "capitalism," the North's leadership would be in a truly bad place. If they continued to stay their course then they faced being overwhelmed by China - and that's never been a palatable prospect for any Vietnamese. The continued economic growth of South Vietnam would be a glaring example and a terrible lure.

Unlike North Korea, the North Vietnamese would not have a willing benefactor in China to keep their regime propped up if they wanted to try the same "hermit kingdom" route.

So, after a few years of "wandering in the wilderness of the post-Soviet Union world" the North would seek reunification with South Vietnam in much the same way as the East sought it with West Germany.

And all this because one security guard at the Watergate Hotel Complex managed to miss a taped open door lock on one particular night.
 
Well, it all depends on how back you want the divergeance date to be. One unorthodox way to achieve this would be to have the US not get involved in Korea. Maybe Truman got blocked by other members or perhaps things went too quickly and China was able to get reinforcements or something. Regardless, the loss of Korea changes US policy dramatically. When France would ask for help in Indochina, the US would agree big time, because of the scathing loss of South Korea. So by early 1950s, the US goes and reinforces the French. Given that this is before North/South Vietnam, they wouldn't have to worry about dealing with invading North Korea. The US-French forces crushes the Vietnamese rebels and Indochina is brought under control. Maybe the US decides to take it off France's hand and if yes, develop it.
 
the IOTL bombing of North Vietnam though my impression is that it didn't accomplish much.

Depends on which phase you're talking about. Rolling Thunder from 1965-68 wasn't as effective as it could have been due to ROE restrictions (while still soaking up northern resources that could have been deployed elsewhere), but the Linebacker campaigns in 1972 were devastating, especially Linebacker II.
 
William Lind has argued that the problem is that a country can't fight another country's insurgencies for it. Once a government fighting an insurgency introduces foreign troops, its own population pretty much unites against the foreigners. This has happened again and again in history, so I think he is correct on this. One good historical example of this dynamic is the American War of Independence itself.

The problem is that without the Vietnam War happening, would anyone have learned this lesson? Otherwise the tendency would be to treat Vietnam as a rerun of Korea.

Now colonial powers have defeated insurgencies in their colonies. But these were colonies that were formally annexed or otherwise tied to the metropolitan country, and it was clear to the locals that there would be no "going home" for the colonial power, they would be here to stay. If you could settle Vietnam with Americans, even better. I'm assuming that something like this was off the table with the historical USA and the historical Cold War.

A more realistic strategy would have been to make it clear that any American assistance would be directed against North Vietnamese aggression and support for the Vietcong, but not against the Vietcong themselves, the Republic of Vietnam would be on their own against this. So no American ground forces in the country. Air support operating from bases in the Philippines and Thailand would still happen, and you could even do the IOTL bombing of North Vietnam though my impression is that it didn't accomplish much. The ARVN could be trained in the Philippines. At the most, but American units up against the North Vietnamese border so the North Vietnamese don't get any ideas about getting their regular army involved, and this could include doing something like the "Macnamara Line" and going into the adjacent portion of Laos. But nothing in any of the provinces not bordering North Vietnam.
Well, there was Malaya. Of course, in Vietnam, we or the French kinda killed the few pro-Americans that had nationalist credentials (including Diem - he was a bastard, but still) while in Malaya, the British made it clear they were willing to leave it to nationalists, just not the Communist ones.
 
a country can't fight another country's insurgencies for it.

^this^

The US simply couldn't win a full-scale war in Vietnam, because the will of the North Vietnamese would always be stronger than that of the American people. The North Vietnamese were fighting for the reunification of their nation, whereas the US was fighting to prop up an unstable regime an ocean away.

