How Would Nixon Have Handled 'Nam?

In a point in time when nobody, not even the GOP, actually *wanted* a war in Vietnam in the first place? He's more freedom to move but he's not able to move the entirety of geopolitics here.

So now you're shifting the discussion from the BoP and Castro to Vietnam? Wow, it's getting hard to keep up.

On the contrary, my parents were first politically aware then and I've learned a lot about the era from them more than I have about history books, of which I've yet to find one on the entire Vietnam War that's actually about the *war*.

Again, not to downplay their experience, you're still listening to someone else's version of history, with their biases and viewpoints. Just like mine, for that matter. Where were your parents involved and when? We might have crossed paths.
 
Nixon would have continued what Ike did, and what Kennedy was doing: Aid and supply, and advisers. That's the short answer, but also the true answer. Whether he would allow Diem to be killed or be forced to deal with the fact that Diem would end up killed is debatable. Still, a dead Diem wouldn't force America's hand in Vietnam. Diem wasn't a good leader, but he was the best of the bad ones that there were; in Vietnam, you didn't have a good situation go bad, you just had a bad one go worse.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I wonder how long Diem would have lasted on his own, though he'll likely have a better/more established relationship with Nixon than he did with Kennedy.
 
In a point in time when nobody, not even the GOP, actually *wanted* a war in Vietnam in the first place? He's more freedom to move but he's not able to move the entirety of geopolitics here.

I think you're overstating the case concerning who wanted and didn't want involvement in Vietnam. There was a very strong contingent in Congress and the Pentagon that wanted to "set an example" and "stand up to communism" in Vietnam in the early-mid-1960s, especially after the embarrassment of the unsuccessful BoP effort and the the adrenalin rush of the Missile Crisis.

But let's follow our ATL through from Cuba and a successful BoP and the now ongoing occupation of Cuba. Nixon, Congress, the military, and the American people are basking in the glow of knocking out an overtly communist government after a series of Third World successes for the Soviets. Wow, that wasn't so hard, was it? What's that about this place called South Vietnam? Commies getting a little uppity there, are they? They're breaking the agreement that divided Vietnam, and those books by Dr. Tom Dooley are breaking hearts all over America. America wants us to save these people from the communist menace, General. How do we do it?

And that eventually leads to mining the harbors and shutting off the flow of supplies to the insurgents and the NVA. Becaue Nixon knows the truth about the missile gap and he knows the Soviets aren't going to invade West Germany over some pissant little country on the far side of the world.
 
Nixon would have continued what Ike did, and what Kennedy was doing: Aid and supply, and advisers. That's the short answer, but also the true answer. Whether he would allow Diem to be killed or be forced to deal with the fact that Diem would end up killed is debatable. Still, a dead Diem wouldn't force America's hand in Vietnam. Diem wasn't a good leader, but he was the best of the bad ones that there were; in Vietnam, you didn't have a good situation go bad, you just had a bad one go worse.

If Nixon's presidency had gone the way of Kennedy's, you're right. I don't think it would, though, starting with Bay of Pigs. And that would change everything IMO. Perhaps he would have continued Ike's policies in SEA, or perhaps he would have been more aggressive. I lean toward more aggressive.
 
So now you're shifting the discussion from the BoP and Castro to Vietnam? Wow, it's getting hard to keep up.

The OP as I understand it is about how Nixon would have handled Vietnam. Nixon was not Kennedy and less constrained with Eisenhower's foreign-policy mixture of idealism and incompetence as a starting point. Nixon did not rely on fearmongering about a gap that did not exist to make himself legitimate. This gives him much more freedom to maneuver than the son of the political boss had.

Again, not to downplay their experience, you're still listening to someone else's version of history, with their biases and viewpoints. Just like mine, for that matter. Where were your parents involved and when? We might have crossed paths.

My father was in college then and my mother was working as a nurse.

I think you're overstating the case concerning who wanted and didn't want involvement in Vietnam. There was a very strong contingent in Congress and the Pentagon that wanted to "set an example" and "stand up to communism" in Vietnam in the early-mid-1960s, especially after the embarrassment of the unsuccessful BoP effort and the the adrenalin rush of the Missile Crisis.

