Kennedy lives, Nixon inherits a different Vietnam mess

POD: Kennedy is wounded but not killed by Oswald, and lives to win a second term. Civil rights legislation and anti-poverty programs as Johnson OTL, but perhaps a bit slower and more tentative: similar problems with riots etc. as OTL.

Major difference is in Vietnam, where Kennedy is more reluctant to commit large numbers of troops, and perfers to stick with a beefed-up Special Forces mission, training, advisors, etc. US involvement is less noticeable and for a while remains a secondary issue in US politics. There is still a Counterculture, but Vietnam is not really on the program for political action, compared to civil rights, opressive social structures, racism, sexism, squareness, etc.

Unfortunately, the Special Forces prove to be insufficient, the situation in South Vietnam rapidly gets worse, and to prevent a total collapse, Kennedy has to carry out a massive injection of US forces into South Vietnam in his last year in office. Nixon is able to convince people that Kennedy's handling of the Vietnamese situation has been hamhanded, and running on a promise that he can salvage the mess and bring victory (at this point popular opinion still sees this as an analogy to the Korean war rather than a quagmire in the making) and on "law and order" (the anti-war left haven't yet made themselves a source of paranoia, but the Counterculture is still very annoying, and the black population haven't reacted well to Kennedy's sluggishness on civil rights) manages to pull off a narrow victory over the democratic candidate (Johnson?).

So, Nixon comes into office expected to _win_ in Vietnam, not just get "peace with honor" or just get out. The situation is rapidly becoming less popular, but it is not as yet as divisive as it was OTL. What happens?

Bruce
 
A Marine division over the beaches at Hiaphong, an airborne division dropped into Hanoi and an ACR as a heavy mobile force to link them. As the NthV and others react the US forces pull out through Hiaphong, wreaking havoc all the way. All in all NthV is unable to interfere in SthV or years to come and with the Chinese massed on the border as a result of the US raid NthV keeps its slowy rebuilding forces at home for some time.
 
First of all, JFK living causes many butterflies. It would be patently absurd to just have LBJ's OTL presidency occur under JFK. There will be much less domestic legislation for one thing. Any liberal NF proposals will be shot down by the Dixiecrat-GOP coalition. Kennedy did not realize that even if he gave LBJ the role of Congressional dealmaker, there were no deals to be made. Johnson had no legislative chits to trade, which was key to his success as Majority Leader.

Now for LBJ as the Dem nominee: No, Just no. While LBJ was not going to be dumped as Veep in '64, he was not going to be nominated in '68. By 1963 many in the media were making Robert Kennedy the nominee-designate five years in advance. Would he take it? Better-than-even chances, but by no means a guarantee winner against Nixon or any other GOP candidate. Also remembering this is going to be a somewhat different man than OTL '68. He's going to get all three factions of OTL '68, but even a win would not be a blowout due to the Southern problem. You might see a Humphrey-Sanford, Bobby-Sanford ticket, possibly '68 for the former and '76 for the latter.
 
I can see the Kennedys getting all enthusiastic about a Rumsfeldian 'Vietnam on the cheap' operation.

The problem with this daring proto-neocon adventurism is it doesn't take into acount exactly what Giap's forces were capable of. IOTL the conventional ARVN was really floundering by 1965.

Anyway, by the end of 1966 it will be pretty obvious that JFK's Rumsfeldian strategy just isn't working--and I mean it will be obvious to the blockheads who historically wanted to believe that the light was at the end of the tunnel, that's how bad things will have become. The only thing stopping Giap from triumphing at this time will be the big planes flying out of Guam.

Anyway, to continue the anachronistic analogies, can anyone say 'surge'? I think all this scenario gives us is a buildup that begins two years later than in OTL, as JFK decides that a more conventional military deployment is the way to avoid tainting his legacy with 'who lost Vietnam' arguments. Unless he thinks he has the political capital to reach a '73 settlement and just walk away. Who knows?

(Anyway, the counter culture? Notice how the hippies et al took their cues from rock performers from Britain? The counter culture still happens, it just may not be influenced by the politics of the draft. Though there will still be other radical politics to influence the DFH.)

LATE EDIT:

Ah, I see that I've merely repeated Bruce's third and forth paragraphs. Should read all OPs more closely.