With that said, the US doesn't need to engage decisively. The US can deny the enemy victory by 'playing dirty'

•Dispense with large-scale search-and-destroy missions, free-fire zones, and the like. Instead, adopt the Combined Action Platoons across all of South Vietnam. IIRC, these units suffered 2x the average casualty rate while inflicting 8x the average number of casualties on the enemy, so they are 4x more effective. Plus, you can split the VC from their popular support where they'll whither on the vine

•Use Special Operations to cut off the Ho Chi Mhin Trail. Don't attack the personnel carrying the supplies, but rather call in airstrikes or artillery strikes to save putting American lives at risk. Don't try to completely destroy the trail (after all, it's just a trail through the jungle, not a rail or road network that can be bomber). Just keep the North from moving anything big down the trail. Keep it to a trickle that can be dealt with once it arrives in the RVN.

•In his book The Mission, The Men, and Me, Pete Blaber argues the US should've made the ARVN a force similar to the VC: light, flexible, localized, rather than a conventional military that proved to be ill-suited for both counterinsurgency and conventional warfare. An ARVN designed to 'out-guerilla the guerillas' would enjoy just as much, if not more, local support than the VC, training and supplies from the bottomless wallet that is the US, and enough air and artillery support to deal with any tight spots

Not sure how viable a strategy based on out-guerilla-ing the guerillas would be in the US political and military order of the day, but it's interesting food for thought
 

Anchises

Banned
"Have the US backed South Vietnam survive to the present day."

Simple! And you wouldn't even need a POD set back in the 50s.

Just have the Watergate break in not get detected. No detection, no "Plumbers" getting called in. No cover-up, no Constitutional Crisis and Nixon doesn't have to resign. Nixon thus remaining "large and in charge" come '75 there's then no abrogation of America's treaty obligations to the Republic of Vietnam. Those treaties upheld, the NVA's offensive just becomes a repeat of all their previous offensives and only succeeds in producing massive casualties among the Communist forces.

Every year after '75 would thus see South Vietnam's economy improve and strengthen. As of '74 the South's security situation was far more stable than it had been in over a decade. The Communist backed insurgency there had been well and truly shattered even the '72 Offensive by the North didn't change that. So, if the '75 Offensive is similarly crushed by the South & US air support then life in the South keeps improving at an accelerating pace. Leaving the North further and further behind both economically and militarily.

Thus by the 80's end, South Vietnam would be leading the Tiger Economies of the region. And once the Soviet Union falls so to would be its support of the North. Faced with China's resurgence and embracing of "capitalism," the North's leadership would be in a truly bad place. If they continued to stay their course then they faced being overwhelmed by China - and that's never been a palatable prospect for any Vietnamese. The continued economic growth of South Vietnam would be a glaring example and a terrible lure.

Unlike North Korea, the North Vietnamese would not have a willing benefactor in China to keep their regime propped up if they wanted to try the same "hermit kingdom" route.

So, after a few years of "wandering in the wilderness of the post-Soviet Union world" the North would seek reunification with South Vietnam in much the same way as the East sought it with West Germany.

And all this because one security guard at the Watergate Hotel Complex managed to miss a taped open door lock on one particular night.

Problem is:

How is America supposed to pay for continued operations?

The post war economic situation was shit in OTL.

In a TL where the USA continues to drop ordinance like candy and where millions (billions!) are flowing into South Vietnam the 70s will be even more nasty. And the oil price shock is going to happen too...

We are not necessarily entering "Fear and Loathing: Gumbo" territory BUT a continued Vietnam War is going to have big consequences for the 70s and 80s.

A different Cold War and harsher economic problems for the West among the most obvious.
 