Neither of which are going to happen with a Nixon victory in 1960. At least not in the form we recognize.

But let's follow our ATL through from Cuba and a successful BoP and the now ongoing occupation of Cuba. Nixon, Congress, the military, and the American people are basking in the glow of knocking out an overtly communist government after a series of Third World successes for the Soviets.

So let's see, Cuba, an island the USA has invaded and occupied more than once and directly tied to the USSR is deliberately invaded and the Castro regime, with direct ties to Moscow deposed? Nice job, you've just guaranteed a Soviet response that will be very unpleasant for the United States. Occupying a Cuba that was not interested in having the USA there would also be relatively unpleasant for our army. No triumph here except in a purely Tacitean sense.

Wow, that wasn't so hard, was it? What's that about this place called South Vietnam? Commies getting a little uppity there, are they? They're breaking the agreement that divided Vietnam, and those books by Dr. Tom Dooley are breaking hearts all over America. America wants us to save these people from the communist menace, General. How do we do it?

The USA never directly declared war in that scenario, and it never really understood who it was fighting or how to fight them. We had a lot of individual tactical victories that got us nowhere and nothing gained from round-the-clock bombing under LBJ. Nixon is not a Mary Tzu, he will have limits on what he could and could not do, they just aren't the ones Kennedy'd have. A real war in Vietnam would be well over those limits.

And that eventually leads to mining the harbors and shutting off the flow of supplies to the insurgents and the NVA. Becaue Nixon knows the truth about the missile gap and he knows the Soviets aren't going to invade West Germany over some pissant little country on the far side of the world.

And Nixon in an alternate 1960-4 term will see much less direct benefit *from* outright intervention in a war in a pissant little country on the far side of the world. It'd be a continued involvement of US advisors for at least four years, *if* he goes in directly it would be in his second as opposed to his first term.
 
The OP as I understand it is about how Nixon would have handled Vietnam. Nixon was not Kennedy and less constrained with Eisenhower's foreign-policy mixture of idealism and incompetence as a starting point. Nixon did not rely on fearmongering about a gap that did not exist to make himself legitimate. This gives him much more freedom to maneuver than the son of the political boss had.

Exactly my point, which I've made repeatedly. Even in 1960 the Democrats with a few exceptions were as stridently anti-communist as the Republicans, so even if Nixon is working with the majority Democratic Congress that was elected OTL he is not likely to run into much opposition regarding Cuba. And in the aftermath of a successful Cuba invasion, Congress is even less likely to put up roadblocks.

My father was in college then and my mother was working as a nurse.

Cool. Was this in the 1960s or 1970s? I was entered college in Maine in 1968, had some involvement with the antiwar movement in the Northeast. Ended up in the Air Force, of all things, stationed in the Midwest.

So let's see, Cuba, an island the USA has invaded and occupied more than once and directly tied to the USSR is deliberately invaded and the Castro regime, with direct ties to Moscow deposed? Nice job, you've just guaranteed a Soviet response that will be very unpleasant for the United States. Occupying a Cuba that was not interested in having the USA there would also be relatively unpleasant for our army. No triumph here except in a purely Tacitean sense.

Not the point, especially from an early 1960s viewpoint. As you've already noted, Ike and (presumably) Nixon knew the truth about the missile gap and the USSR's relative weakness. Certainly the Soviets will want payback. That's a prospect I raised in my initial post.
The USA never directly declared war in that scenario, and it never really understood who it was fighting or how to fight them. We had a lot of individual tactical victories that got us nowhere and nothing gained from round-the-clock bombing under LBJ. Nixon is not a Mary Tzu, he will have limits on what he could and could not do, they just aren't the ones Kennedy'd have. A real war in Vietnam would be well over those limits.
Tell that to LBJ in OTL. A war president, especially a successful war president, can get away with an awful lot. As for the innumerable mistakes made in Vietnam, many of them had their tap roots running right into the White House and Foggy Bottom. (And the Pentagon, which didn't realize it was fighting the wrong war for way too long.) It would be interesting to speculate what Vietnam would have been like without Dean Rusk and Robert McNamara setting policy on everything from M-16 bullets to the Saigon leadership.
And Nixon in an alternate 1960-4 term will see much less direct benefit *from* outright intervention in a war in a pissant little country on the far side of the world. It'd be a continued involvement of US advisors for at least four years, *if* he goes in directly it would be in his second as opposed to his first term.
You might be right. Cuba would be enough to keep him busy in the first term. It's another variable in the mix. The real ramp up in American numbers in Vietnam didn't start until 1965 OTL, after LBJ had won an overwhelming victory at the polls in 11/64.