B Munro said:
So, Nixon comes into office expected to _win_ in Vietnam, not just get "peace with honor" or just get out. The situation is rapidly becoming less popular, but it is not as yet as divisive as it was OTL. What happens?

I'm not sure it would be Nixon, not if America doesn't think it's experiencing a crisis. He's just not a exactly 'regular' election winner.

Anyway, IOTL Nixon knew that Vietnam was a loser even before becoming POTUS, that the US's only option was to extract itself. Don't let the revisionists tell you that he achieved victory only to have the Watergate congress snatch it away--if he had served his full term he probably just lets the RVN sink or swim on its own in the 1975 offensive, all the while telling the world that he was concerned with more important geopolitical issues (maybe he moves towards opening Red China to Western capitalism?)
 
Last edited:
There were many advocates of COIN and SpecOps by means of the Green Berets. Their leading proponent, was, you guessed it, the Attorney General. Needless to say the Chiefs and the brass went off the wall. If RFK succeeds his brother in '68, expect some sort of SpecOps-wanking.
 
The major question in respect to COIN is how stable is the South Vietnamese government with Kennedy in charge? If the revolving door government continues as OTL, then the government and army are going to be gutted of "Diemists" and others who may be competent in their jobs but have differing politics. Then, like Magniac said, America is going to have its hand forced with sending forces to shore up ARVN.
 
I think Diem is the best bet, because he's the only one with genuine non-Commie nationalist cred. Ho acknowledged that himself. Nhu is a fascist, and Ky is a right-wing Chavez parody. "My hero: Hitler". Thieu was OK, but was a northern transplant who converted from Buddhism. Most of the time he was an OK general and a fairly good president, until his disastrous Custer-wank decisions in '75 helped lead to the collapse of SVN.
 
Anyway, IOTL Nixon knew that Vietnam was a loser even before becoming POTUS, that the US's only option was to extract itself. Don't let the revisionists tell you that he achieved victory only to have the Watergate congress snatch it away--if he had served his full term he probably just lets the RVN sink or swim on its own in the 1975 offensive, all the while telling the world that he was concerned with more important geopolitical issues (maybe he moves towards opening Red China to Western capitalism?)

Hmm - but will he know Vietnam is a loser in this TL? Two years delay in a major buildup is two less years of Total Fail, and Nixon may assume he's smart enough to find a way to pull it off. Perhaps Nixon goes to China a couple years earlier than OTL, in hopes of forming a US-Chinese anti-Viet, anti-Soviet alliance?

Bruce
 

Thande

Donor
Perhaps Nixon goes to China a couple years earlier than OTL, in hopes of forming a US-Chinese anti-Viet, anti-Soviet alliance?

He might even succeed. Now that would be a turn-up for the books. Maybe agree to turn a blind eye if the Chinese invade North Vietnam, topple Ho, install a likeminded puppet, providing they guarantee the territorial integrity of South Vietnam and its presence in the American sphere of influence?
 
Hmm - but will he know Vietnam is a loser in this TL? Two years delay in a major buildup is two less years of Total Fail, and Nixon may assume he's smart enough to find a way to pull it off. Perhaps Nixon goes to China a couple years earlier than OTL, in hopes of forming a US-Chinese anti-Viet, anti-Soviet alliance?

Nixon does have his first hand experience as VP at the time of the French quagmire and defeat, but then again the fact that the US was originally very sucessful in creating the RVN* might blind him to the reality of this different 60s South Vietnam.

I think the most efficacious Vietnam policy for America is to use some combination of a Diem-style regime and massive aerial bombardments to hold back a communist victory without committing its own regular troops, and then head straight for a 1973 settlement. Eventually an RVN that can't defend itself has to be let go--what is America going to do, keep sending the bombers in support of the Saigon regime well into the era of Deng Xiaoping? (And I don't see how backing a Chinese invasion of IndoChina is a 'problem solver'. The PRC were supporters of the Khmer Rouge IOTL, folks.)


*That was a 50s Cold War black op to compare with Iran or Guatemala.
 
He might even succeed. Now that would be a turn-up for the books. Maybe agree to turn a blind eye if the Chinese invade North Vietnam, topple Ho, install a likeminded puppet, providing they guarantee the territorial integrity of South Vietnam and its presence in the American sphere of influence?

