How would the United States look if the Vietnam war had never happened? How would our society look? Would American Culture change in any way?
Effects of No Vietnam war on US
- Thread starter Mister Abbadon
- Start date
Onto a real response, you remove calm a lot of tensions and remove a lot of tensions, and remove what was essentially a historical crowbar that jammed cracks in the fabric of anything in society and culture wide open and created ones that weren't there before.
The counterculture will remain much more along the lines of the flower children, peace and love, without moving towards militancy and a sense of "by any means necessary". Thus, you will far lessen any potential backlash or reaction by relative conservatives. You also won't have the counterculture increasingly alienating people outside of themselves without that increased militancy. Overall, we may well transition easier into that world of prosperity and social justice which we had thought we were headed to, rather than have backlash and counteraction of such grave degree that you can have men like Richard Nixon and especially Ronald Reagan elected. Not Utopia, but we could have been gradually stepping along that course.
It's important to note there were really two periods of the 60s for the counterculture and optimists, or whatever you may call them: one period, the earlier half, where there was a disappointment that what everyone had been told as a child was not true in practice. For example, in the land of the free where all men are equal, black men and women were banned from being human beings with human decency, and harassed and murdered. And the belief during that era was that they could change the system to make it live up to what it said it was. Then there is the latter half of the 60s, which was born on the back of a continuing war in Vietnam, assassinations, harassment by authorities, etc, where the idea was that the system was fatally flawed and could not be salvaged and had to be overthrown and replaced from without. Without the Vietnam war, you could well avoid there being that latter half.
Economically, it would aid the United States tremendously. The Vietnam war was an economic albatross for the US. America could not afford the Vietnam war, the Great Society, and the Space race. We tried to, and it hurt us and hurt all three. Without the Vietnam war, you have the Great Society and the Space race, which can be afforded. You also have to think how many of those dollars spent on the Vietnam war could have been spent on any number of things and any number of programs in the United States. Economic realities in the wake of the 60s itself is another cause of the Conservative backlash, as New Left backlash against the pro-war segment of society. To the New Left, that is money used to kill Viet Cong which could have built schools and infrastructure and fed starving children.
One of the unknown elements is what those tens of thousands of American soldiers who died in the war would have done had they not been killed. It's something like 60,000 dead. Statistically, there are those in that number who would have done something that affected us and that they would be remembered for, or their unborn children would or could have been something, or they would have affected someone in such a way as to have an effect via that other person.
Another effect the Vietnam war had was that it induced many young people to remain in college, as there was an exemption for college students. Those that did certainly had an effect. Among those that stayed in college (partially) for the reasons of the draft were Robin Williams. That's where he took theater and all that.
The counterculture will remain much more along the lines of the flower children, peace and love, without moving towards militancy and a sense of "by any means necessary". Thus, you will far lessen any potential backlash or reaction by relative conservatives. You also won't have the counterculture increasingly alienating people outside of themselves without that increased militancy. Overall, we may well transition easier into that world of prosperity and social justice which we had thought we were headed to, rather than have backlash and counteraction of such grave degree that you can have men like Richard Nixon and especially Ronald Reagan elected. Not Utopia, but we could have been gradually stepping along that course.
It's important to note there were really two periods of the 60s for the counterculture and optimists, or whatever you may call them: one period, the earlier half, where there was a disappointment that what everyone had been told as a child was not true in practice. For example, in the land of the free where all men are equal, black men and women were banned from being human beings with human decency, and harassed and murdered. And the belief during that era was that they could change the system to make it live up to what it said it was. Then there is the latter half of the 60s, which was born on the back of a continuing war in Vietnam, assassinations, harassment by authorities, etc, where the idea was that the system was fatally flawed and could not be salvaged and had to be overthrown and replaced from without. Without the Vietnam war, you could well avoid there being that latter half.
Economically, it would aid the United States tremendously. The Vietnam war was an economic albatross for the US. America could not afford the Vietnam war, the Great Society, and the Space race. We tried to, and it hurt us and hurt all three. Without the Vietnam war, you have the Great Society and the Space race, which can be afforded. You also have to think how many of those dollars spent on the Vietnam war could have been spent on any number of things and any number of programs in the United States. Economic realities in the wake of the 60s itself is another cause of the Conservative backlash, as New Left backlash against the pro-war segment of society. To the New Left, that is money used to kill Viet Cong which could have built schools and infrastructure and fed starving children.
One of the unknown elements is what those tens of thousands of American soldiers who died in the war would have done had they not been killed. It's something like 60,000 dead. Statistically, there are those in that number who would have done something that affected us and that they would be remembered for, or their unborn children would or could have been something, or they would have affected someone in such a way as to have an effect via that other person.
