No Vietnam War

Since the US skipped militarly intervening in South and Central America from Eisenhower til Reagan did in Grenada, don't see why anything more than OTLs supporting Rightist Dictators would be needed in that time frame.

FARC establishes presence in Darien, makes raids on Canal shipping (or blows up locks) in exchange for covert Soviet aid?
 
Well the problem is the difference is the Philippines dint have a large army on its northern border ready it invade to reunify the county
The porous borders between Laos and Cambodia, plus having untouchable sanctuaries did not help in stopping the aid from other countries from getting in to help the local rebels, rebels whos manpower consisted mostly of outside combatants from that Northern Country by the midpoint of the 'intervention'
 
FARC establishes presence in Darien, makes raids on Canal shipping (or blows up locks) in exchange for covert Soviet aid?
Short of nuclear weapons, it's almost impossible to damage, let alone a lock gate. They are the size, and weight of a WWI Destroyer. FARC had little presence in that part of Columbia, and then had to operate Panama, far away from friendly locals.
 
Without the US forcing a general uprising-general offensive in poorer circumstances there’s no reason why the PLAF would need replacements from the PAVN or PAVN. The myth that the PLAF was thoroughly integrated into the PAVN is a post war VWP (northern lines) myth. The PLAF maintained separate recruiting and command structures and synchronized through VWP cadre and formation attachment: this is to say gu-ga 1966/7 with no US is not a PAVN affair and that the southern lines of the VWP and the NFL fraternal parties have greater influence.
 
Short of nuclear weapons, it's almost impossible to damage, let alone a lock gate. They are the size, and weight of a WWI Destroyer. FARC had little presence in that part of Columbia, and then had to operate Panama, far away from friendly locals.

FARC were active in Darien provence at various points as recent as 2000s (kidnapping and smuggling).

Ok, mine the canal so it keeps getting blocked by sunken ships. Throw lots of fake mines in so the USN has to sweep them. Or set fire to an ammonium nitrate cargo ship like the Grandcamp, and possibly do successfully blow up the lock gates.

We went to war with Vietnam over the Maddox incident, any successful action against Canal shipping would probably be a casus belli.

Also, put Westmoreland in charge of the School of the Americas.
 
Last edited:
FARC were active in Darien provence at various points as recent as 2000s (kidnapping and smuggling).

Ok, mine the canal so it keeps getting blocked by sunken ships. Throw lots of fake mines in so the USN has to sweep them. Or set fire to an ammonium nitrate cargo ship like the Grandcamp, and possibly do successfully blow up the lock gates.

We went to war with Vietnam over the Pueblo incident, any successful action against Canal shipping would probably be a casus belli.

Also, put Westmoreland in charge of the School of the Americas.

Canal defenses were always very complete, right up until the US turned it over to Panama. None of the things you've suggested is likely, after even one incident or threat of something like that increased security measures will be taken.
 
An old post of mine:

"CULTURAL BACKLASH: Would the counterculture have produced a socially conservative backlash even without the flag burning and the rhetorical (and at times actual) violence of the antiwar movement? Perlstein's *Nixonland* suggests that the rising crime and cultural upheaval at Berkeley and other California campuses was a huge asset to Ronald Reagan's campaign for governor in 1966; and the first major disruptions at Berkeley, in late 1964, occurred *before* the Vietnam escalation, and had nothing to do with the war at all. It's reasonable to assume that long hair, drug use, open sexuality, and other signs of the cultural apocalypse would have led to a strong reaction from those embracing more traditional social values..."--Jeff Greenfield, *If Kennedy Lived.* (I have quite a few quarrels with that book, but I think it is plausible enough on this point.)
 
Canal defenses were always very complete, right up until the US turned it over to Panama. None of the things you've suggested is likely, after even one incident or threat of something like that increased security measures will be taken.