Mmm, I like it.

Hell, with a little timing some heavy bombing could "accidentially" end up aiding the invasion.

But what would the SU do?

Attacking China seems out of the question.

Up funding for terrorists and guerillas? Where there any options they didn't follow up OTL?
 

Thande

Donor
Mmm, I like it.

Hell, with a little timing some heavy bombing could "accidentially" end up aiding the invasion.

But what would the SU do?

Attacking China seems out of the question.

Up funding for terrorists and guerillas? Where there any options they didn't follow up OTL?
I'm guessing more clashes on the Sino-Soviet border along with what you mentioned.
 
I'm guessing more clashes on the Sino-Soviet border along with what you mentioned.

Well, there's only so much you can do with border clashes if you don't want an actual war...perhaps more action in Africa, in hopes of burnishing its anti-colonial credentials and pull off an actual victory they can point to? The USSR (aided by the Cubans) was pretty active in supporting Angola and Mozambique against S. Africa - perhaps in this TL we see a much larger-scale Soviet military presence in the area and concerted efforts to destabilize south African control in Namibia and white settler rule in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe - and won't it be fun if the US, flush with its success in Vietnam, ends up sending troops to prop up white rule in southern Africa (especially for American black troops).

PS, I doubt the Chinese would be able to put a puppet in control of Vietnam - they invaded Vietnam OTL in 1979 and had no fun whatsoever. But they could certainly apply a lot of pressure. (BTW, how did the USSR get supplies to Vietnam? Regular shipping? I vaguely remember something about the US mining North Vietnamese harbours...)

Bruce
 
Last edited:

Thande

Donor
Well, there's only so much you can do with border clashes if you don't want an actual war...perhaps more action in Africa? The USSR (aided by the Cubans) was pretty active in supporting Angola and Mozambique against S. Africa - perhaps in this TL we see a much larger-scale Soviet military presence in the area and concerted efforts to destabilize south African control in Namibia and white settler rule in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe - and won't it be fun if the US, flush with its success in Vietnam, ends up sending troops to prop up white rule in southern Africa (especially for American black troops).

Bruce

Interesting idea, but I'd have thought they'd take more direct action against China to punish them rather than the USA. No idea how though.
 
Nixon does have his first hand experience as VP at the time of the French quagmire and defeat, but then again the fact that the US was originally very sucessful in creating the RVN* might blind him to the reality of this different 60s South Vietnam.

I think the most efficacious Vietnam policy for America is to use some combination of a Diem-style regime and massive aerial bombardments to hold back a communist victory without committing its own regular troops, and then head straight for a 1973 settlement. Eventually an RVN that can't defend itself has to be let go--what is America going to do, keep sending the bombers in support of the Saigon regime well into the era of Deng Xiaoping? (And I don't see how backing a Chinese invasion of IndoChina is a 'problem solver'. The PRC were supporters of the Khmer Rouge IOTL, folks.)

I thought China's support for the Khmer Rouge was solely because the Vietnamese took a Pro-Soviet stance, while the Cambodians sought close relations with China. After all, China did invade Vietnam in support of the Cambodians. I also don't see why South Vietnam would still be perpetually in trouble with a strongman like Diem, especially with military aid from the US. Without a high body count of dead GIs, why would the government be willing to go back on selling the VNAF the necessary aircraft like OTL? Granted, most of RVN's economy will probably be centered on defense needs until industrialization expands further.
 
First of all, JFK living causes many butterflies. It would be patently absurd to just have LBJ's OTL presidency occur under JFK. There will be much less domestic legislation for one thing. Any liberal NF proposals will be shot down by the Dixiecrat-GOP coalition. Kennedy did not realize that even if he gave LBJ the role of Congressional dealmaker, there were no deals to be made. Johnson had no legislative chits to trade, which was key to his success as Majority Leader.
I think the idea of the idea of Conservative opposition to the New Frontier/Great Society is over exaggerated. I do not contend that it did not exist or wasn't a hurdle, but it could be overcome and -as we saw with Johnson- was. You can be cynical and chalk it up to behind the scenes deal making and arm twisting and intimidation, but it got done. And LBJ will still be there, although the degree to which Kennedy would utilize him is debatable. Similarly, you have other Senators and Congressman who will do their part to get through that legislation. So I don't like the idea of this glass ceiling where Kennedy would be only able to do less than Johnson domestically.
Now, the key here though is how much will Kennedy focus on domestic issues? Kennedy himself was invested in foreign policy more than the domestic front, with Johnson the opposite. However, as he himself had proposed many of those policies that would come with the Great Society, I think he'd have a similar situation on the domestic front.

