Republic of Vietnam - ideas

[La Rouge Beret]

I am considering a Cold War TL where the Republic of Vietnam is able to survive until the present day. However I am trying to ensure that I consider all options and would like AH ideas on how to make the ROV a stable, prosperous state? To focus your thoughts I ask that the POD be post 1950, ideally after the partition.

 

[tonsofun]

To make the ROV successful, then you need to change the leadership. Ngo Dinh Diem in particular. Despite all the problems that he faced he was more concerned with making everyone Catholic and raiding temples.
If the ROV had a less corrupt leader it would help a lot. If the leader was Buddhist then that would help him have the support of the people too.

 

[lord caedus]

I don't know how stable a foundation the RVN was on exactly, but I'm willing to guess that it would take a lot of work to have it survive with the Vietnam War occurring as in OTL.

If I'm not mistaken, documents from the State Department around the mid-50s had the top State people involved claiming that if they really did allow free elections, 80-90% of the South would have voted for Ho Chi Minh to be their leader. So, not a promising start for a state set up for the express purpose of being anti-communist.

Other than that, you'd need more competent, non-corrupted or dictatorial leaders who could appeal to the majority of the South Vietnamese people(think the opposite of Diem). And for the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese to either bungle up the war efforts or a wiser American/western approach and involvement in the war that could entail continued American funding and support after the end of OTL American involvement in 1973.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

My thought at this stage is that a former emperor would become the first President, as the RVN needed a leader that could rival Ho Chi Minh for legitimacy. I have always felt that Diem would have been more successful as a Prime Minister with another person above him. Alternatively South Vietnam becomes a constitutional monarchy, in either TL Bao Dai will go.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

Bumped for additional ideas.

 

[Baruch]

in OTL RVN discovered oil first week of April 1974 off the Mekong Delta.


RVN discovers oil in 1964 and a lot of it, That would give them the cash to call their own tune.

 

[RousseauX]

in OTL RVN discovered oil first week of April 1974 off the Mekong Delta.


RVN discovers oil in 1964 and a lot of it, That would give them the cash to call their own tune.

Lack of cash weren't really the problem OTL.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

Diversifying the income stream and provided that it is not siphoned into a Swiss bank account may help fund hearts and mind programs.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

The governement HAVE to change. It was vital to it,s survival, to gain also the people's trust.

 

[RousseauX]

Diversifying the income stream and provided that it is not siphoned into a Swiss bank account may help fund hearts and mind programs.

???

Hearts and minds didn't lack funding because of the US OTL IIRC.

It was however, fundamentally contradictory with fighting a war the US did.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

I'd have it either be keeping the US from Americanizing the conflict at all, while supporting with aid and supplies the South Vietnam, thus stopping the South from using the US as a crutch, thus making them organize themselves better or die. Or, having the US go all out; mine the harbors, bomb the hell out of the North, bomb the trails, have US troops invade the North and bring the war to them, and possibly bring in the use to atomic bombs to nuke the trails, attack major North Vietnamese targets. And blow up the dams, thus flooding the crops and destroying the food supply (nukes come into play here too). Like how the US dealt with Japan, deal brutally with a brutal enemy and destroy his ability to make war

Those are the two extremes. Between that, it gets more complex.

 

[RousseauX]

I'd have it either be keeping the US from Americanizing the conflict at all, while supporting with aid and supplies the South Vietnam, thus stopping the South from using the US as a crutch, thus making them organize themselves better or die. Or, having the US go all out; mine the harbors, bomb the hell out of the North, bomb the trails, have US troops invade the North and bring the war to them, and possibly bring in the use to atomic bombs to nuke the trails, attack major North Vietnamese targets. And blow up the dams, thus flooding the crops and destroying the food supply (nukes come into play here too). Like how the US dealt with Japan, deal brutally with a brutal enemy and destroy his ability to make war

Those are the two extremes. Between that, it gets more complex.

Ok, I guess using nuclear weapons would do the trick, but that have a high probability of triggering a nuclear confrontation with the PRC and the USSR so I'm not really sure that's plausible at all.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Ok, I guess using nuclear weapons would do the trick, but that have a high probability of triggering a nuclear confrontation with the PRC and the USSR so I'm not really sure that's plausible at all.

Not necessarily. I don't believe the PRC or Soviets would risk global thermonuclear warfare over getting back at the US for a nation so trivial to world events as Vietnam. The PRC would perhaps be more likely, since those were their wacky days, but the USSR I don't agree would be likely to. Plus, it'd be tactical nukes dropped on Vietnam, not ICBMs or anything so far as I can recall.

The US would likely become a pariah, to what degree is debatable. And it would destroy the social contract that nuclear weapons were never to be used, which could have consequences. If this is before the Sino-Soviet conflicts over Manchuria, it could mean that that goes to full out war with the Soviets and Chinese willing to use at least a few nukes, and if the Soviets go into Afghanistan, they could use nuclear weapons to win there. In all no-win scenarios, the nuke could become the cheat code.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

I am looking at a minimalist approach in regards to US boots on the ground. There may be an American air base for U-2 flights and for a fighter squadron to protect RVN airspace, with military advisers but that would be the upper limit.

