The American-Vietnam War an ALT

Deleted member 94680

No such thing is guaranteed. The timeline of events shifted by even 2-3 years could flip things drastically. NV sources are scarce, but the idea of a successful invasion was not considered a done deal in Hanoi.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Where has the 2-3 year shift come from? I’m saying the next offensive after ‘72 was ‘75 as you vaguely left it as “after ‘72”. I’m saying there would be one after that as the NV regime’s raison d'être was the conquest of the whole of Vietnam.

This is just nonsense. Why do you assume that SV leadership wanted peace then ?

I assume the SV leadership wanted peace as, well, there were peace talks in ‘68? Admittedly I’m mainly going by the Ken Burns series, but the Nixon campaign interfered in the talks to bolster his campaign by way of ensuring a Democrat didn’t secure peace.
 

longsword14

Banned
I’m mainly going by the Ken Burns series
It is just bad. Looks good, but still bad.
but the Nixon campaign interfered in the talks to bolster his campaign by way of ensuring a Democrat didn’t secure peace.
Rejecting peace was their position, Nixon or not. For a complete explanation look at David T's post on this.
there was no more VC
Not exactly. Badly mauled and their lower cadres went to ground so that they could no longer operate against SV forces.
 
Last edited:
No such thing is guaranteed. The timeline of events shifted by even 2-3 years could flip things drastically. NV sources are scarce, but the idea of a successful invasion was not considered a done deal in Hanoi.

This is just nonsense. Why do you assume that SV leadership wanted peace then ?

This is both wrong and irrelevant, LOL. By the time the US was in the thick of it Ho Chi Minh had been sidelined.
In 1945 the US did not care much about SE Asia, why would they stick their noses in French affairs ?

In 1945 there was no SVN or NVN! What leadership are you referring to?

FDR was both anti-colonial and anti-French (DeGaulle) - The OSS in the summer of '44 was operating in southern China and was ordered to create a relationship with the Vietnamese to begin the reconquest of Indochina. The OSS met Ho when his Vietminh recused several pilots (of the Flying Tigers) in '42 and '43 and then in spring of '45 the OSS began to build (arm and train) two Vietminh guerrilla units called The Deer and Elk Teams. By August they had one team already in the field under the command of Giap. When the nukes ended the war the French were in exile in India and General Chennault (under FDR's standing orders) refused to fly the French back into Indochina. It was Mountbatten who shuttled the French back into Saigon, not us. The country at that time was divided at the 16th parallel with the British occupying the southern region and Chang, supposedly to occupy the northern section. (Chiang was very late appearing and allowed Ho to establish himself as "president" of the new republic.) By 1946 the French drove Ho out of Hanoi and took back her colony.

Ho and his Vietminh took control of Hanoi (in August of '45) and announced a new and independent Vietnam. Two Officer from the OSS stood next to him on the stage as he read a paraphrasing of the Declaration of Independence. Ho's flag was deliberately designed in Blue and Red (with a yellow star) to show his intended relationship with the America liberators he had (hoped to have) a relationship with.

We didn't abandoned Ho until after Churchill's "Iron Curtain speech" had us twitching and looking for communists under the bed - All through 1945 and early 1946 there was a lobbyist group in WDC called The Friends of Vietnam who were trying to achieve recognition for Ho's Vietminh.

The only thing you got right was that we didn't care about Southeast Asia, my point being we should have! There was an opportunity missed!

"Nonsense" and "LOL" -- Really?
 
Mine the Harbors, bust the Red River dams, and do Linebacker II level bombing in 1965, and dare the Soviets and China start WWIII over it.

They won't risk it.

While that is going on, build up the local RL/PF forces sooner over ARV, while a Phoenix Program gets started early.

Assassinate Prince Sihanouk for his glee on hearing JFK was shot.

Will it be pretty?

Not at all.

