If there was no Vietnam War, what other proxy war could be a substitute?

This came about as a random thought to help others looking for a Vietnam equivalent in a timeline where it never happens. PoD doesn't matter, just that America and its allies never get into a war with Vietnam in the mid-1960s-70s.

I've already talked with a couple friends, but we could only think of Angola. And justifying that would be hell of a lot harder, and probably see even more backlash, than Vietnam.

Any other proxy wars in Cold War battlegrounds that could see American involvement?

EDIT: Here's the criteria.
  1. Has to have suitable terrain for a prolonged guerrilla conflict.
  2. Allows for large supply of Soviet and Warsaw Pact aid.
  3. Will have US involvement beginning in the 1960s and escalating until full-scale war by the start of the 1970s.
  4. The US always has to withdraw by the mid-1970s, having lost the war at home.
  5. Results in massive anti-war protests in the US.
 
Last edited:
Angola's an imperfect replacement, it wouldn't have the same risk of escalation as Vietnam did. A conventional invasion of the North could have brought the war to China's border and led Beijing to intervene directly the way it did in the Korean war.

A division of Iran into a communist North and a non-communist south could provide similar stakes and risks of nuclear escalation as Vietnam. The USSR almost set up a satellite state in south Azerbaijan in '46, and Iran has the mountainous terrain for a guerrilla conflict.
 
The other factor I'm looking for is an equivalent conflict that will result in the anti-war protests back home, and the counterculture development as well.

Cuba might not exactly work because there's no "sanctuary" for them to regroup in. But the jungle warfare will certainly be similar.
 
Cuba does only have 1/4 the population of Vietnam and is an island, so it will be less of a quagmire.

Ok: Colombia. 18 million population, even worse terrain, already quite unstable in 1960, and a direct threat to the Canal Zone if it goes communist.

[ POD is that in 1961 Nixon appoints General William Westmoreland instead of William Yarborough, to head the Army Special Warfare Center. Westy's in charge of the 101st Airborne, he'll handle this ]

EDIT: also, liberal protesters will perceive the deadly war as being over coffee.
 
Last edited:
Mayb Suez crisis escalating into sending us troops there and it becomes an all out slog or we send troops into Hungary when the revolution happens
 
The other factor I'm looking for is an equivalent conflict that will result in the anti-war protests back home, and the counterculture development as well.

Any foreign war would have done it, and it would have to be after America caught up in the space race in the mid-sixties. The fact that the other candidates (Cuba, Suez, Angola, etc.) did not happen says there probably would not be widespread protests without Vietnam. The counter-culture is a different story, deriving from the beatniks of the late fifties, the Esalen Institute in the early sixties, and so-on. The sudden change in music (British Invasion) in 1964-1965 drove a generation gap that never healed, so there would be a counter-culture, just less radical.
 
Regarding Colombia, what would the outcome be? I doubt that the FARC would have the ability to set up their own state, but I'm guessing a complete US withdrawal and ineffectual ceasefire would be the outcome?
 

Marc

Donor
Keep in mind, it just isn't about Vietnam. All of "Indochina" and Southeast Asia was problematic in the early 60's. You would have to suppose away a total American interest in the region dating back to WW2.
All right, here is one that is truly a nightmare scenario: Indonesia. The PKI is more successful during the traumatic 60's, the United States goes full in. Vietnam squared...
 
I don’t know there would need to be a significant war at all. Without Vietnam, the late sixties would proceed as an extension of the late fifties and early sixties. The Cold War is in full swing, but manpower needs were more limited without combat activity. President Kennedy was said to be “generous” with hardship exemptions to the draft for men with families.

There would be a counter-culture, but it would be less concerned with anti-war protests. You would have a call for draft reform, such as an earlier two-year enlistment. You could narrow the draft age to 19 (or just out of college) earlier. The military simply did not have the massive need for manpower it did for World War II. Without a war, you could get an earlier all-volunteer army sooner, as the military becomes a more attractive career start for young men.
 

Marc

Donor
I don’t know there would need to be a significant war at all. Without Vietnam, the late sixties would proceed as an extension of the late fifties and early sixties. The Cold War is in full swing, but manpower needs were more limited without combat activity. President Kennedy was said to be “generous” with hardship exemptions to the draft for men with families.

There would be a counter-culture, but it would be less concerned with anti-war protests. You would have a call for draft reform, such as an earlier two-year enlistment. You could narrow the draft age to 19 (or just out of college) earlier. The military simply did not have the massive need for manpower it did for World War II. Without a war, you could get an earlier all-volunteer army sooner, as the military becomes a more attractive career start for young men.

Sorry, but I beg to disagree about the draft. First, it was - as hard as it might seem in this age - quite a popular institution. It was seen, besides providing discipline, training and education, as a patriotic rite of passage to manhood. The military did appreciate the cheap manpower, it wasn't until the 1970's that they began to realize the downside of draftees, both politically and in terms of needing better trained and experienced personnel that you get from 4 years in. (Keep in mind the armed forces of the United States of that era were astonishingly low tech for the most part). And until the utter insanity of Vietnam, the military was considered one of the major professions; up there with law and medicine, accounting and divinity.
 
I was thinking about clandestine shipments and airbases from Cuba in that case, but I'm not sure how well that would do. It might end up in a Greek Civil War situation, where for every muleload of aid the communists got, the monarchists got an entire shipload. Plus there's all the American-backed military regimes in South America once the 1970s roll around.

Another condition of the Vietnam substitute is that the US still has to withdraw, disillusioned and bloodied.
 
Top