Communists lose in Vietnam in 1975

Status
Not open for further replies.
I really don't have any details, it may even be ASB territory. If the Anti-Communists in South Vietnam had won in 1975 would the people of South Vietnam be better off between then and now? Any chance that Communism would have fallen in North Vietnam?
 
It's quite simple, I think.
The Americans knew the North Vietnamese were more competent in ruling over Vietnam.
The South Vietnamese were doing the worst of jobs as they were very corrupt, void of leadership and lax in enforcing human rights.
The leader of Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh, was one of those people that got respect from both sides of the Vietnamese war.
If somehow the North Vietnamese lost (which is quite possible, it's just US internal politics that didn't work out- if US decided to attack Hanoi, North Vietnam was doomed.), Vietnam would suffer more as a country. And it would be terrible, with anti-Communist purges and everything.
Internationally, this would look like the USA finally stemmed the flow of Communism into poorer countries, thus increasing US prestige and taking away USSR's.
Interesting things would happen between US and China. Would the US be on the side of Vietnam or China when there is conflict between them? Or would it be neutral?
Many butterflies would be flapping their wings around.
 
I really don't have any details, it may even be ASB territory. If the Anti-Communists in South Vietnam had won in 1975 would the people of South Vietnam be better off between then and now? Any chance that Communism would have fallen in North Vietnam?

1975 is too late to do that, but let's assume that SV manages to repel the Northern offensive with some incredibly unlikely chain of strokes of luck: it will have still to deal with ongoing insurgency, hostile and problematic borders, and a very determined NV. Let's say SV pulls a semi-competent military and leadership out of thin air and survives these challanges decently while remaining somewhat a viable entity.
People might or might not be better off by now, although probably not an incredible difference. Probably they would have been somewhat better off than IOTL in the late seventies/early eighties when Vietnam endured a pretty ugly moment, but if we consider ongoing insurgency being in place after 1975 (which is likely) that's not a given.
It's pretty doubtful that a post-war somehow victorious South Vietnam could have taken the path of South Korea and industrialized quickly.
 

katchen

Banned
I'm not so sure that South Vietnam, had it survived would NOT have industrialized quickly. But like South Korea with it's counterpart, an industrialized South Vietnam would have left North Vietnam in the dust and quite likely resulted in a North Vietnam turned inward, secluded and backward along the North Korean (or Laos) model.
And yes, there is a way South Vietnam could have survived. It would have taken a willingness of Gerald Ford to subvert the will of the Congressional Democratic majority by putting together the kind of "covert" airstrike ops that Reagan and both Bushes would later be famous for. It would mean getting the money for the airstrikes from South Korea and Japan, two nations that felt the most threatened by the fall of South Vietnam and have those airstrikes carried out by Israeli planes and pilots with the planes hastily repainted in Republic of the Philippines colors for the occasion. Or if the US could still sell planes to the Philippines without congressional authorization, slip plane sales to the Philippines through and simply have Israelis pilot those planes.
It would be a clear message to Congress and the Left in the United States that at the end of the day, they did not have any real control of the Executive Branch and did not get to win. The same object lesson, by the way, that would be given by the assassination of Orlando Letalier in Washington DC. :(
And yes, such an action would put the US on the conservative course that it took during the 1980s five years sooner. By mobilizing the Right, it might even have won Ford the 1976 election, butterflied away Carter and butterflied away the Camp David Middle East Agreement, because an obvious quid pro quo for Israel pulling America's chestnuts out of the fire in Southeast Asia would be no pressure to give up any territory or to speak with Egypt.
 
South Vietnam is not South Korea. South Korea had competent leadership, was well-sealed off and an industrial base left over from the Japanese.
 
South Vietnam had lots of trouble, but it recovered strongly during the Nixon years and was holding its own against the North as late as 1974. What caused the sudden collapse was that the US Congress shut down its entire support after Watergate (and reduced it by a lot just before) while the Communist powers continued to back North Vietnam to the hilt.

Any scenario that provides continued US military aide and the use of US military air operations probably allows the South Vietnamese state to continue. Despite all the problems, the Communists continued to lose men on the scale of multiples compared to the ARVN. That cannot continue indefinitely. Despite what people think, the North Vietnamese were not immune to the losses they were sufferring.

I don't think South Vietnam would have become as successful as South Korea. However, I think it will compare well to North Vietnam once you consider the amount of aid being given.

Nguyen Van Thieu did implement a successful land reform in the 1970s. Given its lateness, it did not help him politically, but it would provide a solid basis for an independent peasantry. After the South Vietnam state stabilzes in this scenario, and people know the government will survive, this will have some political and economic benefit.

