No Tet offensive in Vietnam

What if there was no so-called 'Tet Offensive' in Vietnam?

I really don't know much about it other than it was one of the big turning points of the Vietnam war in favor of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnam Army.....that's when we really started to get slaughtered big time.....

Possibly Pres. Johnson run against Bobby Kennedy. Suppose Kennedy still gets killed, would it be Johnson against Nixon?
 
Last edited:
What if there was no so-called 'Tet Offensive' in Vietnam?

I really don't know much about it other than it was one of the big turning points of the Vietnam war in favor of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnam Army.....that's when we really started to get slaughtered big time.....


The Tet Offensive was the largest military defeat of Viet Cong forces in the war and militarily broke the back of the Viet Cong utterly. Its just that it also convinced the American Homefront that the war would never end.
 
I spent an hour yesterday doing RFK's Wiki page with FAQ. :cool: If Bobby wins in NH, or even comes within a few points, LBJ will be fatally wounded. If LBJ stays in, I suspect he'll get over 60% of the delegates, and ask RFK to be his Veep. He will then get told what to do with that offer, and Johnson will lose to Nixon in a landslide. Then depending on Watergate, RFK '76. If Nixon pursues successful Vietnamization (which RFK could also do), then Saigon will hold as long as the supply chain continues.
 
But the point is they were destroyed, and the war went conventional with the NVA. Saigon can deal with that if they're given real equipment, such as Pattons, Skyhawks, ECM and refueling equipment to go on the offensive. Part of the problem is the bunker mentality: constantly on the defensive because F-5 Tigers are papier-mache in that SAM system.
 
clintonforever,

As Aranfan pointed out, Tet both destroyed the Viet Cong (VC) a military force and won the war for the Viet Cong in the US media. It was a perfect example of what wars actually are: politics by other means. North Vietnam won the war politically which is the only way you truly win wars.

(As an aside and to forestall the usual bleating these threads engender, IMHO, the US had no business being involved in what was essentially a Vietnamese civil war.)

After Tet, the US and ARVN weren't fighting the VC no matter how much the propaganda on both sides wanted you to believe. With the VC smashed and recruiting in the south greatly hampered, the military struggle depended almost wholly on North Vietnam Army (NVA) regulars infiltrated into South Vietnam.

With the DMZ sealing off the official border between the two sides, infiltration of and supplies for NVA units needed to pass through Laos and Cambodia along a LOC you may have heard of; the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The use of this LOC by North Vietnam and the the US' and South Vietnam's understandable desire to cut it quickly led to an expansion of the war into Laos and Cambodia, first by special ops and air power, then with ground troops, with horrific consequences for both those nations.

If the VC don't launch Tet, they're still being slowly militarily defeated by the US and South Vietnam and will eventually attempt a politically-focused solution; i.e. another Tet or Tet-like offensive. Also, once VC strength and effectiveness falls below a certain point, North Vietnam will begin to infiltrate regular troops to pick up the slack. Putting it simply, Tet merely sped up a process that was already happening and would continue to happen.


Bill
 
Last edited:
RFK

If there is no Tet Offensive, RFK would likely not run. Johnson v. Nixon, who wipes the floor with LBJ. RFK '76.

With RFK as prez starting in 1976, how would things be different like the Iran hostage scandal or the 1980 boycott? Would that still have been the same? And, what would RFK have meant for Reagan?
 
Here's his wiki page, created by me. Search "RFK Renewed" or "Resurrection City", two of my early TLs, for details. Summary:

1976: Kennedy/Sanford v. Reagan/Dole: Narrow RFK victory. Reagan is butterflied as President.

First term: dealing with crappy economy, with a mix of Kennedy loyalists and OTL Carter Cabinet members. SVN likely stable. Outreach to India over Pakistan. Iran hostage crisis: pressuring the Shah to democratize, making arms sales contigent on that.

Second term: early CAFTA, following Volcker's advice on the economy, perhaps a National Service Administration (domestic Peace Corps). 1980 boycott: he sends the athletes, but denounces the Afghanistan invasion. Will support the mujahideen. Falklands: staunch ally of Thatcher.

Legacy: Truman with the Kennedy aura- not a Great, but in the Top Ten.
 
No Tet=US Victory?

I'm with Bill Cameron on this one. There is some evidence that the US intelligence had some knowledge of a potential threat on the Tet holiday but it was ignored. (potential POD) So instead of being taken by surprise the US prepare for an assault and still inflict mass losses on the VC for being drawn into a US style conflict. This switches the impact of Tet entirely, rather than a media disaster (Hue, Saigon) it becomes a large propaganda success for LBJ. This has an impact on the election campaign giving LBJ a boost and ensuring a victory over the so-called 'comeback kid' Nixon, leaving Bobby waiting in the wings until the next election to stave of the Republicans for another 4 years.
 