Definitely deviating from the OP for my own selfish reasons here, but since you seem to have a strong backbone on the subject; say FARC, or a group like FARC, did indeed execute some kind of terrorist attack on the canal/the canal zone. What would it most likely look like? Or, I guess a better way of asking that question might be; what flaws were there, during US control of the area, in the security apparatus that could most successfully be exploited? Let's assume that they're not necessarily looking to destroy the facility, seeing as that sounds damn near impossible, but 1) be a hindrance to shipping and 2) make a statement. What might a realistic attack look like?
 
RPG attack along the canal, or terrorist bombing in Panama. That is provided they can infiltrate into the country and then get out. This while both the US and Panamanians are guarding the country, so it won't be easy. This also where a lot of the US military is doing their jungle training, so any exfiltration will be difficult and be pursued. It's possible, but again, will be difficult and most or all of the people involved are going to be dead or captured. Will it be worth it to the terrorists? I don't know. They would need some kind of local support to have any chance.
 
Without Vietnam Australia would likely not replace the Centurion tank, or transfer the helicopters from the RAAF to the Army.

In the broader sense the defence policy of the 'expeditionary' powers from the late 50s was nuclear and minimum conventional deterrence in Europe coupled with fighting limited wars, Britain even explicitly stated these wars would be fought in the Far East. I think it is likely that without Vietnam the US gets involved somewhere else in Asia to contain communism in line with widely accepted defence policy of the time.

For fighting wars in Asia there's a lot of better candidates than Vietnam. Thailand? An old nation state with ethnic enmities against it's neighbours. Indonesia-Malaysia-Brunei-PNG-Timor etc.? Any insurgency must be supplied through sea or air, or in case of Borneo through terrain which makes Vietnam look like a park. Besides, in military terms Indonesia and North Vietnam don't play out in the same league. Any aerial or naval threat by a Third World country is an technical issue, although surely they might have some early successes. These, however, would be largely clear-cut traditional military operations.

Might the worst candidate be an Indonesian civil war, which would be very messy, and could well involve emergence of radical islamist groups a generation earlier than OTL?
 
For fighting wars in Asia there's a lot of better candidates than Vietnam. Thailand? An old nation state with ethnic enmities against it's neighbours. Indonesia-Malaysia-Brunei-PNG-Timor etc.? Any insurgency must be supplied through sea or air, or in case of Borneo through terrain which makes Vietnam look like a park. Besides, in military terms Indonesia and North Vietnam don't play out in the same league. Any aerial or naval threat by a Third World country is an technical issue, although surely they might have some early successes. These, however, would be largely clear-cut traditional military operations.

Might the worst candidate be an Indonesian civil war, which would be very messy, and could well involve emergence of radical islamist groups a generation earlier than OTL?

All of these actually occurred. The RAAF had Sabres in Thailand 1962-68, Britain and Commonwealth fought the Malayan Emergency 1948-60, Indonesia infiltrated West Papua and was about to launch an invasion in 1962 and of course the Australia and the rest of the British Commonwealth fought the Indonesian Confrontation 1964-66.

Only Vietnam escalated into a semi-conventional war, requiring Australia to send tanks thus securing their future in the Australian OOB.
 
Last edited:
All of these actually occurred. The RAAF had Sabres in Thailand 1962-68, Britain and Commonwealth fought the Malayan Emergency 1948-60, Indonesia infiltrated West Papua and was about to launch an invasion in 1962 and of course the Australia and the rest of the British Commonwealth fought the Indonesian Confrontation 1964-66.

Only Vietnam escalated into a semi-conventional war, requiring Australia to send tanks thus securing their future in the Australian OOB.

Yes, exactly. Less demanding conditions which could be largely handled as OOTW operations using small size forces.

If the alternative US adventure is in Africa, the conditions are much less demanding than in Vietnam due to less educated and smaller local populace and less robust supply lines. Middle East? Only Iran could offer anything close to Vietnam with it's long land borders and relatively large population. Iraq and Saudi-Arabia were small countries in 1960's, with population of 8,4 and 5,4 million people respectively.
 
Top