Take the gloves off. If I recall correctly, the US military had its hands tied by excessive political decisions and so couldn't use all the advantages it had.
If you are fighting a war, then fight it with all of your ability and will, don't pretend you are better than the other guy by limiting your actions when he clearly won't do the same.
Allow your aircraft to use their long range AAM's instead of having to get visual identification of the target first. Intended to prevent accidental combat with Chinese aircraft, but actually meant Vietnamese pilots could get in closer than they should have. Most of North Vietnam should have been a free fire zone, use what you have to its best.
Target supplies and command structures built adjacent to temples or communities instead of imposing your own restrictions on targets. The north and the VC didn't worry too much about where a target was or what was around it, so why should you be so self restricting? Obviously try and limit unnecessary casualties, but when the north finds out (because America was too open about its aims and limitations) that you won't bomb these areas, guess where they parked their munitions convoys and set their comms relays?
Hit the north hard, and make it clear every appearance of their regular troops coming south will get an immediate and unrestricted counter reaction.
Stop pretending Laos and Cambodia aren't involved. Instead of a few irregulars and CIA types trying to stem movement down the Ho Chi Minh trail, use whatever is needed to block that route. Don't persuade people like the Hmong to fight for you, then give them less and less aid until they are overrun by NVA regulars.
Better PR, don't let the communist (and your own) press turn things like Tet into a total disaster. So a handful of VC got into the embassy grounds. Large chunks of the VC were wiped out during that and subsequently the north had to be even more heavily involved in supplying troops to fight, but the view to the world was that the US was losing. Counter with better PR & Psyops.
Better support for your own troops at home and in Vietnam, instead of leaving them high and dry and letting so many people back home hate them and call them baby killers.
Stop supporting corrupt leaders in the south.

Failing all that, don't get involved in the first place!
 
The elephant in the room is the South Vietnamese government, both before and after Diem, was cartoonishly corrupt to levels that'd make Latin American dictators blush. Assuming they'd automatically pull ahead of the North if the situation stabilized, especially if it looks like the only thing keeping the South up are US bayonets, assumes the endemic corruption or the lingering memory of Diem's persecution of the country's Buddhist majority would just go away with the passage of time.

The only winning move is not to play.
 

Anchises

Banned
Take the gloves off. If I recall correctly, the US military had its hands tied by excessive political decisions and so couldn't use all the advantages it had.
If you are fighting a war, then fight it with all of your ability and will, don't pretend you are better than the other guy by limiting your actions when he clearly won't do the same.
Allow your aircraft to use their long range AAM's instead of having to get visual identification of the target first. Intended to prevent accidental combat with Chinese aircraft, but actually meant Vietnamese pilots could get in closer than they should have. Most of North Vietnam should have been a free fire zone, use what you have to its best.
Target supplies and command structures built adjacent to temples or communities instead of imposing your own restrictions on targets. The north and the VC didn't worry too much about where a target was or what was around it, so why should you be so self restricting? Obviously try and limit unnecessary casualties, but when the north finds out (because America was too open about its aims and limitations) that you won't bomb these areas, guess where they parked their munitions convoys and set their comms relays?
Hit the north hard, and make it clear every appearance of their regular troops coming south will get an immediate and unrestricted counter reaction.
Stop pretending Laos and Cambodia aren't involved. Instead of a few irregulars and CIA types trying to stem movement down the Ho Chi Minh trail, use whatever is needed to block that route. Don't persuade people like the Hmong to fight for you, then give them less and less aid until they are overrun by NVA regulars.
Better PR, don't let the communist (and your own) press turn things like Tet into a total disaster. So a handful of VC got into the embassy grounds. Large chunks of the VC were wiped out during that and subsequently the north had to be even more heavily involved in supplying troops to fight, but the view to the world was that the US was losing. Counter with better PR & Psyops.
Better support for your own troops at home and in Vietnam, instead of leaving them high and dry and letting so many people back home hate them and call them baby killers.
Stop supporting corrupt leaders in the south.

Failing all that, don't get involved in the first place!

Well one of the "problems" was LBJ.

Rolling Thunder essentially tried to destroy the industry of a mostly agrarian nation.

To really damage the warmaking abilities of North Vietnam the Airforce had 2 possibilities (excluding WMDs):

1. North Vietnam was dependent on Chinese and Soviet aid. If the airforce destroys the supply lines from China (ports, rail lines etc.) then the NVA and VC have a MUCH Harder time. A prolonged war is imho very unlikely. Problem is that a succesful operation is a certain way to start a war with China.

