Saigon Falls In 1978

WI South Vietnam holds out for several more years, falling in 1978 instead of 1975 OTL? How would a Carter Administration handle the fall of Saigon and what would be the aftermath and repercussions be like? Would there be a "Who lost Vietnam" issue for the 1980 election? Also, would the fall of Vietnam overshadow the 1979 Iran crisis and what would Carter's ATL legacy be like?
 
No Watergate, Nixon's second term lasts until 1977.
Many other PODs such as no Tet Offensive in '68. Could even take place in 1973 or sometime before 1976-77.
 
I'm gonna piss everyone off with this reply

Assuming Tricky Dicky stayed in power through both terms, there might not have been quite as much of an American stampede to get out of Vietnam.

I argue that without Nixon politically on the ropes, there would have been more obvious American support of RVN and Vietnamization could have been more successful.
No question that RVN had major social issues preventing it coalescing into a united nation with a purpose beyond denying the Viet Minh their political victory from 1954 on.

The long and short of it is, I argue that with America not quite so eager to hit the trail, and maintaining a presence in South Vietnam, the NVA wouldn't have been so froggy to commit their forces in 1975. By 1978, ten years have passed since Tet so its impact will have faded.

IMO, with substantial restructuring of the ARVN into a more professional mobile, well-armed force with organic artillery, CAS, and tanks, splitting off a big chunk to serve as a gendarmerie/Civil Guard and part-time militia--
chances of a Korean-style stalemate go up to the point that South Vietnam could have gotten enough room to economically and politically establish itself.
 
Assuming Tricky Dicky stayed in power through both terms, there might not have been quite as much of an American stampede to get out of Vietnam.

I argue that without Nixon politically on the ropes, there would have been more obvious American support of RVN and Vietnamization could have been more successful.
No question that RVN had major social issues preventing it coalescing into a united nation with a purpose beyond denying the Viet Minh their political victory from 1954 on.

The long and short of it is, I argue that with America not quite so eager to hit the trail, and maintaining a presence in South Vietnam, the NVA wouldn't have been so froggy to commit their forces in 1975. By 1978, ten years have passed since Tet so its impact will have faded.

IMO, with substantial restructuring of the ARVN into a more professional mobile, well-armed force with organic artillery, CAS, and tanks, splitting off a big chunk to serve as a gendarmerie/Civil Guard and part-time militia--
chances of a Korean-style stalemate go up to the point that South Vietnam could have gotten enough room to economically and politically establish itself.

The major problem here is how do you get ARVN to work as an army that can actually fight when people shoot back at it?
 

Pangur

Donor
You would have to butterfly away Tet or have Tet seen as a win but even then I am far from sure that the US would stay as long as 1978. However there maybe another way to get to you want. Have something happen in Hanoi that makes them hold of on invading the south. Not sure what to be honest. Maybe have the Soviets under pressure else where such that they wont sanction the invasion in late 1974.
 
You would have to butterfly away Tet or have Tet seen as a win but even then I am far from sure that the US would stay as long as 1978. However there maybe another way to get to you want. Have something happen in Hanoi that makes them hold of on invading the south. Not sure what to be honest. Maybe have the Soviets under pressure else where such that they wont sanction the invasion in late 1974.

Tet was seen as a win by the 1960s USA IOTL. It's only Ludendorffism that has caused this to be forgotten. The question was not that the USA won, it was the question of if the military understood what it was doing, how did the Viet Cong get people attacking the US embassy and secure any kind of surprise at all?
 
Getting an army to shoot tolerably well is a simpler task than getting a Third World kleptocracy to be a functional government. ;):p

Exactly why it's a more important question. If you can figure that out, the RoV could last well beyond 77.

Otherwise, dropping conscription in the US before 65 may be the best bet. That'd slow up the anti-war movement enough to give the South another couple of years.
 
You know, timeline 101 is that you need a good reason for changes - it's your challenge to figure out some good point of departure that could make these things actually plausible.

I believe you're taking on maybe more of a challenge than you realize.

After all, Nixon WAS seriously a crook, no matter what he told the nation. You need a good reason for that to change at least for Watergate.

Keeping Congress in the war isn't easy, either. The people and the media are tired of the long war, and it's a war to support a lame, nasty dictatorship. And we Democrats, the more peaceish party, owned Congress, ISTR.
 
Agreed. There are many butterflies in this one. Of course, the RVN regime was not exactly a democracy, being a corrupt and brutal military regime with an equally dismal human rights record. WI Carter cuts off military aid to the RVN on human rights grounds?
 
If there is no Watergate, then Jimmy Carter does not get elected. With the bad economy, a Democrat could win in 1976, but I will never lie to you would not have been his chief slogan.
 
Top