Effects on world politics with a Surviving South Vietnam?

So even if South Vietnam survives generally, there'd still be communist movements around Southeast Asia and elsewhere? I guess some butterflies get crushed sometimes.
It'd be more that if South Vietnam survives, North Vietnam will feel the need to remain on good terms with China to counteract the danger to it from the U.S. presence there. Meaning that there'd be a united front between the two countries, rather than an ability to play China and Vietnam off of each other which exists merely with a united Vietnam under any type of government.
 
It'd be more that if South Vietnam survives, North Vietnam will feel the need to remain on good terms with China to counteract the danger to it from the U.S. presence there. Meaning that there'd be a united front between the two countries, rather than an ability to play China and Vietnam off of each other which exists merely with a united Vietnam under any type of government.
Given that the US spent a lot of effort to preserve South Vietnam, I don't think the US would be happy with the idea of China propping up North Vietnam while courting China as an ally against the Soviets.
 
Given that the US spent a lot of effort to preserve South Vietnam, I don't think the US would be happy with the idea of China propping up North Vietnam while courting China as an ally against the Soviets.
Now that you mention it, that could be another issue, that China and the Soviets get forced together instead of creating something resembling a balance of power. This is of course dependent on how American politics develops. If you have people who are willing to strike a deal with China that basically accepts the status quo between North and South Vietnam that's one thing, but if you have people who are hardliners against "international communism", then that would be more than a bit deleterious to overall American interests.
 
I actually have a similar thread going on how to actually achieve this (AHC: Win the Vietnam war).

I think how this is achieved (surviving SV) really determines what the global effects of it would be.

I think the most optimistic scenarios could include.

1) Big economic success (think South Korea)
2) Butterflying away Pol Pot.
3) (If achieved early enough) Johnson and the American left viewed as huge success, blunting the right and maybe even butterflying away Nixon/Reagan.

1) Is achievable but IMHO MUCH more difficult than in South Korea. The SV political establishment was reduced to extreme backstabbing and infighting following Diem's assassination that it was still sorta recovering from by as late as '72. Thieu never struck me as particularly skilled and I don't see him leading SV as successfully as Park did for South Korea. Additionally, South Vietnam never really got over problem that the elite were largely Catholic while the public was largely Buddhist. Even with a South Vietnamese victory, I feel like this issue will continue to plauge the internal politics of the country and be a serious drag on both its economic success and international reputation.

2) I think the most achievable out of the "optimistic scenarios" list I just posted. This is especially true if the way victory is achieved is through increased American support/bombing which KOs Pol Pot before he ever comes to power. No Cambodian genocide is a rather rosy scenario compared to OTL.

3) Even if the Johnson admin handled the PR 1000x better I find this difficult. Saving SV from itself and the North required the American public to stomach significant losses of men, money, and material for a corrupt foreign regime that barely shared our values. This is despite the fact that we were consistently winning the battles on the ground and in the air (consider Tet, for example).
 
Butterflies away MASH. The POW-MIA flag thing would probably never happen. No Rambo (or Chuck Norris analogue) movies. The US remembers Vietnam much like Korea. The US would see its role in propping up pro-western governments as justified. The US might be much more aggressive in Latin America and against Iran. The Iran hostage situation would never happen, or if it does it means war and the US can easily take out a nascent Ayatollah.

Ironically, this may butterfly away the 80s military buildup as some postulated, so the US will not necessarily be in more debt, but the US will have more hubris. It becomes hard to postulate what the next war would be. If Iran is knocked out early, then Iraq is never propped up. This means no middle eastern adventures, and this butterflies away 911. The US would probably still support bin Laden against the Soviets, but the impetus for him to attack the US in this situation is much less and may never occur.

However, how does the US respond to embassy bombings and such? I cannot help but think that occupations may begin. If this occurs, then the US is on the road to OTL fighting wars all over the world it cannot win. Without a bunch of Vietnamese and Khmer refugees in the 70s, the current refugee "crisis" may be responded to with even less enthusiasm--if it even occurs, as the US might not see the need to take out Qaddafi and Syria.
 
IMHO, without the Nam experience, perhaps the following administrations won't be as determined to stump Communism as it was Reagan -there's no "shame" to clean- so, as it has been said before, the end of the USSR may arrive later on.

No Reagan? No Cruise missiles, perhaps? No 1000 ships navy?
 
IMHO, without the Nam experience, perhaps the following administrations won't be as determined to stump Communism as it was Reagan -there's no "shame" to clean- so, as it has been said before, the end of the USSR may arrive later on.

No Reagan? No Cruise missiles, perhaps? No 1000 ships navy?
Come to think of it, the fact that the US still manages to have South Vietnam survive might further inflame the anti-war left to the point of committing terrorism or at least make them more vocal than OTL.
 
Respectfully, KuboCaskett, you are aware that this is against the site rules, yes/no?
If the thread is like over several months old, then yeah I would be but this thread was created a few days ago and I like to have a discussion on it as much as possible, so the answer is no.
 
Come to think of it, the fact that the US still manages to have South Vietnam survive might further inflame the anti-war left to the point of committing terrorism or at least make them more vocal than OTL.
Why would a successful defense of South Vietnam make the left more angry?:confused:
 
Top