No major US involvement in South Vietnam

In OTL the US tried and failed to save South Vietnam from rule by a Communist government. (Some say that this was because the US was too nice- they tend to forget Agent orange and some of the heaviest bombing in the history of the planet)

The actual outcome was huge damage to Vietnam and huge numbers of deaths.

In addition when South Vietnam fell it was taken over by the North because the Southern supporters of the new regime were mostly dead.


WI either

the US had recognized Ho's declaration independence in the autumn of 1945

OR An all Vietnam election had happened in the 1950s.

OR John Kennedy had got better advice and not sent in ground troops in the early 60s

OR (harder I suspect) LBJ had not sent in large numbers of troops from 1965.



1) How different would Vietnam be as a place? It would still be a dicatorship. I think it likely that at some stage the market style reforms would still have happened. The economy has to have been in better shape.

Also would a Vietnam united earlier have been a Soviet satelite? How would it have related to China? Could it have been seen in the same way Yugoslavia was up to 1989. (I do not believe that Vietnam has the particular explosive mixture of cultures that the balkan state had)

2) What would be the effect on internal US Politics? I can guess that a change in the 1940s of 50s might not have had such a huge immediate effect.

The absence of the war would have helped Johnson a lot and I think he would be widely seen as a successful President.

On the other hand had US Policy been different after 1960 Conservatives and Republicans would have blamed Kennedy and Johnson for the 'loss' of South Vietnam.

3) How much of a difference would it have made to the World image of the USA?

I believe that the Vietnamese was did imense damage to the World's view of the USA. On the other hand being the most powerful state on the planet always guarantees some fear and suspicion.
 
well depending upon how soon the POD is, this may mean either France never joins NATO, or perhaps an early pull out from the military component of NATO. The US doesn't suffer the loss of face from fighting such a nasty war in French Indochina. The cold war might be a bit colder and relations might have been a bit friendlier between the US and USSR. The Vietnamese would probably thrown their lot in with the Chinese and not the Russians, the Russians werent too fond of the South East Asians(didn't much like the Chinese and I don't think they liked the Vietnamese either.

As for the domestic picture in the US it's hard to say, although without as major an issue as the war to galvinize the counterculture we may never see the rise of the hippie generation. I know there was the civil rights issue but that was only one part of the equasion.
 
One of the most probable ways to avoid escalation of the American presence in Vietnam is to have Nixon win the 1960 election. Nixon, at that point in time, was generally of a mind with Eisenhower with regards to Southeast Asia and Indochina in particular. Their shared opinion of the situation as it existed at that time was that the French were reaping what they had sown with their colonial policies, and that the U.S. would do well not to reap the same. As such, while it is not sure-fire, it becomes much more probable that a Nixon administration would seek to avoid furthering entanglements in Vietnam, even in the face of the Truman doctrine.

Now, what becomes interesting with that in mind is whether the administration might then be seen as "turning a blind eye to the spread of communism", and what public opinion impact that might have if it were to be construed as such. It is possible to put forth the hypothesis that such a reaction could provoke a Democratic victory in '64 with proactive containment of Soviet influence as a central ticket-item, and through this the eventual involvement of American troops in some other part of the world in a similar situation.

With regards to a communist Vietnam, it will almost certainly be aligned with the Soviet bloc and not the PRC. The Vietnamese had been resisting Chinese domination for centuries, and the Vietnamese leadership of the time considered the idea of submitting to Chinese geopolitical leadership preposterous.
This is likely to cause increased tensions as the Sino-Soviet split deepens with the progression of the 1960's. However, China entering into the Cultural Revolution (unlikely to be butterflied away) will preclude China's ability to do much about it for a while. Once China emerges from its period of lunacy and wanton self-destruction, it may seek to assert control of Vietnam in order to prevent itself from becoming encircled (a classical element of Chinese foreign policy). The results of such a confrontation are likely to end in much the same way that they did in the OTL Sino-Vietnamese War. Even considering that the NVA will not have had the hardening experience of fighting the Americans, they will still have the experiences of fighting the French and the Japanese, which both contributed significantly to their level of tactical and technical proficiency when they engaged U.S. forces in OTL. Simultaneously, the PLA is unlikely to be in considerably better shape at that juncture than it was in OTL, and the NVA will still retain a decisive logistical advantage.

Vietnam will likely choose to pursue market-oriented reforms roughly the same time they chose to do so in OTL, following the example set by the PRC in the 1980's.
 
RFK has no platform to run on when LBJ drops out in 1968. So he doesn't get killed during the 68 election.
Then again LBJ probably doesn't drop out in the first place because he isn't so unpopular due to the war so RFK wouldn't have even entered in the first place.
This probably means Bobby serves at least until 72 as a senator and then makes a run for the nomination in 72.
With Bobby living past 68 the treatment and condition of blacks and the poor is greatly improved throughout the century
 
I accept that it is possible that had Nixon won in 1960 he might not have got involved in Vietnam. However there would be the disadvantage of either the Bay of pigs invasion turning into a pretty good analogue of Vietnam in OTL or of the World being blown up when he accepts the advice of the military in the missile crisis.


I assume that in the absence of the Vietnam war LBJ would run and win in 1968. I suspect that the strains of the Presidency would cause his death a little earlier than in OTL. I do not think that RFK would run against Humphrey in the Primaries.
 
I accept that it is possible that had Nixon won in 1960 he might not have got involved in Vietnam. However there would be the disadvantage of either the Bay of pigs invasion turning into a pretty good analogue of Vietnam in OTL or of the World being blown up when he accepts the advice of the military in the missile crisis.

There may not have been any missile crisis if Nixon had won. It occured in part based on Khrushchev leaving the Vienna summit with the impression that Kennedy was a weak president.
 
I don't have much to add to this thread so far, but just a question from someone like me who doesn't know much about the foreign policy ideology of the Democrats and Republicans in the 1950's and 1960's: Why is it that in the early 1960's the Democrats are the more hawkish party in regards to foreign policy and in particular regarding Vietnam? I

find this particularly interesting as the Republican's own strongly pro-free market views would surely have made them strongly anti-communist, more so than the Democrats? What I find most interesting, as an Australian, is how many liberal Democrats such as JFK, Johnson and Humphrey were pro-war. The Australian equivalent of liberal Democrats is the Left of the Labor Party, who at the time had many people who were didn't just favour neutrality, but who openly supported North Vietname (Jim Cairn's, an Australian Deputy PM in the 1970's was one of these). Of course I am aware that there are major differences between the Labor Left and liberal Democrats, including the fact that very few of the latter were even mildy sympathetic to communism, unlike the former.

I know that's off-topic, but it's just something I wondered about.
 
I agree that Vietnam would definitely ally itself to the Soviet Union, given Vietnam's historical rivalry with China.
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
I want to note that South Vietnam didn't fall to the Vietcong but to the forces of North Vietnam. Furthermore, if the POD is either your first or second one it might have effect on the US stance regarding Netherlands New Guinea,
 
Frankly things would be best for all considered if Minh gets recognised by the US post-WWII.

US Intelligence learnt throughout the Cold War the hard way that friendly leftist states are the strongest bulwarks against Communism and also the most likely to move into the Soviet sphere if ignored (or possibly go bonkers when a US-backed dictatorship replaces them ala Chile, Iran or Iraq).

If Minh can get economic aid, I can see a united Vietnam coming into existance under his rule, with a left-wing nationalist dictatorship like Indonesia, with the chance of reform and democracy from the 70s on.
 
Top