Humphrey wins in '68, does S. Vietnam fall by Nov 72 & Reagan win White House?

Humphrey wins in '68, does S. Vietnam fall by Nov 72 & Reagan win White House?

  • Yes on both

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • No on both

    Votes: 8 33.3%
  • Yes S. Vietnam falls by then, no Reagan is not nominated and elected in 1972

    Votes: 6 25.0%
  • No S. Vietnam to does not fall by then, but Reagan is nominated and elected in 1972

    Votes: 7 29.2%

  • Total voters
    24

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What it says on the tin.

I will vote yes on both questions, based on the following assumptions:

Humphrey, as a member of the administration that escalated the war, and seeking the domestic cooperation of increasingly dissatisfied Democrats, will be under internal partisan and constituent pressure to terminate US involvement in the war faster.

In addition to removing US troops faster, and making it politically easier for Congress to cut aid once US troops are out, he is likely to inflict less damage on VC infrastructure and VC and VC and NVA sanctuaries and interdict fewer North Vietnamese logistic routes while conducting withdrawal.

Vietnamization will also be more rushed so Saigon's spread of control will be even more tenuous than it was in OTL.

When US troops and advisors withdraw, almost certainly before 1970 or 1971 is out, the combat and leadership contribution goes, and possibly even more important, their oversight of US aid to ARVN.

Meanwhile further rapid domestic turmoil and change, increasingly left-liberal Supreme Court decisions, and humiliation overseas, will prime conservative Republicans to coalesce around Reagan and win the general in 1972.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
This question in my mind bears a certain relationship to another thread I started, about Reagan being nominated in 1968, where I don't think he stands much chance of winning the general even if nominated. https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-reagan-is-republican-nominee-in-1968.472549/

Basically, its my opinion that his chances are much greater post Vietnam War than after Vietnam. Post-Vietnam he and his supporters could blame the other party for defeat and humiliation and promise to restore honor somehow in a way that is strong but affordable. If Vietnam is still going on there is too much public fear that his strong anticommunism means escalating the fight meaning more spending, casualties or risk of WWIII.

Kinda like how the China Lobby's political potency after WWII increased the most only *after* Chiang was driven from the mainland. Retrospective crying over spilt milk is more popular than promising sacrifices ahead.
 

Marc

Donor
On the other hand, some thousands less Americans dead or injured for life, and hundreds of thousands Southeast Asian not dead.
On the moral scale, a plus.
 
I don't think HHH could get away with not being _more_ aggressive than Nixon. Nixon was one of McCarthy's homies, so you can't redbait Tricky Dick but HHH is a democrat. My guess is SV is in a better position come ttl's 1972.
 
Saigon might not necessarily fall by November 1972. But I do think Reagan has a good chance of winning that year due to conservative backlash, party fatigue, a mild recession in 1970, and his own charisma. Though if he did win it wouldn't be the blowout of 1980.
 
Even if the US is out early, in 1970 the Conservative Wing of the Democratic Party had not been gutted by the new batch of Watergate Babies of OTL 1974.

So that means that the US is still Treaty bound by the ATL *Paris Accords, and that Treaties support clause will be upheld

Tet still destroyed the VC, and the Phoenix Program predated Nixon, and I don't see HHH stopping it.

That all means that North Vietnam wants the Southern territory, they will have to do a conventional invasion, as OTL

And as 1972 proved, Airpower can stop that, as the one thing the US Military was training for, was to smash an invasion using Warsaw Pact mechanized formations
 
Top