Another effect the Vietnam war had was that it induced many young people to remain in college, as there was an exemption for college students. Those that did certainly had an effect. Among those that stayed in college (partially) for the reasons of the draft were Robin Williams. That's where he took theater and all that.
Really depends on the POD.
The most likely PODs are probably simply another SE Asian war - Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, or Indonesia. In these cases, the rough outline would largely be similar. The US gets involved in a communist insurgency in a SE Asian country they aren't familiar with. The war turns into a tar baby in which the US spends blood and silver in an ultimately futile effort it doesn't understand but can't manage to escape.
No US involvement in a long, drawn out proxy conflict that's part of the Cold War is going to require a very significant POD - something along the lines of no Cold War.
The most likely PODs are probably simply another SE Asian war - Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, or Indonesia. In these cases, the rough outline would largely be similar. The US gets involved in a communist insurgency in a SE Asian country they aren't familiar with. The war turns into a tar baby in which the US spends blood and silver in an ultimately futile effort it doesn't understand but can't manage to escape.
No US involvement in a long, drawn out proxy conflict that's part of the Cold War is going to require a very significant POD - something along the lines of no Cold War.
There has been a suggestion that the fact the United States was willing to pour in the blood and treasure in Vietnam did serve as a control on the Soviets from sponsoring other hot wars.
Precedents set from non-actions may be just as substantive as from actions.
I quite dislike the whole trope where Vietnam is like one of those comedy bits where you grease the floor and the guy flies through the window. To say it would require no Cold War is taking faith in that trope to a T. And it's bunkum. The Vietnam war was not destined. Not even most likely to occur. It was one of a number of Cold war battlefields that the US was sending aid and support to its side in and, through a set of circumstances, a president decided to send American troops into and make it an American war. It's a place no one knows and no one cares about until the government decides to make it a direct battlefield.
Vietnam as a war can be avoided simply by not going to war in Vietnam. And that in itself does not negate the prospect of continued aid and support to South Vietnam. That isn't an implausibility, nor does it require a massive POD.
You may want to re-read my post. Nowhere did I say that avoiding a war in Vietnam required such a POD. In fact, I suggested quite the opposite.
"(A) long, drawn out proxy conflict that's part of the Cold War" is not Vietnam, or even a war in SE Asia. Having no such war at all during the given time frame is what's likely to require a significant POD, of which possibilities no Cold War is not required, but rather just the most likely. Without a significant POD, there will almost certainly be a war of that sort somewhere - I listed the most likely locations above (in order of probability, IMHO).
However, the ultimate result of nearly all the likely possibilities, is not going to be all that much different. You simply can't turn US involvement in a communist insurgency in an unfamiliar country with a likely hostile environment into a "happy-happy, easy-easy" war like Desert Storm.
on no US-Vietnam War
on option is that China is divided in North Maoist and South Kuomintang
last one invade north Vietnam under the claim it's former Chinese province (was one in Ming dynasty) and to destroy Communism there.
On Space Race
it depend it Soviet manage to Join Moon Race, other wise the Apollo program dies after Mission 20 in 1974.
and 1975 to 1976 would Skylab A/B and ASTP I-III missions
but that is the President decision, who comes after Johnson
On Aerospace
The government-funded US Supersonic transport would be build, either the Lockheed L-2000 or Boeing 2707 designs.
Today Tourist & business men would fly with mach 3 to there destinations
the The Ling-Temco-Vought C-142 would be in service as Military and Civilian VTOL, long before the V-22 Osprey.
on option is that China is divided in North Maoist and South Kuomintang
last one invade north Vietnam under the claim it's former Chinese province (was one in Ming dynasty) and to destroy Communism there.
On Space Race
it depend it Soviet manage to Join Moon Race, other wise the Apollo program dies after Mission 20 in 1974.
and 1975 to 1976 would Skylab A/B and ASTP I-III missions
but that is the President decision, who comes after Johnson
On Aerospace
The government-funded US Supersonic transport would be build, either the Lockheed L-2000 or Boeing 2707 designs.
Today Tourist & business men would fly with mach 3 to there destinations
the The Ling-Temco-Vought C-142 would be in service as Military and Civilian VTOL, long before the V-22 Osprey.
I'm not sure if you're saying this because of LBJ's health or his popularity, but both aren't as relevant without Vietnam - primarily, I think if LBJ remains focused on the Great Society and domestic policy, he won't feel as stressed and probably, yes, won't experience health decline quite as soon as OTL. Furthermore, if he's president another four years, he's not smoking those four years, which probably buys him some time. His health would still be poor, but not poor enough to prevent another White House run.
