Plausibility Check: WI South Vietnam fell during a Second Term for Kennedy

This ATL deals with Kennedy not being assassinated as well as problems surrounding Vietnam.

Inspired by the documentary "Virtual JFK", which shows that besides the Bay of Pigs, (which wasn't really fought by American forces... technically) Kennedy seemingly had a strong aversion to engaging in conflict of any kind. When Vietnam was brought up to him by his cabinet members and various generals, he opposed taking any direct action.

Well, what if (upon surviving the assassination attempt (or maybe Oswald got cold feet, either or)) South Vietnam fell to the North under Kennedy's watch?? Is such a scenario plausible?

and if so...

How would the public react?? Kennedy up till then was seen as dodging the question, or deflecting it, (as shown in said documentary) and seemed on the fence about Vietnam... and suddenly the South falls to the Communist forces. Would this sink any kind of possibility of continued Democrat Dominance in the house and senate? Would Kennedy be able to salvage this situation??
 
I suppose it's possible, but Kennedy wasn't about to abandon South Vietnam: advisers were to be withdrawn and the war would definitely not have been Americanized, but he'd revert to a policy of aid and supply. Basically, it was Kennedy's opinion that the war in Vietnam was to be won or lost by the Vietnamese and the US could only help; he was also afraid that it'd end up a quagmire like Korea if the US got involved actively in fighting the war.

Overall, I don't think the fall of Vietnam would have that much of an effect; it was off of most everyone's radar, only about 37% of Americans paid attention to it, of that the majority expected the South to fall or for a coalition government to come into place. The Republicans and right wingers could try to play it up, but I don't think it'd be all too big an issue.
 
I suppose it's possible, but Kennedy wasn't about to abandon South Vietnam: advisers were to be withdrawn and the war would definitely not have been Americanized, but he'd revert to a policy of aid and supply. Basically, it was Kennedy's opinion that the war in Vietnam was to be won or lost by the Vietnamese and the US could only help; he was also afraid that it'd end up a quagmire like Korea if the US got involved actively in fighting the war.

Overall, I don't think the fall of Vietnam would have that much of an effect; it was off of most everyone's radar, only about 37% of Americans paid attention to it, of that the majority expected the South to fall or for a coalition government to come into place. The Republicans and right wingers could try to play it up, but I don't think it'd be all too big an issue.

But wouldn't the press make a big stink out of it? It WAS the Cold War, and people were worried about the growing threat of communism (that whole "domino theory"). I mean it was apparently an issue of some sort back in that day, judging from the documentary's news footage.

Just trying to strike up a friendly conversation/debate
 
This is precisely what LBJ and Dick Nixon genuinely feared: a second Joe McCarthy Red Square sparked by the fall of Saigon during their watches. It would be interesting to see how Kennedy would have handled the Sino-Soviet split in his second term. Perhaps a trip to Beijing and then to Moscow to play off both sides?
 
Kennedy was a Cold War warrior with more in common with Reagan than say Clinton.

Losing South Vietnam would be unacceptable and would be seen as a failure of his policy. Remember Kennedy said

'We would bear any burden, pay any price...etc'

I don't think LBJ wanted to commit US troops either but he was responding to requests from South Vietnam and from Americans on the ground. Kennedy could not be seen to abandon an ally and people would ask

"wouldn't the deployment of just a few ground troops have saved South Vietnam?"
 
But wouldn't the press make a big stink out of it? It WAS the Cold War, and people were worried about the growing threat of communism (that whole "domino theory"). I mean it was apparently an issue of some sort back in that day, judging from the documentary's news footage.
Think of how many other no name countries fell to Communism or were fighting Communism. That's all Vietnam would have been. Anyone who tried to make an issue out of it wouldn't have found much of an audience.

The problem is separating our perception of it because it was so big a thing in the OTL with what it would have been perceived as.

Kennedy was a Cold War warrior with more in common with Reagan than say Clinton.
Perhaps to a degree he was a Cold warrior, but he was not the same as Reagan by a long shot, or at least pre-detente part II Reagan.

Losing South Vietnam would be unacceptable and would be seen as a failure of his policy. Remember Kennedy said

'We would bear any burden, pay any price...etc'
Out of context.

Kennedy was willing to support Vietnam in the form of supplies and aid, but not through the United States taking over it's responsibilities in fighting it's war.

I don't think LBJ wanted to commit US troops either but he was responding to requests from South Vietnam and from Americans on the ground. Kennedy could not be seen to abandon an ally and people would ask

"wouldn't the deployment of just a few ground troops have saved South Vietnam?"

LBJ knew damned all about foreign policy, and he didn't have foreign policy credentials like Kennedy to optimally handle a situation or understand how to handle a situation. That is why he got involved in Vietnam like we did.

Kennedy would not abandon the South, which I made a point of stating earlier, but he was only going to back it with aid and supply. The Vietnamese had to handle their own affairs.

And again Nobody Cared About Vietnam: 37% of people paid attention to the war, and only a minority of that expected victory.
 

Bearcat

Banned
I doubt the south falls before 1969 in any event. the VC are an irritant, and a drain on the south's lifeblood, but can't really win. Assuming the US supplies arms, but not men, that is.

At some point, the north has to come in. I'm not sure their armored forces are up to it until '69 or '70 at the earliest. And that's only if the POTUS doesn't use US air power to stop them in their tracks a la the Easter Offensive, 1972.

So when it falls, it'll likely be on someone else's watch.

Republicans will beat the Dems with the bloody body, though, no doubt.
 
Top