No Tet Offensiv: What about Vietnam?

Lets imagine for some reason US Millitary Official learn about Tet Offensive before its take place and is able to stop it. By arrests etc. preventing it from taking place.

With no Tet Offensive and especially no attack on the US Embassy, then the opinion towards the war wouldn't turn as it did in OTL?

Then would LBJ have stepped down in the 1968??

And could this eventually have let to a smaller anti-war movement in the US and eventuelly a US Victory?

/Fred
 
Lets imagine for some reason US Millitary Official learn about Tet Offensive before its take place and is able to stop it. By arrests etc. preventing it from taking place.

With no Tet Offensive and especially no attack on the US Embassy, then the opinion towards the war wouldn't turn as it did in OTL?

Then would LBJ have stepped down in the 1968??

And could this eventually have let to a smaller anti-war movement in the US and eventuelly a US Victory?

/Fred

If they could have arrested the VC or NVA they would have done that in 64
No TET no chance for Cronkite to say we lost, no anti-war sentiment from the working voters.
LBJ would have run again.

The US left Viet-Nam in 1973 with a peace treaty in which the North acknowledge the South's Sovereignty, and agreed to no more war. As this was the US's aims when it joined in the war it means the US won the second phase of the Indo-China War. The US Congress not even allowing the resupply of the South in the Third Phase led to the North's final victory.
Tet contrary to Mr Cronkite's assessment was an overwhelming US/South Viet-Nam victory. The vast majority of the US/ South's casualties being civilians murdered by the North/VC for being loyal to their country.
 
If they could have arrested the VC or NVA they would have done that in 64
No TET no chance for Cronkite to say we lost, no anti-war sentiment from the working voters.
LBJ would have run again.

The US left Viet-Nam in 1973 with a peace treaty in which the North acknowledge the South's Sovereignty, and agreed to no more war. As this was the US's aims when it joined in the war it means the US won the second phase of the Indo-China War. The US Congress not even allowing the resupply of the South in the Third Phase led to the North's final victory.
Tet contrary to Mr Cronkite's assessment was an overwhelming US/South Viet-Nam victory. The vast majority of the US/ South's casualties being civilians murdered by the North/VC for being loyal to their country.

So US victory in the south??
 
So US victory in the south??

Actually no Case-Church amendment so when the North attacks again the US can at least send resupply. If they do the South may be able to stop the North as several ARVN units were "whupping ass and taking names" till the bullets ran out.
 
I doubt a US victory could happen at this point, the NV went about to end the war short of victory.

They could suffer huge losses, but those are pretty typical in a guerrilla war the SV goverment is just to weak to stand without direct US aid they may last awhile longer than OTL, but they wont last in the long-term without the USA there to prop them up.

Those ARVN units that could ''whup NV ass'' were a small minority, most ARVN units had lousy morale.
 
Militarily the Tet Offense was one of the most complete victories of the war.

It shattered the Viet Cong (coupled with the Phoenix Program, which helped eliminate the competent officers that could have rebuilt it) which left South Vietnam a lot safer. Think pre-surge Iraq vs. post-surge Iraq where the US Army completely withdraws and still the level of attacks doesn't go up much (which is what happened in the early '70s)

The North Vietnamese regular army was crushed, and they were unable to mount successful operations for some time.

In the longer term this meant the withdrawal of US troops still left the South Vietnamese (with lots of US money and air support, of course) the ability to keep South Vietnam quiet and beat the North Vietnamese. See 1972-73 before Congress cut off all assistance.

So—militarily, the Tet Offense was the key moment of the post-US ground troop involvement.



Politically, obviously, it was as disastrous a defeat as militarily it was a victory.

It forced LBJ out of the US Presidential race.

It gave "secret plan to end the war" Nixon the Presidency (with, eventually Watergate, which forced the end of all US support to South Vietnam).

Arguably it killed RFK by forcing him into the race (before Tet began on 30 January it did seem like he would stay out).

Finally, and most importantly, it turned American public opinion against the war. Once that happened the chances for "victory"[1] in Viet Nam were basically gone.



As for the POD—No Tet means the US is getting worn down by the Viet Cong, and the North Vietnamese retain major armed forces. Both are huge downsides, and the Viet Cong in particular will effect the near-future a great deal.

On the upside (if you want troops in Viet Nam), politically this means LBJ will beat McCarthy and in all likelihood beat Nixon in the general election.



As I like to state—Viet Nam was winnable (in a narrow sense, as I outline below) but it wasn't worth winning. Especially since a lot of the really bad domino effects were caused by US involvement—notably the Khmer Rouge.



[1] Victory in Viet Nam is an iffy business. Could the US have won? Depends on how we define it. If you mean by turning the North into a wasteland and leaving the South an intact nation-state run by a corrupt dictatorship then yes.

If you mean "has positive effects for the US in the region" than again, with the Khmer Rouge, boat people, and so forth than yes… but only once you accept the trade-off as regards China, a large Korean style ongoing military commitment (even if it "peaceful" it'll still be more active/dangerous than Korea) and a starving North Vietnam.
 
Could an earlier split between the USSR and Mao's China (and maybe a non-nuclear war) have resulted in the North loosing much her supplies from these communist allies thereby not giving her the resources to mount tet?

Not have to run away from Vietnam could have resulted in the US Public having greatest trust in her elected officials and millitary??

/Fred
 
I have toyed with a idea where the US tries to drive a wedge between Hanoi and Viet Cong. It would be particulary useful during the Nixon era because it is a plan AND it would look good to the war-opponents at home. And it would look better then the totally silly diplomatic conflict about the table shape.
 
Top