Now for LBJ as the Dem nominee: No, Just no. While LBJ was not going to be dumped as Veep in '64, he was not going to be nominated in '68. By 1963 many in the media were making Robert Kennedy the nominee-designate five years in advance. Would he take it? Better-than-even chances, but by no means a guarantee winner against Nixon or any other GOP candidate. Also remembering this is going to be a somewhat different man than OTL '68. He's going to get all three factions of OTL '68, but even a win would not be a blowout due to the Southern problem. You might see a Humphrey-Sanford, Bobby-Sanford ticket, possibly '68 for the former and '76 for the latter.
I'm not sure Bobby will run in 1968, although I doubt Johnson will win the nomination either. I can see Johnson running for it, of course, but there are a good few problems. He was old, he had health problems, if Kennedy lives he would likely not be well enough known (keep in mind, when Kennedy died and Johnson assumed the office, half the country didn't know who the hell he was), and he was a Southerner, and no Southerner could be seriously considered for the head of the ticket in the Northern Democrat/Southern Democrat era; they were simply there to balance out the tickets. Of course, Johnson was a political powerhouse so he'll probably get further than any other Southern Democrat could if he tried, but him gaining the nomination is still up in the air and far from assured.
If JFK lives, though, I'm not sure about Bobby. He'll have no burden to carry in rebuilding Camelot, and won't be the new defacto head of the Kennedy family to lead the legacy. He'll also require a political office like Senator of Govenor by 1964, and thus leave the Attorney General position, which I'm not sure he'd do until 1968.

Secondly, Nixon ain't guaranteed. I actually doubt this Vietnam scenario (Kennedy didn't want another Korea which is why he didn't want to get bogged down in South East Asia, was working towards cooling down tensions, and even any manned support like advisers isn't assured to keep going.) and similarly, no majority cared about Vietnam. Less than a third of the population paid any attention to the situation in Vietnam as a matter of fact, so whatever happens, it's not going to actually have too large an effect on 1968. Nixon ran as a "Return to Normalcy" and a solution to upheavals and so forth. If Kennedy lives, there won't be a massive deviation from any normalcy to return to. And keep in mind, Nixon only barely decided to run in 1968 as it was.
 
Hmm - but will he know Vietnam is a loser in this TL? Two years delay in a major buildup is two less years of Total Fail, and Nixon may assume he's smart enough to find a way to pull it off. Perhaps Nixon goes to China a couple years earlier than OTL, in hopes of forming a US-Chinese anti-Viet, anti-Soviet alliance?

Bruce

B Munro, here is what I was thinking, how does this sound?

1970
The first contact with China in 1970 is secret after the Sino-Soviet conflict in 1969. Nixon details the mutual US/PRC wish not to have a Soviet influence in Vietnam. Nixon outlines a plan for increased US aid, airforce units, and army units to protect the air bases in S.V. He meets with the Chinese in secret to ensure them that the US has no intention to endanger NV, Cambodia, or Laos, only to protect SV and Thailand. Nixon also wants to start trade with the Chinese.

After these meetings and a mutual non-agression pact in SE asia with the PRC that supports each countries aims, the US starts aerial missions only is SV to support the SVA against VC and NVA units. US Army and marine units are only involved to protect US bases, not to engage the enemy as OTL.

1971
It appears as the US air strikes and increased aid to the SVA is working to stem the tide against the VC. What is not known is that the VC and the NVA are planning an offensive to strike at US airbases and presence known as the Tet offensive. The NVA does not know of the dealings between the US and PRC. The Tet offensive catches both the SVA and US forces by surprise.

The immediate responce to the Tet is that Nixon consults with the Chinese to bomb NV. He gets Chinese approval as long as US planes do not operate North of Hanoi and Haiphong. The US air responce to the Tet rials the left up, the counter culture is a flame.

