US wins the Vietnam war in 1975

By that you mean ‘How can South Vietnam survive against a North Vietnamese conventional offensive of five army corps?’

Which is a different question to "How can South Vietnam win in 1975" of course. And while it is possible for South Vietnam—with appropriate kinds of assistance—to prevent the success of General Offensive 1975, the problem immediately becomes, how will South Vietnam prevent the success of General Offensive 1977?

yours,
Sam R.
 
Which is a different question to "How can South Vietnam win in 1975" of course. And while it is possible for South Vietnam—with appropriate kinds of assistance—to prevent the success of General Offensive 1975, the problem immediately becomes, how will South Vietnam prevent the success of General Offensive 1977?

yours,
Sam R.

Good point. And will the southerners also keep pushing for their own govs, or routs for someone else, considering what is to be done for 'winning' the war?
 

Cook

Banned
how will South Vietnam prevent the success of General Offensive 1977?

The same way; prior to the US Congress deciding that promises are meaningless, even ones made at a peace conference, the ARVN’s capabilities were improving and increasing.

Suddenly having no ammunition, no spare parts and having to wash and re-use bandages tends to take the wind out of your sails though.
 
You mean the same VC that was almost destroyed in Tet?


it doesn´t matter... in the 70ties communism was at his high, american capitalism and its way to supress peope at its low...

you need only 10 fighters to keep on... so the americans can be "in south vietnam", but with constant terror.... and we have not discussed cambodsha or laos or the thai... no, usa can only loose worse...
 
it doesn´t matter... in the 70ties communism was at his high, american capitalism and its way to supress peope at its low...

you need only 10 fighters to keep on... so the americans can be "in south vietnam", but with constant terror.... and we have not discussed cambodsha or laos or the thai... no, usa can only loose worse...

The later is kinda my point, they could win in theory... but with a price, terrible price at max. A pyrrhic price who may be a defeat of the very reason they said they came there for.
 
The later is kinda my point, they could win in theory... but with a price, terrible price at max. A pyrrhic price who may be a defeat of the very reason they said they came there for.


well - no victory, just a delayed defeat.

as i wrote - in this area the us of a can only win if they do not stabilize the dictatorship in south vietnam. If they do (they have to, from the situation), they are doomed.

only if they kill all vietnamese people they win - but even this mean they loose... cause all over the world everybody will fight the americans.
 
I also feel that the civil situation needs to be considered, from 1974 onwards South Vietnam is experiencing hyperinflation, with a stagnant economy. Argentina from the early 2000's combined with fighting insurgents and a neighbour hell bent on their annihilation. At this stage South Vietnam can still survive with US support and possibly a more dynamic influence in their presidency. But the South Vietnamese need the cards to break their way.
 
well - no victory, just a delayed defeat.

as i wrote - in this area the us of a can only win if they do not stabilize the dictatorship in south vietnam. If they do (they have to, from the situation), they are doomed.

only if they kill all vietnamese people they win - but even this mean they loose... cause all over the world everybody will fight the americans.

My point. Tactical win at first.. maybe. but morally...
 
My point. Tactical win at first.. maybe. but morally...


who care about morality in a war?

nobody..

just the costs (in dollars and life) is to high - like in the iraq the americans only can loose. if they stay many soldiers get killed and the hate of the people grow to such levels that it will get worse, if they leave, they loose earlier (and cheaper)

asymetrical warfare is won by brutal force - but if you belive your own lies about how good you are, you are doomed.

the russians or japanese or nazis simply had killed everybody... so a calm nice place exist. everyone who is not you is an enemy and will be killed.

war is over, all "enemies" are dead. Victory... well, not really, cause all neighbours will prepare to send you to hell. so also no winning point!
 
I'd think the only way the US could win the war was to have a SV government that, from the very beginning, was democratic, fair, and actually helpful to the people... give the south something worth fighting for.

How you get that, I have no idea...
 
You'd probably have to work to get Ngo Dinh Diem to really reform his administration for the better in the mid to late fifties, or thoroughly intimidate him to do so in the early sixties. Doing that however doesn't really get rid of his authoritarian traits/nepotism/vehement anti-Buddhist tendencies and thus doesn't do away entirely with the feeling that he's an illegitimate force in South Vietnamese politics, so the Americans would most likely have to keep a very close eye on the whole situation and slowly ratchet up the pressure for a democratic handover c.1963/64.

Which is kind of unlikely, and requires a foresight in US strategic planning which in OTL wasn't acted upon sufficiently.


as long as the usa accept every dictator (not only in the asias) if he is just not commuist, you will not solve this problem.... to solve it you need asb...

a democratic south vietnam will try to unify peacefully with the north. the usa cannot allow this - so they will delete the democratic government...
 
as long as the usa accept every dictator (not only in the asias) if he is just not commuist, you will not solve this problem.... to solve it you need asb...

a democratic south vietnam will try to unify peacefully with the north. the usa cannot allow this - so they will delete the democratic government...
I thought about arguing against this, but looking back through your posts on this thread, you seem to be an anti-American/anti-capitalism nut. So I'm just going to ignore you instead.
You'd probably have to work to get Ngo Dinh Diem to really reform his administration
Does it have to be that guy in charge? Anyone else who might do better?
 
This doesn't make any sense. Why would South Vietnam just give in to the north without being beaten?

in a democracy the people decide...
if the people of south vietnam want to be united with the people of north vietnam, vietnam will be united.

If the southerner do not want to stay americanizised, the us of a will - to defeat communism kill the legal government and install a dictator.

that is standard us policiy from 1900-1975.... in southern america (chile spring in to my mind), in middle america or in asia...

so you need to change this - but this is asb...
 
:)
I thought about arguing against this, but looking back through your posts on this thread, you seem to be an anti-American/anti-capitalism nut. So I'm just going to ignore you instead.

Does it have to be that guy in charge? Anyone else who might do better?


hm, why should i be antiamerican? because i describe realistic possibilities? Sounds strange

about capitalism - i am a fan of capitalism, but this has nothing to do with the plot "how can the usa win in vietnam"

i describe standard us policy of nearly 100 years - like in columbia (for the channel), chile (in 1973), vietnam (in the late 50ties), honduras , cuba (twice)


why is one anticapitalism (oh - but i agree, THIS kind of capitalism is nothing i agree to - my capitalism is called Soziale Marktwirtschaft) if he describe why the us of a can´t win in vietnam without asb changes or a plot in 1865?

but i can live with it... you are welcome, but if you do not want to discuss things, we do not need to do so

but i still like to ask why you are on an alternate history forum, if you do not want to discuss things that could or could not be changed (and the us of a win vietnam war is like succsessfull sealion :p;):))
 
We could have 'won' by supporting Ho Chi Minh. North Vietnam, before the war, ASKED FOR OUR HELP AND OFFERED A NAVAL BASE.


not really, in a short way? yes... but ho would have fight with the americans about their kind of behaviour...

but you are right - american foreign politics after ww2 is well known for such "smart" moves... like fiedel castro..
 
Top