Earlier "Vietnam" trauma

Is there any way to turn one of the South/Latin Armerican conflicts in the early 1900s (before 1940) that US invited themselves into, into a 'Viet Nam' with growing discontent and hard/impossible to pull out while saving face? and how would this change the US reactions in WW2 (and further on), if they allready had gained such a trauma.
 
No, it wouldn't. The main reason Vietnam was such a disaster, despite the US winning many many ground battles, was the media. The media and new ways of information traveling made sure that everyone knew how many casualties war provides. The surrender wasn't caused by soldiers: it was caused by media. And the real tragedy is how badly Vietnam vets (and modern day vets) were (and are) treated now that the mainstream media knows what war actually is. In short,the Vietnam War crisis was caused by the people actually knowing what war is, and that it wasn't the heavily romanticized thing of years past, even in WWII. So, to answer your question, no, an earlier Vietnam would not be possible
 
No, it wouldn't. The main reason Vietnam was such a disaster, despite the US winning many many ground battles, was the media. The media and new ways of information traveling made sure that everyone knew how many casualties war provides. The surrender wasn't caused by soldiers: it was caused by media. And the real tragedy is how badly Vietnam vets (and modern day vets) were (and are) treated now that the mainstream media knows what war actually is. In short,the Vietnam War crisis was caused by the people actually knowing what war is, and that it wasn't the heavily romanticized thing of years past, even in WWII. So, to answer your question, no, an earlier Vietnam would not be possible

That's not true. The main reason Vietnam was a disaster was because there were a large number of teenagers (baby boomers). They did not want to be drafted and they resisted as a result. Even before the modus began talking about how the war is going badly, the public was against it
 
I doubt that you can blame on the baby boomers or the media on this, they may have helped. The thing is Vietnam was one big counter insurgency, it largely failed because of a several reasons. In order to create a measure of success the idea of body count was used, which could either give way to falsifying reports or killing civilians. Another was having William Westmorland in command who advocated the strategy. To top things off we would have to place faith that the South Vietnamese could actually get things together without alienating people.

The problem with an earlier "Vietnam" is you have to have the U.S engage in limited conflict against an enemy backed by a super power and strong regional actor, but your not gonna find it Latin America.
 
I doubt that you can blame on the baby boomers or the media on this, they may have helped. The thing is Vietnam was one big counter insurgency, it largely failed because of a several reasons. In order to create a measure of success the idea of body count was used, which could either give way to falsifying reports or killing civilians. Another was having William Westmorland in command who advocated the strategy. To top things off we would have to place faith that the South Vietnamese could actually get things together without alienating people.

The problem with an earlier "Vietnam" is you have to have the U.S engage in limited conflict against an enemy backed by a super power and strong regional actor, but your not gonna find it Latin America.

Depends on how far back the POD is. I can imagine the following possibility.

CP Victory in WWI.
France goes Fascist and has Spain as a Junior partner. The United States ends up with an invasion of Haiti. France supports Haiti with arms shipped from France to Spain to the Dominican Republic and then across the border into Haiti.
 
Depends on how far back the POD is. I can imagine the following possibility.

CP Victory in WWI.
France goes Fascist and has Spain as a Junior partner. The United States ends up with an invasion of Haiti. France supports Haiti with arms shipped from France to Spain to the Dominican Republic and then across the border into Haiti.

Not gonna work the thing with Vietnam is that the U.S had it's hands tied and had to worry about possible retaliation from China if an invasion of North Vietnam ever went through. The problem with an "earlier" Vietnam or even another such analog is the uniqueness of the situation.

In a CP world France would be hurting that there's no chance in hell they would ever do something so asinine, it would be a waste of material on a pipe dream plan, assuming Fascism still rises, and that Spain wants to risk joining France. The U.S could send in force if need be that's not as constrained.
 
Considering that it requires totally different mindsets for both Hitler and the Japanese Millitarists without butterflying away their paths to power, I suppose you could say it technically belongs in Alien Space Bats, but:

Rather than hold a Battle of Britain, Hitler negotiates peace with France and the Netherlands as follows:

1: France will cede Alsace-Lorraine back to Germany, Roussillon and Frence Morrocco to Spain, and Nice, Savoy, and Corsica to Italy. France shall be compensated with Walloonia, Belgian Congo, and the French (but not Romansch) speaking parts of Switzerland come Operation Tannenbaum. In addition, Germany reserves the right to lease seaports and build and run millitary airstrips on French soil for the remaining durration of hostilities.

2: The Netherlands and Flanders will hold plebecites as to whether they will merge together, join the Reich, or remain independent.

3: The Netherlands and France will sell their Far Eastern posessions to Japan (Except for Pondicherry) and accept payment in either yen (to be redeemed for hard currency after the U.S. comes to the table) or durable goods.

This makes it far easier for Japan to ignore U.S. diplomatic complaints. When the Japanese attack and blockade Vladivostok during Barbarossa, making Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union more problematic, Roosevelt pushes for a declaration of war anyway, without Pearl Harbor...
 
Assuming the Cuban Missile Crisis results in a US invasion & occupation of Cuba (without triggering WW3) then you could end up with an ongoing insurgency situation. Although with Cuba's relative closeness to the US you may also end up with 'incidents' on the mainland which would change the dynamics of the situation. I'm not sure whether bombs going off in downtown Miami wold have a pro- or anti-war effect.

Otherwise most of the 'banana' wars were fought by a professional & volunteer military relatively isolated from the civilian mainstream so are unlikely to have much impact on public opinion.
 
Assuming the Cuban Missile Crisis results in a US invasion & occupation of Cuba (without triggering WW3) then you could end up with an ongoing insurgency situation. Although with Cuba's relative closeness to the US you may also end up with 'incidents' on the mainland which would change the dynamics of the situation. I'm not sure whether bombs going off in downtown Miami wold have a pro- or anti-war effect.

Otherwise most of the 'banana' wars were fought by a professional & volunteer military relatively isolated from the civilian mainstream so are unlikely to have much impact on public opinion.

Cuba being an island 90 miles from the US means near complete blockade, no cover from air attack anywhere and no convenient safe areas. It also means no micromanagement from the Whitehouse or stupid ROEs from everyone's favourite secretary of defence because there is no risk of WW3.
 
Top