The war obviously had a terrible effect on the South Vietnamese economy, but it did develop light manufacturing and was pursuing the strategy of export-led development which was successful elsewhere in East Asia. There was a strong basis for development using textiles, food processing, chemicals, and incipient heavy industry as it relates to future industrial development (paper, rubber, cement, metals, wood processing).

I suspect South Vietnam would be very similar to Thailand, Malaya, and Indonesia. Ongoing military issues would retard that. At the same time, the large scale involvement with Americans also opens up a lot of connections for future FDI.

Comparisons between North Vietnam and South Vietnam would remain controversial until the end of the Soviet Union and its withdrawal of subsidies. People made favorable comparisons to North Korea against South Korea during much of this time period, so there will be plenty of left wingers singing the praises of North to South. The moment the subsidies stop, even they will have trouble keeping up the lie. By the 1990s, it will be obvious that South Vietnam is leaving North Vietnam in the dust.

The critical period is between 1975-1986 for any South Vietnam state. That is the danger zone where it could collapse. After 1986, I think it will be well positioned.

I don't think we'll see unification between the two like what happened to Germany. But I think the Vietnamese Communists will be more prgamatic than the Kim family in North Korea. I suspect by the mid-1990s the two will engage in much economic and some political collaboration with the goal of eventual unification sometime in the next few decades. It really depends on how soon the Communists accept having elections decide who is in power.
 
You probably need Diem to not get assassinated in 1963. He was absurdly corrupt but a respected fighter, at least by Ho Chi Minh.

Khmer Rouge stays in power in Cambodia longer. A million Cambodians hate this timeline.
 
and what about this option:

After Ho Chi Minh death, escalate a dispute, (even civil war?) under the leader of the Vietcong.
so that South Vietnam and USA face a fragmenting North Vietnam, with several groups who dispute under each other the leadership.
 
and what about this option:

After Ho Chi Minh death, escalate a dispute, (even civil war?) under the leader of the Vietcong.
so that South Vietnam and USA face a fragmenting North Vietnam, with several groups who dispute under each other the leadership.

My understanding is that the Vietcong, as a fighting force, was severely weakened during Tet in 1968. After that the fighting was predominantly NVA.
 
Clarification of "lose" is needed

There are several scenario for communists to "lose" in Vietnam in 1975.

1. North Vietnam was conquered by the South or/and US, or at least South Vietnamese army were present north of Ben Hai River.
This is an unlikely scenario, not even discussed above. Interesting enough is that Red China had already established de-facto relations with US, and Mao's days were numbered, I wonder what significantly would Chinese would have reacted. Also, what Brezhnev would have thought is not clear. Certainly, airpower would prevent any USSR shipments from reaching DRV.

2. South Vietnam gained all territories lost in 1975 invasion(if any), plus any territories lost in invasions between 1972-1974 up to Ben Hai River. Therefore, Cua Viet, Dong Ha, Loc Ninh and other rural areas should be firmly held by ARVN. This needs something more than US airstrikes and ARVN high morale. Even the scenario came true, with all NVA units expelled, remaining few Viet Cong hiding inside cities should be sorted out and executed by Thieu's army. This might take some time for cities and rural areas to pacify. Even RVN was pacified, an interesting scenario would have occured: Lon Nol regime fell anyway to Pol Pot regime, as Pol Pot is largely independent of PAVN assistance by the time. Thieu's Vietnam would had bordered to Khmer Rouge. What Pol Pot would have done to Thieu's Vietnam is uncertain. Would Thieu invade Kampuchea? Seemed unlikely because no direct split of ideology between comrades could have occured.

3. South Vietnam repelled attacks of 1975, retaining territories held by ARVN between 1972-1974. Therefore, PAVN still occured in some areas of RVN. This posed a weaker position of RVN. RVN still had chances to thrive around Corps III, but Corps I and II would be threatened by NVA constantly for decade until Gorbi became USSR's master and subsequently, end of cold war. PAVN would be compelled not to attack if the repel is successful and even PAVN's children army were exhausted. (By 1975, teenagers as small as 12-14 years old were conscripted)

4. South Vietnam was not defeated, but were successful to prevent PAVN from taking over Corps III and IV, including Saigon. However, PAVN might have strategic gains in many areas, including Quang Tri, Hue and Da Nang, forcing South Vietnam to truncate its territory. Although PAVN failed to achieve its final goal, the gain in 1975 would have persuade PAVN to try perhaps 3-4 years later, possibly preventing RVN's military and economy to recover and take off before end of cold war. RVN still have chances to fall before Reagan and Gorbi were in office. If Carter were in office, he might have posed negative impact on stability of RVN as he posed in South Korea and West Germany.
 