But probably cut supply to VC and PAVN will be in no shape to assist them across the DMZ, and Cambodia will play out far different than OTL


Being more aggressive with Hanoi (without actually trying to occupy it) might very well have worked; China may not have been willing to move (start WWIII) to protect Hanoi, (IMO) only would have, had we advanced into the North. - There was much argument over mining the harbor, and very late in the war we eventually did, (and probably should have done it earlier) and then worried everyday we would kill Russians. It wasn't until after Nixon made his wheat deal with Brezhnev were we willing willing to take the chance. In the end cutting off the Ho Chi Minh trail (wherever it was operating) was the key to victory, so say many.
 
If the Chinese advanced into North Vietnam, there would be a cluster-fuck for everyone. Note that during the war, the leaders of North Vietnam are fairly nationalistic - enough to make the communism tendency not a primary. Le Duan, General Secretary of VCP during the war, said that the first thing we (Vietnamese) needed in the war was...

"Not being afraid of the Chinese".

Not the American, not the "traitor" SV, but it was the Chinese, the (supposedly) "ally" of North Vietnam.
 
Better yet, after WWII tell the French they were not to come back and let the Vietnamese work out their own destiny.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_Independence_of_the_Democratic_Republic_of_Vietnam

i think so too. Once Ho declares independence fully support Vietnamese people and not the french. The US had sympathy for fighting the Japs and history of being a former colony. This will likely cause the french to considerably be more anti-american(perhaps as even neutral in the cold war) but it will insure the US would not lose the Vietnam war.
 
The problem with Diem that cannot be overlooked, is that he was rabidly Catholic and oppressed the Buddhist population, which was the majority of the South Vietnamese population.
Actually that much isn't so true. Edward Miller's "Religious Revival and the Politics of Nation Building: Reinterpreting the 1963 ‘Buddhist crisis’ in South Vietnam" is a pretty good article on the topic if you can find it.
 

longsword14

Banned
Actually that much isn't so true. Edward Miller's "Religious Revival and the Politics of Nation Building: Reinterpreting the 1963 ‘Buddhist crisis’ in South Vietnam" is a pretty good article on the topic if you can find it.
And as far as his nationalist credentials are considered, it would be good to remember that he was no French lackey. French loss in the North did not mean that they had been turned out in the South, it was left for Diem to do that.
 
And as far as his nationalist credentials are considered, it would be good to remember that he was no French lackey. French loss in the North did not mean that they had been turned out in the South, it was left for Diem to do that.

That's true, there was a period after Geneva '54 that the French thought they would still have influence in the south, even threatening 'to leave' when they didn't get what they wanted out of the Diem/Dulles. What they didn't grasp on to was that Dulles wanted them out. We, the Americans (Dulles) were ready to show those 'poor colonists' the French the right way to 'build a nation' and were quite happy when they finally left - unfortunately we ended up making the same mistakes, never respecting the Vietnamese, and never truly allowing them to build a nation. And of course then there was Diem and Nhu, and The Dragon Lady . . . (You've got to be a real piece of shit when your own father follows you around the USA and warns people that you are a psychopath.)
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_Independence_of_the_Democratic_Republic_of_Vietnam

i think so too. Once Ho declares independence fully support Vietnamese people and not the french. The US had sympathy for fighting the Japs and history of being a former colony. This will likely cause the french to considerably be more anti-american(perhaps as even neutral in the cold war) but it will insure the US would not lose the Vietnam war.

(IMO) While Churchill conned us into protecting his empire, DeGaulle (at least) was straight up with us, warning Truman that if we didn't support the French empire (or at least play 'chickie' on the issue) he would seek, with Stalin a direct relationship. He made it clear NATO would be a 'no go.' -- Churchill played us, in Vietnam DeGaulle put a gun to our head.
 
Last edited:
I blame MacArthur - if he hadn't insisted all local surrenders had to wait until after his big ceremony in Tokyo, then the Japanese arsenals in Vietnam would have come under Allied control rather than the Viet Cong.
 
How did Churchill con the US into protecting his empire ?


Yea OK! This is a very unpopular opinion so try not to get too pissed at me.