2. Destroying the agriculture is the other way. LBJ never allowed the bombing of dams. This would have flooded the rice fields causing a massive famine. I doubt that China or the Warsaw Pact had enough surplus food to feed North Vietnam. And even if they manage to send "enough" food, there isn't enough transport capacity to send military supplies and food.

Problem here: P.R. It is hard to be the good guy when you are starving a poor backwards nation as an industrialized giant (and the moral repercussions of starving civilians).
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Take the gloves off. If I recall correctly, the US military had its hands tied by excessive political decisions and so couldn't use all the advantages it had.
If you are fighting a war, then fight it with all of your ability and will, don't pretend you are better than the other guy by limiting your actions when he clearly won't do the same.
Allow your aircraft to use their long range AAM's instead of having to get visual identification of the target first. Intended to prevent accidental combat with Chinese aircraft, but actually meant Vietnamese pilots could get in closer than they should have. Most of North Vietnam should have been a free fire zone, use what you have to its best.
Target supplies and command structures built adjacent to temples or communities instead of imposing your own restrictions on targets. The north and the VC didn't worry too much about where a target was or what was around it, so why should you be so self restricting? Obviously try and limit unnecessary casualties, but when the north finds out (because America was too open about its aims and limitations) that you won't bomb these areas, guess where they parked their munitions convoys and set their comms relays?
Hit the north hard, and make it clear every appearance of their regular troops coming south will get an immediate and unrestricted counter reaction.
Stop pretending Laos and Cambodia aren't involved. Instead of a few irregulars and CIA types trying to stem movement down the Ho Chi Minh trail, use whatever is needed to block that route. Don't persuade people like the Hmong to fight for you, then give them less and less aid until they are overrun by NVA regulars.
Better PR, don't let the communist (and your own) press turn things like Tet into a total disaster. So a handful of VC got into the embassy grounds. Large chunks of the VC were wiped out during that and subsequently the north had to be even more heavily involved in supplying troops to fight, but the view to the world was that the US was losing. Counter with better PR & Psyops.
Better support for your own troops at home and in Vietnam, instead of leaving them high and dry and letting so many people back home hate them and call them baby killers.
Stop supporting corrupt leaders in the south.

Failing all that, don't get involved in the first place!
You seem to be overestimating the strength of air power in the 1960s . You also dramatically overestimate the ability of America to do anything about corruption in South Vietnam. Is America supposed to remove every corrupt official in the South? Good luck running the country after two-thirds of the officer corps, police, and civilian administration has been purged. The PR and propaganda machine was running as hard as it could already. The only thing they could have done better is ban the media from reporting on the war. People seem to keep blaming the American civilians, but the military was even more rotten and demoralized. Drug addiction and fragging was at an all-time high.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Inspired by an argument in Politiyank, with a POD of 11-1-1955, have the US backed South Vietnam survive to the present day. For bonus points, have all of Indochina become capitalist.

E: also, ya know: don’t genocide Indochina and replace them with American settlers, or cause a nuclear war, or some other mass death scenario.
Diplomatic solution where US exploits Sino-Soviet split to get either China or the USSR (more likely China) to drop support for the North Vietnamese.

