Longer Korean and Indochina wars

BigBlueBox

Banned
Something I find interesting is that the end of the Korean War and the First Indochina War and the resulting partitions were both negotiated at the same 1954 Geneva Conference. Theoretically, this could mean that a longer Korean War leads to a longer Indochina War. So Syngman Rhee gets his wish and the UN Forces and America agree to keep fighting for a unified Korea. Due to massively increased material support and advisers from the Soviet Union to the Chinese and North Koreans well as the introduction of limited "volunteer" forces by the summer of 1955 the Western powers have made barely any progress and are only slightly ahead of their position in 1953. Meanwhile in Indochina, the French have continued fighting. Dien Bien Phu and the Battle of Mang Yang pass went as OTL, but the French don't want to negotiate from a position of weakness and French hopes have been buoyed by vague and noncommittal American promises to support the French after the Korean war is over.

In 1955, ceasefires in Indochina and Korea take place and a joint peace conference for both conflicts occurs the same year. The Western position in Korea is slightly stronger, but the implicit threat of direct Soviet intervention prevents a unified capitalist Korea. In Indochina though,the Viet Minh have a greater upper hand than they did OTL - an extra year of war means that French public opinion is even more against the war and the Viet Minh has even stronger nationalist credentials for recruitment and support. Not only that, but the struggle for independence in France's North African colonies is already beginning, which will not only tie down French troops but also mean that the reliability and loyalty of the Algerian and Moroccan troops in Indochina cannot be trusted. Furthermore, it becomes increasingly clear that the American public has no appetite for a war in Indochina to assist French colonialists, especially not after Korea. How great is the Viet Minh advantage over OTL though? Would they have been able to seize Hanoi or even Haiphong before the ceasefire? Could they set the partition at the 13th parallel instead of the 17th like they had wanted to, or maybe even a united Vietnam under their rule? Or would the French start learning from their mistakes and turn the tide?
 
Don't know much about Vietnam, but Korea could have lasted longer if Stalin hadn't died when he did. IIRC he simply wanted the war to continue and negotiations with him would have been exceedingly difficult given how paranoid and devious he was. Likely a continued US presence so close to the Soviet Far East in South Korea would've been anathema to him, and yet the US would want to maintain it for fear of a renewed invasion from the North somewhere down the line, a difference in interests that would be difficult to solve. When confronted by a stalemate that might last for years, Truman might change his mind on using nuclear weapons on China. That alone opens up a big can of butterflies. For one thing, there'll be zero Chinese support to North Vietnam.
 
You would have to prevent the disaster at Dien Bien Phu,if France is to keep fighting for one more year!
 
Top