Fate of Vietnam with ealry fall of South.

[Historyman 14]

The idea here, is either JFK is not assassination (Or lives long enough.) to withdraw America from Vietnam, and cut support to Saigon. Or Nixon wins the 1960 election, and simply throws South Vietnam under the bus. Without American aid, or boots on the ground, the South is unable to hold back the North, and falls within the ealry 60s. (65-66 at the most.)

So, how does Vietnam look now? Ho Chi Minh and Lê Duẩn? The rest of Indochina?

 

[DocJamore]

The containment theory believers said at the time said that if South Vietnam became communist, than it would spread to its neighbors, Laos and Cambodia. Thailand and Burma would be next. And then Malaysia, Indonesia, and India would be under threat which would be a disaster and would force US intervention. So why not intervene sooner and stop all that from happening? Regardless if you believe it or not, domino theory was widely believed at the time. Appeasement was not an option, with how WW2 started still on everyone's minds.

 

[BigBlueBox]

There is no evidence to suggest that JFK wouldn’t have escalated the Vietnam War just like LBJ did.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

 

[marathag]

There is no evidence to suggest that JFK wouldn’t have escalated the Vietnam War just like LBJ did.

Why?

He would have done it different than LBJ, but still would have increased US advisors in response to increased VC and NVA action against the South, followed by Troops.
McNamara would still be there.

The Maddox Op, that may not, but both sides were skirmishing at that point

 

[BigBlueBox]

Why?

He would have done it different than LBJ, but still would have increased US advisors in response to increased VC and NVA action against the South, followed by Troops.
McNamara would still be there.

The Maddox Op, that may not, but both sides were skirmishing at that point

Reread my post and the OP. @Historyman 14 assumed that if JFK lived longer he would have withdrawn from Vietnam. I claimed that he probably would have escalated the Vietnam War like LBJ.

 

[marathag]

Reread my post and the OP. @Historyman 14 assumed that if JFK lived longer he would have withdrawn from Vietnam. I claimed that he probably would have escalated the Vietnam War like LBJ.

Escalated, yes but not like LBJ. My point would that IMO would have been in-between pulling out and an LBJ style escalation. I don't think he would have tried to buff the Maddox Incident into a Gulf of Tonkin resolution than LBJ wanted for a free hand

 

[Historyman 14]

The containment theory believers said at the time said that if South Vietnam became communist, than it would spread to its neighbors, Laos and Cambodia. Thailand and Burma would be next. And then Malaysia, Indonesia, and India would be under threat which would be a disaster and would force US intervention. So why not intervene sooner and stop all that from happening? Regardless if you believe it or not, domino theory was widely believed at the time. Appeasement was not an option, with how WW2 started still on everyone's minds.

Most of America before the escalation, before the Gulf of Tonkin did not care about Vietnam. The average American did not know about Vietnam, probably never heard of Vietnam, and probably could not find Vietnam on a globe. It was the same with Korea before 1950. At this point of time, all eyes are on Cuba, Berlin, Korea, and China. Not Vietnam.

Between the Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire, the growth of the Viet Cong, the failure of ARVN to deal with the VC, and the way the coup happened (Diệm and Nhu being murder.) gave JFK serious doubts and regrets over events in Indochina. After 1963, you have a revolving door series of coups, and very weak governments while the North and VC upped their game.

Without American boots on the ground, and without bombing of the North, the South was doomed. Kennedy would see that, and slowly withdraw.

If Nixon had won in 1960, he might just do the same, seeing the South as a lost cause without having to deal with the US involvement we would have in 1968. (He was very different man in 1960 then in 1968 too.)

 

[Seandineen]

If either of them had any sense, they would adopt Malayan and Australian style techniques, working through local troops, and economic development. A starving peasant may not care about abstract ideals, like free press, and capitalism.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Most of America before the escalation, before the Gulf of Tonkin did not care about Vietnam. The average American did not know about Vietnam, probably never heard of Vietnam, and probably could not find Vietnam on a globe. ...

