Alternatives to direct intervention in Vietnam

What could have been alternatives for the US to explore except for a war with Vietnam? Suggestions are welcomed :)

I could see maybe the US supplying South Vietnam with weapons and actually training the South Vietnamese Army. Another option could be to just ignore Vietnam since it posed no direct threat to the US, but that would go against their Containment policy and their Domino theory.
 
What could have been alternatives for the US to explore except for a war with Vietnam? Suggestions are welcomed :)

I could see maybe the US supplying South Vietnam with weapons and actually training the South Vietnamese Army. Another option could be to just ignore Vietnam since it posed no direct threat to the US, but that would go against their Containment policy and their Domino theory.

I don't think pure financial support would be enough. Diems regime was corrupt and his successors were even worse, so most of the money would just disapear and weapons be sold on the black market.

But maybe the US could have won if they had contented themselfs to preventing the Vietcong form wining instead of trying to eredicate it.
I would call this the "Columbian Solution".
The US deploys only limited elite troops and instructors to Vietnam.
When the Vietcong stage a major offensive out of the jungle the US steps in and boms it to pieces. If that isn't enough Marines are send to assist the South until the worst is over, but withdraw once the offensive is repelled.
US bombs North Vietnam, offering to stop the bombings, when they withdraw their forces from the South.
If the ARVN thinks it is strong enough to reconquer areas it can do so, but the US is not sending ground-forces for this.
I think with this strategy the South Vietnames goverment would have remained in control of the cities and costline, while he USA would have avoided most of the politcal and economic damage from the war.
 

Susano

Banned
The problem with direct military actions against North Vietnam is of course China. I mean, they dont like Vietnam, but they like the USA being in Vietnam, and potentially at their border, even less.

And bombing? How? It will either be highly ineffective, due to the Jungle and all, or so brutal as to drive the South Vietnamese population into the arms of the Vietcong like IOTL.

And on-off Marine interventions do not sound very feasible to me. They would have to be called in so often that it would make little difference to a permanent presence...

The real problem is, as youve said, the corrupt South Vietnamese regimes. You can only win a guerilla war by capturing "hearts and minds", and that just doesnt work if you have to work through such regimes.
 
Keep it at advisors level. When Rolling Thunder rolls in do it as per OTL, halt it , offer to talk, when that fails start again (stronger than OTL), halt again but be clear if talks fail again gloves come off, when that fails pull a Linebacker and mine Haiphong. without dense air defences losses are low and with full force damage is greater. After a while offer to halt if talks continue. When they do seta firm golas of what is to be reached by when or bombing resumes.
 
The real problem is, as youve said, the corrupt South Vietnamese regimes. You can only win a guerilla war by capturing "hearts and minds", and that just doesnt work if you have to work through such regimes.

Okay, so if Diem is assassinated as OTL and General Duong Van Minh takes over, could have been a better leader? From what I've read, he had the support of the people, albeit the ones in the South but still, if he had taken a keener interest in developing South Vietnam, could he (with US support) contain the North at least?
 
Big Minh is a mercenary who sells his services to the highest bidder: you don't need much for Nhu to bring him around and thus ensure the countercoup's success in November 1963. There isn't an effective government until the Thieu-Ky junta takes power in May 1965, 18 months later.


I've argued that apart from selling firstline (F-4, A-4, A-7, ECM, KC-130. refuelling probes) equipment to ARVN, you need more of the honest generals in senior posts. There were plenty of them IOTL but were underutilized. Better junior officers is the key as well: everything I've read indicates that the NCOs were generally good, enlisted men a mixed batch, but the junior officers (O-1/O-5) were horrible because they got commissions based on connections, not meritocracy.

Another thing is to get rid of Ky, who is a Midas in reverse and a virtual caudillo. Thieu doesn't gain the upper hand until early '68 when he wins the presidency in September '67.
 

Typo

Banned
Let the RVN fall in 1965

And on-off Marine interventions do not sound very feasible to me. They would have to be called in so often that it would make little difference to a permanent presence...
The problem with "limited military option" is that it basically solves no problem, while at the same time it makes inevitable the expansion of US presence to be more than that.
US bombs North Vietnam, offering to stop the bombings, when they withdraw their forces from the South.
This did not work out OTL at all
 
How far back are you willing to set the POD? If it's 1943-4, OSS could offer aid to a Viet nationalist (not, rpt not, Ho!:eek:) & support him against both Japan & France. (There's got to be a guy in French prison that'd do.) FDR would have to sign off, & Truman & Byrnes would have to have the sense & wit to tell France she needs the U.S. in Europe as much as the U.S. needs France...:rolleyes: unlike OTL.:rolleyes::mad: (It'd be helpful if the U.S. thinks to suggest turning the French Empire into a Commonwealth.) You may've butterflied JFK getting killed.:cool: You've certainly butterflied the Vietnam War.:cool: You've also preserved Great Society, kept LBJ in office 8yr, & very likely kept Nixon out of office, thereby butterflying Watergate.:cool: (Haldeman, Liddy & Co. may stay out of prison, but I doubt it; I'm betting they'd do something stupid eventually...:eek::rolleyes:) You've also wiped out the film career of Oliver Stone.:eek::cool: Have you butterflied Al Gore into network news? (In place of Peter Arnett?) Or acting?:eek:
 
Leadership options

Well if the USA still has a penchant for backing leaders apart from Diem, whom Ho Chi Minh respected, then I would suggest one of these men:

General Trinh Minh The - fought both the French and the Viet Minh and was educated by the Japanese Kempeitai. Certainly an interesting fellow and had a good relationship with Edward Lansdale.


General Nguyen Van Hinh - a former bomber pilot with the Free French air force in WWII, I believe he commanded a wing at the end of the conflict. He was also a rival of Diem, I believe he was a partial Francophile at least...

Tran Van Huong - former police officer, noted anti communist, mayor of Saigon and most importantly abhored corruption.
 

Cook

Banned
General Trinh Minh The - fought both the French and the Viet Minh and was educated by the Japanese Kempeitai. Certainly an interesting fellow and had a good relationship with Edward Lansdale.



The Kempeitai?
What did they teach him, torture 101?
:eek:
 

Cook

Banned
Indeed, there’s usually less pulling out of people’s fingernails out at French soiree.
:p
 
This did not work out OTL at all

Early US bombings didn't work because they were done in half assed manner. Limited bombings with truckloads of political restraints andfrequent stops that gave vietnamese time to rebuild efences and analyze US tactics. when bombings were done in serious manner (Linebacker) they worked as much as they could. Had something similar been done earlier, before SAMs became a serious threat NV would likely agree to some compromise.
 
Top