Tet offensive a absolute failure for North Vietnam

What if the Tet offensive failed, meaning that the attacks on Saigon and Hue are immediately thwarted by American forces due to them heeding good intelligence? Therefore, the American public does not see images on tv that turn them against the war.
 
What if the Tet offensive failed, meaning that the attacks on Saigon and Hue are immediately thwarted by American forces due to them heeding good intelligence? Therefore, the American public does not see images on tv that turn them against the war.

Technically the American public usually supported the war in Vietnam, Tet merely dropped that from solid approval ratings to 50/50 ish.

The more interesting effect is scrambling the Presidential race, I feel, since failed Tet just means the US will probably waste more money and lives in the jungle unless the Presidential race is different enough that Humphrey (or RFK) wins.
 
What if the Tet offensive failed, meaning that the attacks on Saigon and Hue are immediately thwarted by American forces due to them heeding good intelligence? Therefore, the American public does not see images on tv that turn them against the war.


Militarily the Tet offensive did fail. It was a disaster for the North, and just about annihilated the Viet Cong. US forces did heed good intelligence, and did thwart many of the attacks as they happened or even before.

I think the issue is how do you ensure sober and accurate reporting of what happened - the US Embassy "occupation" for example was widely misreported, when the team sent to sieze the building was in fact wiped out in the compound and barely got into the foyer.

Accurately reporting exactly why a Saigon Police chief summarily executed a VC in the streets is another example.
 
I think the issue is how do you ensure sober and accurate reporting of what happened - the US Embassy "occupation" for example was widely misreported, when the team sent to sieze the building was in fact wiped out in the compound and barely got into the foyer.
Well if US forces have good intelligence that allows them to do better than our timeline one option might be to confidentially brief the press beforehand, that way the narrative doesn't become about what the Vietnamese have appeared to achieve but that they walked into prepared defences and were practically annihilated even counting individual incidents. If the military are smart enough to have a media plan to get the reality of the situation out as quickly and as widely as possible rather than becoming the turning point in American public support for the war it could instead see it maintained or even given a small second wind.
 
Why would Humphrey winning change anything? Since he was LBJ's veep, wouldn't he continue with the same policies? Now, if Bobby becomes POTUS, you will see a change in direction, IMHO.
Technically the American public usually supported the war in Vietnam, Tet merely dropped that from solid approval ratings to 50/50 i The more interesting effect is scrambling the Presidential race, I feel, since failed Tet just means the US will probably waste more money and lives in the jungle unless the Presidential race is different enough that Humphrey (or RFK) wins.
 
Militarily the Tet offensive did fail. It was a disaster for the North, and just about annihilated the Viet Cong. US forces did heed good intelligence, and did thwart many of the attacks as they happened or even before.

I think the issue is how do you ensure sober and accurate reporting of what happened - the US Embassy "occupation" for example was widely misreported, when the team sent to sieze the building was in fact wiped out in the compound and barely got into the foyer.

Accurately reporting exactly why a Saigon Police chief summarily executed a VC in the streets is another example.
Summary executions are not going to play well, not matter how you attempt to justify it. It's the sort of thing associated with the Nazis and the Soviets that will not sit well with the public.
 
for whatever reason, I always found that picture to be somewhat amusing. The police chief looked like he weighed about 50 lb.
Summary executions are not going to play well, not matter how you attempt to justify it. It's the sort of thing associated with the Nazis and the Soviets that will not sit well with the public.
 
Summary executions are not going to play well, not matter how you attempt to justify it. It's the sort of thing associated with the Nazis and the Soviets that will not sit well with the public.

Kind of my point though. That image was widely disseminated as an example of atrocity, yet once the context is understood it was arguably entirely within the rules of war, and the "victim" had just been caught red handed after committing an actual atrocity (which is far less well known, like the many atrocities committed by the VC during Tet and the rest of the conflict). Even Eddie Adams who took the picture has expressed regret over doing so given the subsequent exposure and use of it out of context.
 
Last edited:
Kind of my point though. That image was widely disseminated as an example of atrocity, yet once the context is understood it was arguably entirely within the rules of war, and the "victim" had just been caught red handed after committing an actual atrocity (which is far less well known, like the many atrocities committed by the VC during Tet and the rest of the conflict). Even Eddie Adams who took the picture has expressed regret over doing so given the subsequent exposure and use of it out of context.
So if one replaced this imae with one of a VC atrocity might go some way to altering public perception.
 
The more interesting effect is scrambling the Presidential race, I feel, since failed Tet just means the US will probably waste more money and lives in the jungle unless the Presidential race is different enough that Humphrey (or RFK) wins.

If the Tet Offensive is soundly defeated, and the war still seems winnable, will LJB decide to run again in 1968 ?
 
Militarily the Tet offensive did fail. It was a disaster for the North, and just about annihilated the Viet Cong. US forces did heed good intelligence, and did thwart many of the attacks as they happened or even before.

I think the issue is how do you ensure sober and accurate reporting of what happened - the US Embassy "occupation" for example was widely misreported, when the team sent to sieze the building was in fact wiped out in the compound and barely got into the foyer.

Accurately reporting exactly why a Saigon Police chief summarily executed a VC in the streets is another example.

Kind of my point though. That image was widely disseminated as an example of atrocity, yet once the context is understood it was entirely within the rules of war, and the "victim" had just been caught red handed after committing an actual atrocity. Even Eddie Adams who took the picture has expressed regret over doing so given the subsequent exposure and use of it.

This pretty much - make sure that the reporters manage to actually report that the Tet offensive gutted the VC, and the public perception of the war will remain less negative. Don't lose Walter Croncite, and we don't lose the war.

This could have interesting implications too.
 
The public was already turning against involvement. The Gallup poll had 44% of Americans thinking that sending troops to Vietnam was a mistake in December 1967. (Which only changed to 48% by April.)

So, you'd need for the Tet to be snuffed out even before it really got noticed by newspaper readers and TV viewers back home. Otherwise, the continuing narrative of being in a country for years and nothing changing would, uh, continue?
 
From a military POV, Tet WAS a failure. In the end the North and their insurgent allies were crushed.

Politically and in terms of propaganda it was a victory.
 
Top