It's quite simple, I think.
The Americans knew the North Vietnamese were more competent in ruling over Vietnam.
The South Vietnamese were doing the worst of jobs as they were very corrupt, void of leadership and lax in enforcing human rights.

Like the North was so good at that.

Hue in 1968 ring any bells?

Re-education Camps?

Exodus of Boat People?

South Vietnam wasn't much worse than what South Korea was in 1954
 
There are a lot of misconceptions about the War. The government in the North may have not been 'corrupt', but their botched reforms killed tens of thousands, they were far from geniuses.

Another thing, the ARVN in 1972 was not what it was in 1968. Nixon had turned it into an effective fighting force, their was less territory under NVA and VC control in 72 than 68, and it was much bigger. They needed help with the Easter Offensive, but give them a few more years and they could really hold their own.

All they need is continued US money and air support, and the North would not be able to conduct a viable offensive in the South. If you could South Vietnam surviving as the Communists losing, there you are.
 
One problem of RVN is nationalism. The loyality and obedience of countrymen to Thieu cannot be comparable with South Koreans to Park, or Taiwanese to Chiang. Buddhist monks and even Catholic priests often protested against the government violently, like the riots that occured in Saigon in 31-10-1974.

Had Thieu government successfully defeated PAVN, he would have most probably re-elected on October 1975. The re-election might repeat several times like those authoritarian SE Asian countries, up till 1990s, resembling Marcos and Suharto, unless Thieu was assassinated by anyone else like Park. Thieu might be a student of Lee, Singaporean strongman, who was at the same age of Thieu. Like Lee, Thieu could not have pleased liberals in US as the policy should remains more or less authoritarian unless North Vietnam collapsed. GOP could still be "friends" of Thieu, but almost certainly Carter or Clinton would be more critical of him.

North Vietnamese were corrupt, but hippies could not see how corrupt North Vietnamese was, so they usually blamed RVN. Therefore, we have no "Saigon Jane". Luckily, we also did not have "Pyongyang Jane" who applauded Kims' regime, or South Korea would be in trouble.
 
There are a lot of misconceptions about the War. The government in the North may have not been 'corrupt', but their botched reforms killed tens of thousands, they were far from geniuses.

Another thing, the ARVN in 1972 was not what it was in 1968. Nixon had turned it into an effective fighting force, their was less territory under NVA and VC control in 72 than 68, and it was much bigger. They needed help with the Easter Offensive, but give them a few more years and they could really hold their own.

All they need is continued US money and air support, and the North would not be able to conduct a viable offensive in the South. If you could South Vietnam surviving as the Communists losing, there you are.
This AVRN was defeated in 55 days by an enemy that was 1/4 of its size. It was equiped by a donor Nation that could set up an army that was ill suited for the war that it had to fight. And yet in spite of its leaders knowing well in advance that a reduction or elimination of that aid was not only possible but likely, its leadership failed to prepare for that possibility.
Its officer corps abandoned its troops on the field of battle. There was a complete failure of the army to adapt its organiastion and tactics to the situation facing it.
Even at the end the AVRN remained dependeant on US Air support that was not going to happen.
Its defeat was total, its humiliation complete,
 
This AVRN was defeated in 55 days by an enemy that was 1/4 of its size. It was equiped by a donor Nation that could set up an army that was ill suited for the war that it had to fight. And yet in spite of its leaders knowing well in advance that a reduction or elimination of that aid was not only possible but likely, its leadership failed to prepare for that possibility.
Its officer corps abandoned its troops on the field of battle. There was a complete failure of the army to adapt its organiastion and tactics to the situation facing it.
Even at the end the AVRN remained dependeant on US Air support that was not going to happen.
Its defeat was total, its humiliation complete,

Another bad practice of ARVN was allowing solders' relatives to live near to barracks. This is unbelievable and unforgivable because it allows "human nature" to overwhelm army discipline.

Thieu (1923 - 2001), once participated in Viet Minh campaign, is not a good strategist: He is too young, OK if put to safer places like Singapore. If he were a good strategist, he would have seek for options ranging from assaulting North Vietnam to disrupt Northerners' initial plans, truncating the territory or even building strong defensive point (enclaves) in Da Nang, Chu Nai and other outlying islands like Phu Quoc and Con Son. Certainly NOT to retreat suddenly from Kontum and Quang Tri.
 
Like the North was so good at that.

Hue in 1968 ring any bells?

Re-education Camps?

Exodus of Boat People?

South Vietnam wasn't much worse than what South Korea was in 1954

And that was, like, the main point of my post, wasn't it? Go fight someone else if you're so horny for one.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top