His popularity is a tougher thing to bite at, but Vietnam was the main thing that bit LBJ in the ass - his domestic policy won over those it was supposed to win over. The fact Humphrey was able to nearly match Nixon in what was clearly a Republican year also stands testament to the strength of the Democratic Party itself at the time. The only reason he was challenged by McCarthy or Kennedy was Vietnam. Take away that and LBJ, should he run for re-election, will go unchallenged and win.
Partial apologies. Norton is very sleepy. However, on that not covered by the partial: the US does not need to have a "Vietnam" somewhere else either. It could, but that's not a probability. Just a possibility. Firstly, Vietnam was a unique clusterf**k situation. Secondly, the United States had already gone through a Vietnam situation in Korea, which was a war which became a fair bit of a quagmire mess which didn't seem to have an end in sight, being fought over some insignificant country, and which the United States came near to losing. It's hubris has already been smacked by reality due to that war. Vietnam could be interpreted as Korea turned up to 11.
The United States can and did aid and supply its allies, utilize the CIA to prop them up and counter adversaries, and maybe use specialized forces for any military options in a limited scope. That is par for the course and what the Cold War is fought by. What it did not need to do was actively get involved in wars by sending it's troops in and taking over the situation. The fact that it happened in Vietnam in the way it did in Vietnam does not mean it was something that was probable to happen period somewhere.
Sabot Cat
Banned
A potentially useful way of trying to capture the butterflies of the Vietnam War is by doing a comparative study of the social climate in countries similar to the United States.
The 1960s saw many student protests all over the world unrelated to Vietnam. These include the Quiet Revolution in Quebec, Mexico 68, the Prague Spring, and May '68 in France. Using 1964 as the beginning of Vietnam's effects, many of the aspects of the counter-culture movement to come were already in place.
In the United Kingdom, mass protests were carried out in the Aldermaston March organized by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (who gave us the peace symbol) as early as 1959. The Freedom Riders began their protests against segregation in the southern United States in 1961 and the Albany Movement came not long afterward, while the Civil Rights Act was passed shortly before the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
Although there won't be Vietnam to galvanize otherwise privileged college students to contribute in the women's right movement, the civil rights movement, etc., there will still be widespread challenges to the establishment due to demographics. I believe that nuclear disarmament will then take the place of Vietnam as the go-to issue. These movements would likely be credited with causing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968-1970, SALT I in 1969, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, and the detente as a whole. I don't think detente would happen any sooner than it did in OTL because of the Soviet crackdown on the Prague Spring.
To summarize the immediate cultural effects of no Vietnam War: Anti-war protests are replaced by nuclear disarmament protests.
Unfortunately, the United States would not have a quagmire like the Vietnam War in the public consciousness to dictate a more cautious foreign policy. It's worth noting that Vietnam was contemporaneous with the short and decisive U.S. occupation of the Dominican Republic. Perhaps the U.S. then hastily launches a war in Iran over the Hostage Crisis, or directly intervenes in the Soviet War in Afghanistan.
To summarize the long term effects of no Vietnam War: Victory disease.
Lyndon Johnson believed he averted WWIII by supporting South Vietnam. It's one of those things that we can't really know, because the internal decision making is often secret.
I doubt it. The assassinations of major political figures worked to militarize the far left.
1) Korea wasn't all that similar.
2) To the extent that Korea was similar, the peoper lessons weren't learned.
3) Korea didn't do all that much to correct US "victory disease"/hubris.
Yet, it's likely they would have at some point. Note that the exact details don't have to be present for the US to get involved in a prolonged communist insurgeny proxy war. Nor does "likely" equate to a guarenteed 100% probability.
However, cold war politics and US military/CIA leadership at the time suggests that it was highly likely.
Anywho, I think we can both agree on my main point that the POD will determine the answer to the question, and that, given such a vague POD, there's no strong answer to the question, but rather some (vague?) probabilities.
Henry Kissinger 1957 book "Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy" outline a strategy of the US promoting regional conflicts to deter the USSR from all out full scale war.
There is a debate as rather the Vietnam War was a attempt to carry out that strategy.
Ramped-up war spending kept the economy going. It was 9%+ of GDP versus 6%+ at the peak of the Reagan defense surge. If war spending in 1965 was at the same as 1935 levels the unemployment rate would have been at 15%.
Defense spending in 1965 would never be as low as in 1935 as a share of GDP. Come on. Sure the unemployment rate might not get below 4% like it did in the late 60's, but the rate was already in the mid 5's and trending down before we ramped up defense spending for the War.