As a result and wanting to get out of SV by Nov 1972, Nixon consults with the Chinese again, this time he wants to eliminate NV all together as he sees this as the only way for the US to exit SV. Inteligence states that the NVA will be heavily engaged in SV. Nixon proposes a joint military operation to eliminate NV. For this, he states that the US will land a marine division at Haiphong and Air Drop a portion of the 101 with special forces into Hanoi. He would like the Chinese to open a ground campaign along the border with NV. Since was assigned to the Chinese sphere, Nixon does not care what the Chinese do after the operation.

The Chinese are concerned that any action might lead to conflict with the Soviets on the northern border. The US counters that if a conflict does occur with the Soviets, the PRC will recieve massive US material aid in the form of supplies.

1972
The joint operation is set for March 30. A couple months earlier, the NVA plays into the US hands by launching what it calls the Tet II offensive where the NVA deploys many units into SV.

The NVA is taken completly by surprise on March 30 by the US landings at Haiphong and the air drop into Hanoi. Furthermore they are stabbed in the back a day later when the Chinese open up their campaign. The main US forces are out of NV in two weeks as the goals of the operation were met. US POWs were rescued, the governmant and command and control of the NVA was cut off. Within a month US presence in SV is back to just being spec ops. Chinese presence will last quite a bit longer.

The US takes May, June, and July to mop up NVA units in SV. Air force, marine and Army units redeploy out of SV in August. Naval carrier groups are still active throughout to support the SVA. By the '72 republican convention, US forces in SV are the naval units and the spec op forces before the build up, and even these forces have been halved from the 1971 total.

I do not know what the reaction of the Chinese Nationalists will be? The US would still want them protected as any agreement with the PRC is only for SE Asia. The Russians are squaked, they cannot start something with China when China will get the full backing of the USA. All they can do is squak in the UN, for which the US counters by the NV infraction of SV first.
 
I think the idea of the idea of Conservative opposition to the New Frontier/Great Society is over exaggerated. I do not contend that it did not exist or wasn't a hurdle, but it could be overcome and -as we saw with Johnson- was.

It's important not to conflate ecomomic & welfare policy with civil rights in assessing just what a surviving JFK might do.

Personally I don't see why JFK can't get the same Medicare, Medicaid and war on poverty legislation through as LBJ did. If need be he'll just have to wait until after a decisive reelection victory against Goldwater (LBJ was able to get the war on poverty going in the months after the assassination).

Civil rights is another matter altogether.

Emperor Norton I said:
I'm not sure Bobby will run in 1968, although I doubt Johnson will win the nomination either.

I think RFK gets the nomination if he makes a serious run in 1968. But he wouldn't get it because he was, like, totally awesome--no, he would be the winner as he has the White House and the party elite behind him, as (broadly speaking) Stevenson had in '52, Nixon in '60, and HHH did in OT's '68. Though the big problem for him is that the sitting president can't be as aloof from the nominating process as the POTUSES in those other cases were.

I think LBJ will be pretty rundown in this scenario, very demoralised. He's had his medical problems. I can't see him fighting his first hard electoral battle in twenty years as an old man.

Though there is one man he can put forward who can put a hurt on young Bobby--Governor John Connally.

Emperor Norton I said:
Less than a third of the population paid any attention to the situation in Vietnam as a matter of fact, so whatever happens, it's not going to actually have too large an effect on 1968.

Sorry, I don't understand this.

If you mean that a majority of people polled by Gallup in each of its polls would regularly say they supported the war because they supported their boys, then yes, regular Americans probably didn't pay as close attention to the war as GOP Senator Aiken, who had declared, "We should declare victory and go home."

Yet the social upheavals you mention were intimately related to the war.

By this standard (social impact) the Korean War was supposedly a non-issue in 1952, as historiography tells us that there were no Korean-related upheavals on the US homefront. Yet Truman left office with poll numbers comparable to Nixon in his disgrace.

Though this dynamic will be different if there hasn't been a serious escalation in the US committment to Vietnam in this TL.
 
Connally v. RFK: that would make Karl Rove look like an innocent child in comparison. I like it. :D Who would replace Diem, who's going to be 70 in 1972? OTL's Thieu/Ky will not be as well known, and Thieu was one of the rebel regimental commanders in '63 IOTL.
 
Last edited:
Top