So does Diem survive in a Nixon presidency? He wasn't great, but as someone else has already said, he was the best of a bad lot.
 
Also, would Sihanouk survive in Cambodia in a 1961-64 Nixon administration? How about Nixon's policy re: China in that period?
 
Exactly my point, which I've made repeatedly. Even in 1960 the Democrats with a few exceptions were as stridently anti-communist as the Republicans, so even if Nixon is working with the majority Democratic Congress that was elected OTL he is not likely to run into much opposition regarding Cuba. And in the aftermath of a successful Cuba invasion, Congress is even less likely to put up roadblocks.

Key words are "successful Cuba invasion."

Cool. Was this in the 1960s or 1970s? I was entered college in Maine in 1968, had some involvement with the antiwar movement in the Northeast. Ended up in the Air Force, of all things, stationed in the Midwest.

Sixties. Dad went to ULL and mom was working at a hospital in Memphis when MLK was shot.

Not the point, especially from an early 1960s viewpoint. As you've already noted, Ike and (presumably) Nixon knew the truth about the missile gap and the USSR's relative weakness. Certainly the Soviets will want payback. That's a prospect I raised in my initial post.

They also were *less* likely to commit the USA to the nightmare invading and occupying Cuba would mean.

Tell that to LBJ in OTL. A war president, especially a successful war president, can get away with an awful lot. As for the innumerable mistakes made in Vietnam, many of them had their tap roots running right into the White House and Foggy Bottom. (And the Pentagon, which didn't realize it was fighting the wrong war for way too long.) It would be interesting to speculate what Vietnam would have been like without Dean Rusk and Robert McNamara setting policy on everything from M-16 bullets to the Saigon leadership.

Successful? I seem to remember someone won the Vietnam War and that someone was not the USA.

You might be right. Cuba would be enough to keep him busy in the first term. It's another variable in the mix. The real ramp up in American numbers in Vietnam didn't start until 1965 OTL, after LBJ had won an overwhelming victory at the polls in 11/64.

Ja, guerrilla wars tend to do that. Moscow gets an even easier way to bleed the USA close to home and to claim plausible deniability, the USA will leave that even less soon than they did Vietnam. Presto, no Vietnam War.

So does Diem survive in a Nixon presidency? He wasn't great, but as someone else has already said, he was the best of a bad lot.

Perhaps but his regime only survives if he decides to go Gaius Paulinus on the asses of the society he's theoretically ruling, which means the NVA can just sit on the couch chewing popcorn and move in when the USA decides Cuba means a lot more than the RVN does.
 
Also, would Sihanouk survive in Cambodia in a 1961-64 Nixon administration?

If Nixon continues with the foreign policy of Eisenhower then it is likely that there would be a committment of soldiers into Laos - as opposed to the neutralisation policy pursued under Kennedy.

Cambodia would then be surrounded by three anti communist states, and the most likely threat at that stage would be the support of the Khmer Serei by foreign powers. This is based upon the assumption that the rudimentary trail that grew into the Ho Chi Minh highway is stopped by the intervention of US ground forces. Sihanouk may pursue left leaning diplomacy in a bid to counterbalance the external pressure to Cambodia, i.e. stronger affiliation with the non aligned movement. The key point to remember at this point in Cambodian history Sihanouk was still quite popular with his population as a whole, both in the cities and the regional community. So any replacement of him would have to have a greater presence than Sihanouk - which is incredibly difficult without further POD's earlier. PM if you want a list of options for a TL
 
Top