My memory contradicts this. I recall news about Vietn Nam being frequently on the front page of the news papers, referred to in my elementary school classes, in the headline news reports on the radio, included in TV 'discussion' programs, and talked about by adults. As early as 1961 the increasing civil war in Viet Nam was as well known as the other assorted Cold War Crisis. A latent isolationist trend in the US did not translate to ignorance as I remember.

 

[fasquardon]

Without American boots on the ground, and without bombing of the North, the South was doomed. Kennedy would see that, and slowly withdraw.

Why would he see that?

LBJ and his advisers could quite clearly see that Vietnam was a fustercluck and couldn't see any happy ending - but defeat wasn't an option, so they held back as long as they could, hoping things would just get better, and then poured in men and treasure when it was clear South Vietnam couldn't hold with just advisers. No-one could see light at the end of the tunnel in Vietnam. There was no plan for getting out, only the hope that somehow something good would happen and an opportunity would present itself if they kept raising the stakes.

Seeing as this was the exact same choice that every US politician took between 1945 and 1973 and Kennedy had already chosen to greatly bolster the US forces in Vietnam, I don't see any reason to credit Kennedy with foresight greater than those around him. Indeed, based on his record, my bet is that a surviving Kennedy bungles Vietnam even worse than LBJ did.

A Nixon victory in 1960 might lead to South Vietnam falling early. I would rate it as unlikely though. Nixon in the 70s didn't loose Vietnam by choice - he secured what he thought was a victory and then, when the North Vietnamese broke their treaty with him and attacked South Vietnam again, accepted that he'd actually been defeated. And the Nixon of the 70s knew much more about the international situation. Likely his determination to not be the president who presided over the "first American defeat in war" would see his younger self getting sucked into Vietnam just like LBJ.

The best opportunity to avoid the Vietnam war is back in the 1940s, and have the US choose Ho over the French, which might have happened if the memos from the OSS people on the ground hadn't been lost in the bureaucratic jungle between them and the decision makers.

But... Let's say that Nixon DID win in 1960 and DID decide to pull the "advisers" out of South Vietnam... South Vietnam itself was deeply dysfunctional and I can't see it surviving more than 5 years without US troops. After that... I have no idea what happens next to be honest. The US visited utter ruin on the population and something like 10% of the population died during the war. Not to mention the mis-spent treasure of the Vietnamese and the damage inflicted to the environment and to existing infrastructure. Potentially, what it means is that instead of Vietnam having a gdp/capita 1/4th that of China, Vietnam equals China in its level of development.

That wouldn't be a small thing - TTL's united Vietnam could have a population of 107 million (as opposed to OTL's 96 million - I'm assuming here that a Vietnam without a war with the US would grow at the same 1.8% a year on average that OTL's Vietnam did) and a GDP of 800 billion-1 trillion US $. They'd be up there with South Korea in terms of being regional powers.

fasquardon

 

[longsword14]

The best opportunity to avoid the Vietnam war is back in the 1940s, and have the US choose Ho over the French, which might have happened if the memos from the OSS people on the ground hadn't been lost in the bureaucratic jungle between them and the decision makers.

The US did not choose one or another, just did not care. Note that all of this happened before China fell and the Korean War happened when US priorities in Asia were very different.

 

[RightHoJeeves]

Wouldn't a united communist Vietnam find itself isolated once the Sino-Soviet split happens? There could be opportunity for the US to exploit tensions between Vietnam and the PRC.

 

[fasquardon]

Wouldn't a united communist Vietnam find itself isolated once the Sino-Soviet split happens? There could be opportunity for the US to exploit tensions between Vietnam and the PRC.

It is possible that with an earlier US pull-out and an open-minded US administration, Vietnam could end up being a US ally.

But any open-minded US administration would also recognize the opportunity in China as well, and the US would always choose China over Vietnam. At which point, Vietnam would be no more isolated than they were in OTL, since they'll be an attractive ally for the USSR and India.

The US did not choose one or another, just did not care. Note that all of this happened before China fell and the Korean War happened when US priorities in Asia were very different.

You're kinda right? They chose because they didn't care. Letting the French do as they wished wasn't an idea particularly well liked, but Indochina seemed well enough away from anywhere important that letting the French try to re-colonize the place was a way to score points from the French cheaply.

fasquardon