This is actually in China's best geopolitical interest because a unified Vietnam became Soviet aligned, and China went to war with them in 1979.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Take the gloves off. If I recall correctly, the US military had its hands tied by excessive political decisions and so couldn't use all the advantages it had.
If you are fighting a war, then fight it with all of your ability and will, don't pretend you are better than the other guy by limiting your actions when he clearly won't do the same.
Allow your aircraft to use their long range AAM's instead of having to get visual identification of the target first. Intended to prevent accidental combat with Chinese aircraft, but actually meant Vietnamese pilots could get in closer than they should have. Most of North Vietnam should have been a free fire zone, use what you have to its best.
Target supplies and command structures built adjacent to temples or communities instead of imposing your own restrictions on targets. The north and the VC didn't worry too much about where a target was or what was around it, so why should you be so self restricting? Obviously try and limit unnecessary casualties, but when the north finds out (because America was too open about its aims and limitations) that you won't bomb these areas, guess where they parked their munitions convoys and set their comms relays?
Hit the north hard, and make it clear every appearance of their regular troops coming south will get an immediate and unrestricted counter reaction.
Stop pretending Laos and Cambodia aren't involved. Instead of a few irregulars and CIA types trying to stem movement down the Ho Chi Minh trail, use whatever is needed to block that route. Don't persuade people like the Hmong to fight for you, then give them less and less aid until they are overrun by NVA regulars.
Better PR, don't let the communist (and your own) press turn things like Tet into a total disaster. So a handful of VC got into the embassy grounds. Large chunks of the VC were wiped out during that and subsequently the north had to be even more heavily involved in supplying troops to fight, but the view to the world was that the US was losing. Counter with better PR & Psyops.
Better support for your own troops at home and in Vietnam, instead of leaving them high and dry and letting so many people back home hate them and call them baby killers.
Stop supporting corrupt leaders in the south.

Failing all that, don't get involved in the first place!
was there actually a lot of restrictions on bombings in the south?

I mean, that's how the common legend has it, but then you look at South Vietnamese civilian death figures and those are pretty high: and you had things like free fire zones or entire villages being obliterated to get a handful of Vietcongs out of them, I mean the US policy in Vietnam wasn't very restricted.

The other thing is a lot of the things you've named required much higher troop presence than actually was available: if the US troop presence was 1.5 million instead of 500k then yeah I could see the US permanently holding down territory and block Ho Chi Minh trial but you can't do that with a 1960s era mass conscript cold war army with otl troop levels.
 
Last edited:

RousseauX

Donor
^this^

•Dispense with large-scale search-and-destroy missions, free-fire zones, and the like. Instead, adopt the Combined Action Platoons across all of South Vietnam. IIRC, these units suffered 2x the average casualty rate while inflicting 8x the average number of casualties on the enemy, so they are 4x more effective. Plus, you can split the VC from their popular support where they'll whither on the vine
But the US did achieve very favorable loss-exchange ratios all throughout the war, but the US public didn't care about the 10 Vietcong who were killed, they cared about the 1 american.
•Use Special Operations to cut off the Ho Chi Mhin Trail. Don't attack the personnel carrying the supplies, but rather call in airstrikes or artillery strikes to save putting American lives at risk. Don't try to completely destroy the trail (after all, it's just a trail through the jungle, not a rail or road network that can be bomber). Just keep the North from moving anything big down the trail. Keep it to a trickle that can be dealt with once it arrives in the RVN.
But this was what the US tried for most of the war, until Nixon escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia. The problem was that the North Vietnamese were really good at repairing and keeping the trail going even under the bombings.
•In his book The Mission, The Men, and Me, Pete Blaber argues the US should've made the ARVN a force similar to the VC: light, flexible, localized, rather than a conventional military that proved to be ill-suited for both counterinsurgency and conventional warfare. An ARVN designed to 'out-guerilla the guerillas' would enjoy just as much, if not more, local support than the VC, training and supplies from the bottomless wallet that is the US, and enough air and artillery support to deal with any tight spots
This idea is actually probably the most promising in theory: the problem is that this relies on the South Vietnamese government having more legitimacy than it actually did, which is a political issue and I'm not sure how the US resolves that.
Problem here: P.R. It is hard to be the good guy when you are starving a poor backwards nation as an industrialized giant (and the moral repercussions of starving civilians).
The US public outside of the new left never really gave a shit about dead vietnamese, it was always the dead americans coming home and "why aren't we winning" that turned the US public against the war.
 
Last edited:
Top