How much sooner does South Vietnam fall if JFK lives and withdraws from SV?

If John F Kennedy had survived his assassination attempt he would've done pretty much what Lyndon B Johnson did. He would've poured in more soldiers and equipment to prop up the South Vietnamese government. South Vietnam was an ally of the United States so JFK would've done everything he could've to protect them from what he perceived to be the Communist threat from both the Vietcong and, later, North Vietnam. The big question would be whether or not JFK would've sent in as much equipment and soldiers as LBJ did.

I doubt that JFK would've sent as many soldiers and military equipment as LBJ did in our time line so it is possible that the 1968 Tet Offensive may have been far more successful, possibly resulting in a Vietcong/North Vietnamese victory.

Assuming the Tet Offensive failed, Richard Nixon got elected in the 1968 U.S Elections and did what he did in our time line then the collapse of the South Vietnamese government would've been pretty much the same as in our time line. That is, 1975.
 
Last edited:
South Vietnam was a house of cards. I could see them holding them out without heavy American involvement. The odds aren't definitely in South Vietnam's favor. But, avoiding the Americanization of the war should keep the war more down-scaled and less intense. Without so many American troops, the VC shouldn't be able to rally as many peasants to their cause. Large swats of the country will be in Communist hands or influence, but SVN be able to hold on to enough places so at least SVN could have some what of a existence.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
There was a proposal to restore BAO Dai.
Did anyone ever take this proposal seriously, though?

If John F Kennedy had survived his assassination attempt he would've done pretty much what Lyndon B Johnson did. He would've poured in more soldiers and equipment to prop up the South Vietnamese government. South Vietnam was an ally of the United States so JFK would've done everything he could've to protect them from what he perceived to be the Communist threat from both the Vietcong and, later, North Vietnam. The big question would be whether or not JFK would've sent in as much equipment and soldiers as LBJ did.

I doubt that JFK would've sent as many soldiers and military equipment as LBJ did in our time line so it is possible that the 1968 Tet Offensive may have been far more successful, possibly resulting in a Vietcong/North Vietnamese victory.

Assuming the Tet Offensive failed, Richard Nixon got elected in the 1968 U.S Elections and did what he did in our time line then the collapse of the South Vietnamese government would've been pretty much the same as in our time line. That is, 1975.
What you're thinking of would have required a change of mind on JFK's part, though:

https://www.thenation.com/article/jfks-vietnam-withdrawal-plan-fact-not-speculation/

South Vietnam was a house of cards. I could see them holding them out without heavy American involvement. The odds aren't definitely in South Vietnam's favor. But, avoiding the Americanization of the war should keep the war more down-scaled and less intense. Without so many American troops, the VC shouldn't be able to rally as many peasants to their cause. Large swats of the country will be in Communist hands or influence, but SVN be able to hold on to enough places so at least SVN could have some what of a existence.

So, you're thinking of a South Vietnamese collapse around the same time as our TL?
 
Probably, a few years earlier in this TL. It all depends on how the US reacts to the eventual North Vietnamese general offensives. If South Vietnam can( or how long) sustain itself by holding largely to urban areas and while the Communists controlling most of the countryside.
 
that's kind of a problem in the 60s... how do you get the US to adopt a 'pick your battles' strategy in the Cold War? How do you get the government to decide that western Europe and the Americas are worth fighting for, but nothing in Vietnam is worth our blood and treasure? The US seemed to have a 'we can't allow Communism to take hold anywhere' attitude at the time...
 
Had JFK lived and withdrew from South Vietnam, how much sooner would South Vietnam fall?

As I feared, some people are answering by denying that JFK would have withdrawn troops from South Vietnam--which is an interesting debate, which we have had here before, [1] but not really responsive to the question, which is *what if* JFK does withdraw the troops. And the answer to that is that South Vietnam would fall in 1965.

[1] See, e.g., https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-to-intervene-in-vietnam.333185/#post-9892176
 
Last edited:

CaliGuy

Banned
As I feared, some people are answering by denying that JFK would have withdrawn troops from South Vietnam--which is an interesting debate, which we have had here before, [1] but not really responsive to the question, which is *what if* JFK does withdraw the troops. And the answer to that is that South Vietnam would fall in 1965.

[1] See, e.g., https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-to-intervene-in-vietnam.333185/#post-9892176
I have looked at that very long post of yours, David; indeed, it's extremely interesting. :)

Also, was South Vietnam genuinely on the verge of collapse in late 1963?
 
I happen to know the man who ran CIA operations in South Vietnam in the late 60's to early 70's... he is of the opinion that once Diem was killed it was increasingly problematic for a South Vietnamese leader to be seen as legitimate.. so no US intervention forcing the North to peace talks and they are done like dinner by no later than '68. No Nixon derailing the '68 talks (Haldeman's notes on the event are now public record) and we have peace in '68 with a shaky South looking to get its legs under it until a leader with some sense of legitimacy in the eyes of the people comes along. No assassination of Diem..once more relying upon the educated opinion of my friend.. you can achieve peace by '68 with possibly a little less intense intervention. He has stated that the religious angle has been over played Diem had no problem with promoting Budhists to high positions.. the monk emulation has far more to do with a pact between the monk and a friend of his that emulated himself as a protest against the Chinese government then any perceived persecution of Buddhists by Diem. Until the death of Diem he was the one that was seen by the common people with a claim on the mandate of heaven.. after that it was all Ho.
 
I happen to know the man who ran CIA operations in South Vietnam in the late 60's to early 70's... he is of the opinion that once Diem was killed it was increasingly problematic for a South Vietnamese leader to be seen as legitimate.. so no US intervention forcing the North to peace talks and they are done like dinner by no later than '68. No Nixon derailing the '68 talks (Haldeman's notes on the event are now public record) and we have peace in '68 with a shaky South looking to get its legs under it until a leader with some sense of legitimacy in the eyes of the people comes along. No assassination of Diem..once more relying upon the educated opinion of my friend.. you can achieve peace by '68 with possibly a little less intense intervention. He has stated that the religious angle has been over played Diem had no problem with promoting Budhists to high positions.. the monk emulation has far more to do with a pact between the monk and a friend of his that emulated himself as a protest against the Chinese government then any perceived persecution of Buddhists by Diem. Until the death of Diem he was the one that was seen by the common people with a claim on the mandate of heaven.. after that it was all Ho.
That's an argument pushed by the revisionist camp of historians. Even Ho admitted Diem had some Nationalist credentials compared to those who followed him.


"The consequences of the 1 November coup d'état will be contrary to the calculations of the US imperialists ... Diệm was one of the strongest individuals resisting the people and Communism. Everything that could be done in an attempt to crush the revolution was carried out by Diệm. Diệm was one of the most competent lackeys of the US imperialists ... Among the anti-Communists in South Vietnam or exiled in other countries, no one has sufficient political assets and abilities to cause others to obey. Therefore, the lackey administration cannot be stabilized. The coup d'état on 1 November 1963 will not be the last''

I still can't see having Diem in power will make everything somehow better. But, there may be some ''merit'' in him being better than the musical chairs of generals that followed him.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
As I feared, some people are answering by denying that JFK would have withdrawn troops from South Vietnam--which is an interesting debate, which we have had here before, [1] but not really responsive to the question, which is *what if* JFK does withdraw the troops. And the answer to that is that South Vietnam would fall in 1965.

[1] See, e.g., https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-to-intervene-in-vietnam.333185/#post-9892176
Also, here's another question for you, David--do you think that we would see anywhere near as much Vietnamese immigration to the U.S. over the last 55 years in this TL?
 
Top