In such a timeframe, you could see a peace agreement being signed in 1969 followed by a gradual withdrawal through 1971. However, I imagine that Saigon would fall by 1973 if not earlier.
How would RFK handle Vietnam if he won in 1968, in your own personal opinion?
- Thread starter TheKennedyMachine.
- Start date
In such a timeframe, you could see a peace agreement being signed in 1969 followed by a gradual withdrawal through 1971. However, I imagine that Saigon would fall by 1973 if not earlier.
All depends on the US holding up to the Treaty requirements if(when) the North restarts hostilities.
North loses a conventional invasion if the US responds
Might a less drawn out war make air support for the South more politically viable? This could delay Saigon's fall but I think South Vietnam's defeat was pretty much inevitable once the U.S. ended direct involvement.
As the 70s drag on, the opportunity for the North decrease. OTL they were surprised that the South caved the way they did in '75.
After that, they had to worry more about China.
Cheers mate, always willing to recognise I don’t know the terrain of US electoral politics at that level. Reagan might mean an earlier successful SVN offensive: Reagan will market the hell out of getting out and won’t have to put blood over to win his marketing job. “Just enough planes” to lose.? Or would Reagan’s war after RFK be different.
Reagan would have wanted to reengage but I doubt that there would be Congressional support to fund continuation of the war,
Curtain Jerker
Donor
I think 1972 is too early for Reagan and definitely too late for Nixon - assuming the latter loses to RFK in 68.
Does Rockefeller get a turn at the plate?
Does Rockefeller get a turn at the plate?
If not him, Romney or Chuck Percy. Maybe Howard Baker. I agree it's too soon for Reagan, especially not even a decade after the Goldwater disaster of 64.
Depending on what happens in 1970, if Kent State doesn't happen, then there is a chance for a last ride of the New Deal GOP with Governor James A. 'Jim' Rhodes. Even after Kent State, he got reelected to the Ohio Governor's mansion twice - and in an era when the state was still highly competitive.
He'd have another full term as Governor of Michigan (a competitive state) under his belt, and after two close losses by center right Nixon and a landslide loss by far right Goldwater, I think "brainwashed" comment or not, he'd stand a good chance, especially if RFK fails to live up to the hype that surrounded him and enough liberal defect to vote for Romney (George was well to the left of Mitt, and IIRC Rockefeller).
My mistake, then getting back to Reagan, he only did due to his "favorite son" win in the California primary if I remember correctly. Regardless, it took extraordinary circumstances to get Reagan elected in 1980 OTL, I don't think the circumstances to even get him nominated would be there in this scenario, thus I think a moderate/liberal Republican would stand a better chance.
Well, Rockefeller's response to Attica and his draconian drug laws were obviously ways to kiss up to the right wing of the GOP. Perhaps in this ATL, Rockefeller finally gets his shot by co-opting Nixon's law and order rhetoric?