Grab-bag of Vietnam War what-ifs

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Here are a series of potential PoDs or scenarios for altering the Vietnam War, that nobody's done before, as far as I can tell:

1. Different command: Creighton Abrams is selected as head of MACV instead of Westmoreland in 1964. Apparently, according to Gen Dave Palmer's "25-Year War" he was a contender along with two other general officers, including U. Alexis Johnson [if he was a general and not a diplomat] and somebody else.

2. What if Sihanouk were overthrown in 1967 and his successor (Lon Nol or somebody else) got tough with Vietnam? Might early US intervention in Cambodia grow from there? How would that affect the setup for Tet '68?

3. What if Republic of China troops participated in the defense of South Vietnam on the scale the South Koreans did in OTL?

4. What would the effects on the war be the North Vietnamese leadership post 1954 turned as purge-happy as Stalin or as ultrarevolutionary as Mao in the Great Leap Forward or Cultural Revolution or Pol Pot in "year zero"?

5. What if terms limits were not added to the constitution and Ike served a third term, how would he handle Southeast Asia? How gravely or urgent would he see the threat? What would he see as acceptable US options? What would he see as acceptable losses/write-offs?

6. What if Khrushchev survived as Soviet leader through the late 60s during the war?

7. What if Generals Ky and Thieu failed to suppress the ARVN mutiny in I Corps in the summer of 1966 under General Nguyen Chanh Thi? [The mutineers championed the Buddhist movement at the time which favored a peace agreement and American withdrawal]

8. What if there was no Middle East War, and no consequent blockage of the Suez Canal, during the 2nd half of the war? [this would ease Soviet supply shipments to North Vietnam and Sihanoukville]

9. What if the US tried to only commit Marine Corps combat units, not Army? How many could the US escalate to? Would they big at risk of being overrun?

10. What if the US army was all-volunteer by the mid-60s, when would the US have to quit?
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Getting Abrams in from the start would be a major change, given his proven ability to operate an effective COIN strategy.

There's plenty of room to argue he would be a more cost-effective commander than Westmoreland I certainly agree. Abrams' reputation certainly has been burnished by Lewis Sorley's "A Better War" and earlier works.

OTOH, a lot of that may be simply circumstances and timing. Chasing the VC and NVA main force into the highlands could be tempting for any American commander in the 1960s. Also, Abrams dealt with a "cooperative" enemy when applying his COIN strategy. It was probably made easier from the fact that the VC main force got decimated in the Tet Offensive and had to go to ground. Applying the same COIN approach prior to the Tet losses could be a more painstaking, difficult, slower and reversible process.
 
Another what-if

What if the "Tet Offensive" (1968) was success?

Define "success" by the author (please note that how is another story)
  • Military success: RVN's key and strategic positions are captured and controlled. That includes the Radio Station, Tan Son Nhat Airport, Navy HQ... in SaiGon. The US positions, meanwhile, were under siege (kind of "get out and you're dead, stay in and you'd live")
  • Political success: The DRVN tells the world that they are still capable of fighting, despite what the US says (just more "glorious" compared to OTL)
  • Diplomatic success: The DRVN shows the US that they did not attack the US combatants (during the time frame) unless provoked, and has a leverage during the following negotiation
 
Top