Personally I am more interested as to whether South Vietnam should be a republic or a constitutional monarchy?

 

[Kome]

And for the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese to either bungle up the war efforts

Indeed, the easiest way to do this is to give North Vietnam the idiot ball. Have the DRV and Viet Cong start acting a lot more like the Khmer Rouge and basically alienate the population of Vietnam with brutality.

 

[RousseauX]

Not necessarily. I don't believe the PRC or Soviets would risk global thermonuclear warfare over getting back at the US for a nation so trivial to world events as Vietnam.

This wasn't how the cold war worked.

To put things in perspective, the closest nuclear war occurred wasn't over Berlin, but over Cuba.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

This wasn't how the cold war worked.

To put things in perspective, the closest nuclear war occurred wasn't over Berlin, but over Cuba.

In Cuba, they may have been using a third party, but the Super powers were staring each other straight in the face. It was Soviet missiles, put in place by Soviets and Cubans, for the purposes of a direct Soviet interest, aimed right at America, with an assertion of direct Soviet power, with American intervention possibly entailing an assault on the Soviets as they were a direct party in Cuba.

Vietnam is not the same. Yes, Russia is supplying aid, and even has a few advisers there on a very hush hush basis, but it is not a direct party, and as such, its not the same as Cuba here for the Soviets and Chinese. In Cuba, it was a situation of having a rope tied around your leg, tied to an anchor. If the anchor goes overboard, you may well get dragged with it.
In Vietnam, it's a situation of something happening "over there".

If the Soviets tactically nuked South Vietnam, that'd be different, because the Americans are directly involved in Vietnam. If North Vietnam had Soviet troops intervening just like the Americans were in South Vietnam, and the Americans nuked North Vietnam, it'd be different, because the Super powers are both directly involved. An assault in these cases would be a direct assault on the Super powers because of the way they were involved. In actuality in Vietnam, the Soviets and Chinese are supplying, but they don't have boots on the ground, and they aren't making themselves an actively involved combatant or anything of that sort. They're remote.

Again, they'll jump on the chance to condemn America, but I don't think they'll start WW3.

 

[Plumber]

Again, they'll jump on the chance to condemn America, but I don't think they'll start WW3.

That's true, but no one at the time, especially Johnson, saw it that way.

 

[RousseauX]

but they don't have boots on the ground, and they aren't making themselves an actively involved combatant or anything of that sort. They're remote.

This is basically the core of your argument.

It doesn't make sense because cold war was all about maintaining allies and spheres of influence. The usage of nuclear weapons -have- to be met with a similar escalation by the Soviets, and frankly the American would be the ones playing dangerous nuclear brinkmanship potentially starting WWIII in this case. If the Soviets don't respond in kind in some way, then they would be setting a precedent for the usage of nuclear weapons in similar situations all across the globe by the west, not to mention basically acceding to the US being the dominant power on the global stage (they can use nuclear weapons "tactically" but we can't). This is unacceptable to the USSR domestically or from a foreign policy perspective as long as they are calming to be a superpower. Whether Vietnam is strategically significant to either side or not, it essentially forces a response from the Soviets.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

This is basically the core of your argument.

It doesn't make sense because cold war was all about maintaining allies and spheres of influence. The usage of nuclear weapons -have- to be met with a similar escalation by the Soviets, and frankly the American would be the ones playing dangerous nuclear brinkmanship potentially starting WWIII in this case. If the Soviets don't respond in kind in some way, then they would be setting a precedent for the usage of nuclear weapons in similar situations all across the globe by the west, not to mention basically acceding to the US being the dominant power on the global stage (they can use nuclear weapons "tactically" but we can't). This is unacceptable to the USSR domestically or from a foreign policy perspective as long as they are calming to be a superpower. Whether Vietnam is strategically significant to either side or not, it essentially forces a response from the Soviets.

It is about maintaining allies and spheres of influence. Its also about going as far as you can without destroying the planet and, in simpler terms, saving your own ass. Vietnam in this situation would allow them (the Soviets) that because it allows breathing room and room to think. In Cuba, it was action, response, action, response, as the powers were directly involved, and using Cuba like the playing field. In a World War, it would be action, response; the US or USSR launches the nukes, the other power reacts to that. Vietnam is a nation which is "that place over there". The Super powers do have an interest there, and that is having a friendly nation in their sphere of influence. But, the super powers, unlike Cuba, and unlike Korea where it involved the US and China, are not staring each other directly in the face or making direct provocation against eachother. The Soviets and Chinese are a party off to the side.

They wouldn't be showing that the US was the superior super power if they don't retaliate militarily. Far from it; they'd use it to condemn the US as being evil, which would play very well. They don't need to nuke Washington with an ICBM, and they don't need to nuke Saigon with a similar tactical nuclear weapon. And it'd be difficult for them to do so since they would have to become an active combatant in the war like America had in 1965. And they could use it to excuse their use of nuclear weapons later on.