How long could the Vietnam War last?

It's pretty well known that as long as American Troops were in South Vietnam, then South Vietnam was going to survive and stay independent.

North Vietnam, China, Soviet Union, and the Viet Cong knew this. But the question, how long would the Viet Cong keep fighting?

They were getting aid from North Vietnam, China, and the Soviet Union though the Ho Chi Minh trail.

My old art teacher, a vet once said "As long as the communist nations were giving aid, and we kept our troops there, we would STILL be fighting the war."

Let's say the United States decides to keep ground troops in South Vietnam, just enough to prop them up and to prevent South Vietnam from being over run.

How long would the war last? How long does the Viet Cong keep getting aid? How long is the fighting? Could it last until the 21st century?

Would the U.S need to keep troops there forever like in Korea, and could the nations ever unite. Maybe after 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union?
 
Korea for the US and Op Banner for the British give the indications of how long it could continue ...
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
1990-91. Once the Soviets lost interest or couldn't support Hanoi it would have ended fairly quickly, at least the combat part. As long as the Soviets are interested the North won't collapse, no matter how much pounding from the air it receives. Open question if the two countries would have ever united. After half a century of war the place would be a nightmare in any case.

Realistically the idea is near ASB. The entire event was, from the U.S. perspective, increasingly pointless (not that it ever was well defined), and almost impossible to justify. By 1980, assuming Reagan becomes POTUS (far from certain since the war still being underway is a butterfly of DC-10 size) he would either declare victory and leave after some sort of major bombing offensive, or actually invade the North. Moscow wasn't going to use nukes for Hanoi, so that might end the war by 1983, but once the USSR is done so is the war.
 
1990-91. Once the Soviets lost interest or couldn't support Hanoi it would have ended fairly quickly, at least the combat part. As long as the Soviets are interested the North won't collapse, no matter how much pounding from the air it receives. Open question if the two countries would have ever united. After half a century of war the place would be a nightmare in any case.

Realistically the idea is near ASB. The entire event was, from the U.S. perspective, increasingly pointless (not that it ever was well defined), and almost impossible to justify. By 1980, assuming Reagan becomes POTUS (far from certain since the war still being underway is a butterfly of DC-10 size) he would either declare victory and leave after some sort of major bombing offensive, or actually invade the North. Moscow wasn't going to use nukes for Hanoi, so that might end the war by 1983, but once the USSR is done so is the war.

Yeah, I agree. I was thinking what Reagan was going to do about the war.

One possible POD is no Watergate, and Nixon is pretty popular after he makes the CHIP healthcare plans and works out a Israel-Arab peace.

This gives him more time to keep the war going. Jimmy Carter still wins in 1976. I thought Reagan would be the GOP person in 1976, but with Ford as VP and no watergate, I don't think Ford gets a primary challenge or wins easier.

But Jimmy Carter still wins, but as a peaceful guy the war starts to go bad. Reagan still wins in 1980.
 
US forces are going to leave Vietnam no later than 1973. Without Watergate Nixon may be able to keep major funding to the South throughout the end of his term in 1977. Ronald Reagan will probably continue to do the same upon his election in 76. There is always an insurgency until the Soviets can stop funding it.
 

Realpolitik

Banned
1986, if we define "the war" as everything from open battles to occasional skirmishes to Korean style hostility. That's when the North's economy collapses OTL, and by this point South Vietnam would be the stronger Vietnam, assuming continued US aid and increased competence in Saigon. Coupled with a hostile China and a Soviet Union that is getting weaker.

It's not likely, but not ASB.
 
The war could have ended when:

1) Soviet lead by Gorbi reduced its aid to North Vietnam in late 1980s;

2) Chinese still "taught a lesson" in 1979 by fighting with North Vietnamese, because of pro-Soviet stance of Le Duan regime, which may effectively remove PAVN presence in South Vietnam when PAVN retreated to defend Sino-Vietnamese border. Le Duan regime might be ousted by Hoan when its pro-war stance failed.

3) After repeated B-52 and even B-2 strikes, PAVN suffered from heavy causalities due to direct and indirect effects of bombing. Le Duan's tactics was proved to be near-fatal to North Vietnamese survival and was replaced by moderate communists.

4) PAVN stayed strong yet failed to conquer RVN militarily; politburo found other alternatives influencing South Vietnamese politics, including affecting composition of RVN government and elections, or promoting CPC-type peaceful reunification proposals. Viet Cong participates in elections.

5) While US troops ensured RVN's survival, even without US direct help, ARVN advanced northward and defeated PAVN when North Vietnam failed to get any logistic support due to inaction of Chinese and blockage of Soviet aid to North Vietnam via land routes due to Sino-Soviet split. Le Duan etc. were captured by ARVN and was trialed for war crimes, terrorism and crime against humanity, who were executed later.

Alternative, it could be a Korean-style armistice, but the war is still on-going techincally.
 
The last of the Viet Cong were pretty much eliminated during the Tet Offensive. After that it was North Viet trrops doing most of the fighting and it was North Viets that eventually won the victory. The Vietnamese had been fighting foreign powers for over a hundred years so they were willing to continue longer than teh U.S> public was willing to support the war,
 
Top