If you talk with Churchill lovers they will tell you what a great politician he was, usually the smartest guy in the room. I agree with that sentiment. They will even tell you how he could slick the pants off just about anyone, including FDR. One of their favorite stories is to tell how FDR made Churchill sign the Atlantic Charter, (which among its war aims called for the end of colonialism,) and how Churchill as he walked away mumbled under his breath to an aid, 'does he really think I just signed away the British empire.'

But then suddenly come the famed speech in Missouri in '46 Churchill is no longer that great slickster, but somehow is morphed into this great international leader who is there to save the world from the tyranny of communism, (The Iron Curtain Speech). I say hog-wash to that, Churchill was there that day to shake the voo-doo doll of communism in our face and assure that the preservation of colonialism became synonymous with anti-communism. -- It is within this same logic why the French in Vietnam refused to use the term "Viet Minh" (which loosely translates to "The Enlightened Vietnamese) and instead used the phrase "Viet Cong (which loosely translates into "The Vietnamese Communists,) that term was applied for our sake.

In short, Churchill's job was to associate in our minds the preservation of colonialism with the defeat of communism, and he pulled if off beautifully; Churchill's job at Westminster College was to create the popular support necessary for Truman's containment speech a year later.

Of course the long term wrong of this was that he/we then allowed the communists to associate themselves, in the mind of peasants all over the world, with liberty from colonialism via communism. It was the communists who then handed out the cash, the arms, and the ideology to the peasants, while we stood by looking the other way as European powers abused third-world nations all over Africa/Asia/Middle-East.

As you can see I don't think much of Winston Churchill, but let me add, if you asked me to name the five greatest Brits of all time, I would put Winston Churchill's name on that list in a New York minute, as a great Brit, he was one of the most important men in their history, but IMO he was no friend to the world, he was a supporter of empire and always a supporter of empire, and on that day in Missouri his agenda was the preservation of the Empire, and that meant playing the Americans.
 
Last edited:

trajen777

Banned
So in Kissinger's book "On China" he discusses many things including the pivot and the unofficial alliance between the USA and China vs USSR. However it was very clear that Mao did not want a united Vietnam. However he did not want to South Vietnam force on the border (SV takes over NV). He liked their division. Using this formula i could see a weaker NV unable to inflict major damage on SV existing for a long time.

Its funny i can give you alot of information on the Byz empire but on the Vietnam war even though i lived thru it i know much less.

So for this to work you would need :
1. Linebacker 2 to destroy the infrastructure of NV
2. No Watergate (aid would have been forthcoming for the SV (not troops) ) which killed financial support
3. A more stable gov in 72 - 75 -- which was developing
 
And of course then there was Diem and Nhu, and The Dragon Lady . . . (You've got to be a real piece of shit when your own father follows you around the USA and warns people that you are a psychopath.)
Honestly Diem on his own wouldn't be too bad, Nhu and Thuc (and of course Madam Nhu) not only influenced him but occasionally went behind his back to create problems. Rather than OTL's policy of ignoring how the country is being run and then sponsoring a coup when someone burns themself alive, the US would probably be best off pressuring Diem to take a more confrontational line with his family. On his own Diem could probably have been a Syngman Rhee type figure (a tyrant who only pays lip service to democracy, but also roots out the domestic communists and builds a cohesive if not quite stable nation), and that would probably be about as good as the US was going to get.
 
"Viet Minh" (which loosely translates to "The Enlightened Vietnamese

Actually, this is a small mistake, "Viet Minh" is short for "Viet Nam Doc lap Dong minh Hoi" or "The League for the Independence of Vietnam". It should also be noted that the translation of "The League" (in the name) is the same as "The Allies" (as in the Allies faction of World War 2). "The Enlighted" is present within the name of "Ho Chi Minh" though.
 
Actually, this is a small mistake, "Viet Minh" is short for "Viet Nam Doc lap Dong minh Hoi" or "The League for the Independence of Vietnam". It should also be noted that the translation of "The League" (in the name) is the same as "The Allies" (as in the Allies faction of World War 2). "The Enlighted" is present within the name of "Ho Chi Minh" though.

Thank you, I shouldn't assume! I knew that is why Ho took the name, but . . . interesting.
 
Top