I'm with Bill Cameron on this one.


Seanthesheep,

Actually you aren't. I'm not suggesting "No Tet = US victory", far from it actually.

Tet simply destroyed the VC military faster while handing the VC/NLF/PRNV a political victory. However, no purely military victory is going to "win" the Vietnam War because it was essentially a civil war. US strategy ignored the political aspect of the war and that's why the US lost.

Without Tet, the US/ARVN forces will simply whittle down the VC over a longer period. When a certain point is reached NVA forces will infiltrate the South to pick up the slack, just as they did in the OTL after Tet. Eventually, the NVA will achieve enough political victories to win the war and reunite the country.

All Tet did was ensure that the process worked faster.


Bill
 
Seanthesheep,

Actually you aren't. I'm not suggesting "No Tet = US victory", far from it actually.

Tet simply destroyed the VC military faster while handing the VC/NLF/PRNV a political victory. However, no purely military victory is going to "win" the Vietnam War because it was essentially a civil war. US strategy ignored the political aspect of the war and that's why the US lost.

Without Tet, the US/ARVN forces will simply whittle down the VC over a longer period. When a certain point is reached NVA forces will infiltrate the South to pick up the slack, just as they did in the OTL after Tet. Eventually, the NVA will achieve enough political victories to win the war and reunite the country.

All Tet did was ensure that the process worked faster.


Bill

Fair play-so are we going with the idea that the US loss in Vietnam was inevitable due to the inherent lack of understanding of the Political situation in Vietnam? And the idea that most people in the south actually supported Ho and this would win through in the end?
 
Actually you aren't. I'm not suggesting "No Tet = US victory", far from it actually.

Tet simply destroyed the VC military faster while handing the VC/NLF/PRNV a political victory. However, no purely military victory is going to "win" the Vietnam War because it was essentially a civil war. US strategy ignored the political aspect of the war and that's why the US lost.

Without Tet, the US/ARVN forces will simply whittle down the VC over a longer period. When a certain point is reached NVA forces will infiltrate the South to pick up the slack, just as they did in the OTL after Tet. Eventually, the NVA will achieve enough political victories to win the war and reunite the country.

All Tet did was ensure that the process worked faster.

Assuming no Tet, or a preemptive strike on the VC as they prepare for Tet, how would Vietnamization fit into the picture? Would it even be considered(I think so; it does make a lot of sense)?
 
Fair play-so are we going with the idea that the US loss in Vietnam was inevitable due to the inherent lack of understanding of the Political situation in Vietnam?


seanthesheep,

Yes, exactly. I know of no serious analyst who claims that the war - which was a civil war - could be won through military means alone.

And the idea that most people in the south actually supported Ho and this would win through in the end?

No, most of the people in the South didn't support Democratic Republic of Vietnam and Ho. What was truly significant was that most of the people in the South didn't support the Republic of Vietnam and Thieu. All they wanted was for the fighting to be over.


Bill
 
seanthesheep,

Yes, exactly. I know of no serious analyst who claims that the war - which was a civil war - could be won through military means alone.



No, most of the people in the South didn't support Democratic Republic of Vietnam and Ho. What was truly significant was that most of the people in the South didn't support the Republic of Vietnam and Thieu. All they wanted was for the fighting to be over.


Bill

But surely part of the reason why the Tet offensive and VC Guerilla tactics were able to work was as a result of the south vietnamese peasantry sheltering the VC and allowing them to hide amongst them. Did Ho not promise them land etc. in return for support whilst the US seemed more like the invaders thn liberators?
Do we know how 'widespread' support was for Ho in the South?

Sean
 
IIRC, most of it was in the I Corps area close to the border- with the most corruption, ARVN who extorted the peasantry, etc. Apparently Thieu needed decentralization in order to avoid conflict among the generals- they nearly split at the seams when deciding on the military slate in the 1967 presidential election.
 
Assuming the US eventually is forced out MAYBE the eventual outcome is a bit less unpleasant for people living in the Southern part of Vietnam. As I understand it in OTL the effect was simply a Northern conquest, whereas on these assumptions many Southerners would be around n powerful positions
 

burmafrd

Banned
the "re-education camps" were still going to happen. Is it not interesting how Hollywood and the Media has ignored that bit of history?
 
the "re-education camps" were still going to happen. Is it not interesting how Hollywood and the Media has ignored that bit of history?
True, but for the most part, the media has also ignored the Sino-Vietnamese war (Communist vs. Communist), the DPRV's war with the Khmer Rouge (Communist vs. wacko Communist (At least the Vietnamese reeducation camps weren't used for autogenocide, like in Cambodia...and the Vietnamese were happy to use technology.)) and the almost nonexistence of the domino effect...)
 
Top