Smaller Footprint Vietnam?

missouribob

Banned
From my reading of the Vietnam War most of the anti war sentiment came from the draft. In an ATL where say JFK isn't shot or LBJ doesn't pour 500,000 troops into the country couldn't South Vietnam survive? I don't think I've ever read an analysis that notes that America could be forcibly pushed out of the country, just that America would lose once the political will to continue to fight was gone.
 
America could have continued to pour treasure rather than blood into Vietnam. The survival of South Vietnam is debatable. I would argue the nation became overly reliant on the U.S. military, hindering it's ability to develop and support itself as an independent, self capable nation. However, there was a reason it fell. South Vietnam was a perfect failed State. In every category, it failed. It was a mass Buddhist nation where Diem persecuted the majority. It was a nation that needed a strong military, which was instead rife with corruption and nepotism. The government was unstable, and the allegiance of the people was shaky. Diem was a terrible leader, but at the same time, he was arguably the better of the ones that followed. But it is like getting a cold when you are already terminal with cancer. And in truth, Diem was better only in terms of a stable government, without the period of revolving door generals until Thieu. Which is like saying a child is better with a two parent household rather than a single mother, despite the father being an unemployed, abusive drunk. How can that survive?
 
America could have continued to pour treasure rather than blood into Vietnam. The survival of South Vietnam is debatable. I would argue the nation became overly reliant on the U.S. military, hindering it's ability to develop and support itself as an independent, self capable nation. However, there was a reason it fell. South Vietnam was a perfect failed State. In every category, it failed. It was a mass Buddhist nation where Diem persecuted the majority. It was a nation that needed a strong military, which was instead rife with corruption and nepotism. Diem was a terrible leader, but at the same time, he was arguably the better of the ones that followed. But it is like getting a cold when you are already terminal with cancer. How can that survive?

I'd say you're wrong about Diem being the best leader South Vietnam had. Thieu lasted much longer, actually listened to the people and had basically had reduced with U.S help the problem of guerilla's to zero. What would need to done is make sure General Westmoreland never takes command and that the whole number's based body count strategy is never implemented, The body count strategy was that if we kill enough of the enemy we would "win" the war. That never really worked out, it was general Abram's strategy of pacification that actually for a time worked, the problem this was post-Tet and support would eventually slacken off.

The problem with Vietnam War historiography is that it largely tends to be American as a whole and usually more towards the Orthodox interpretation the war unwinnable and unjust.
 

missouribob

Banned
America could have continued to pour treasure rather than blood into Vietnam. The survival of South Vietnam is debatable. I would argue the nation became overly reliant on the U.S. military, hindering it's ability to develop and support itself as an independent, self capable nation. However, there was a reason it fell. South Vietnam was a perfect failed State. In every category, it failed. It was a mass Buddhist nation where Diem persecuted the majority. It was a nation that needed a strong military, which was instead rife with corruption and nepotism. The government was unstable, and the allegiance of the people was shaky. Diem was a terrible leader, but at the same time, he was arguably the better of the ones that followed. But it is like getting a cold when you are already terminal with cancer. And in truth, Diem was better only in terms of a stable government, without the period of revolving door generals until Thieu. Which is like saying a child is better with a two parent household rather than a single mother, despite the father being an unemployed, abusive drunk. How can that survive?
I would think with a hundred thousand Americans plus billions in aid every year to keep it propped up would be enough. Before the complete withdrawal of America in 1973 I wouldn't say that the collapse of South Vietnam was inevitable. Just as our timeline showed it took a complete invasion by the NVA to destroy South Vietnam as a country, not South Vietnam's internal problems. I just don't see the NVA pushing out 100k American troops...
 
Top