Vietcong Domestic Terrorist Attack (1968)

Say it's 1968-69, right at the peak of the Anti-Vietnam movement in the West.

North Vietnam, and the Vietcong, in lue of the Tet Offensive of OTL instead decides to launch a domestic terrorist attack somewhere on the west coast of the United States.

Article 5 of the NATO treaty automatically activates. (See September 11th..)

----------------------------------

- What happens next?

- Would western Europe actually jump into the conflict to abide by NATO?

- Would France jump back in?

- Would NATO collapse if the allies refuse to fight in Vietnam?
 
Last edited:

James G

Gone Fishin'
vietnam-map.gif


Say it's 1968-69, right at the peak of the Anti-Vietnam movement in the West.

North Vietnam, and the Vietcong, in lue of the Tet Offensive of OTL instead decides to issue a formal declaration of war on South Vietnam and the United States.

Article 5 of the NATO treaty automatically activates.

----------------------------------
- What happens next?

- Would western Europe actually jump into the conflict to abide by NATO?

- Would France jump back in?

- Would NATO collapse if the allies refuse to fight in Vietnam?

Have a quick read of a summary of the NATO treaty on Wikipedia. The treaty covers Europe, North America, the northern parts of the Atlantic and the Med. too.
If you have a DoW as you suggest, NATO is a bystander.
 
Have a quick read of a summary of the NATO treaty on Wikipedia. The treaty covers Europe, North America, the northern parts of the Atlantic and the Med. too.
If you have a DoW as you suggest, NATO is a bystander.

Wrong? Article 5 was invoked after Sept 11th...

That was an attack on the United States. This is the exact same situationn
 
Wrong? Article 5 was invoked after Sept 11th...

That was an attack on the United States. This is the exact same situationn

Article 5 of the Washington Treaty said:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Unless North Vietnam sails over the Pacific and tries shooting up San Francisco, this doesn't apply.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
Unless North Vietnam sails over the Pacific and tries shooting up San Francisco, this doesn't apply.

That actually is an interesting proposition. North Vietnam definitely kept their eyes peeled on events in America and might have thought that a terrorist attack of some sort would help them like Tet did regardless of success or failure. After that, the US invokes Article 5, and North Vietnam suddenly becomes too hot for the Russians to handle.
 
That actually is an interesting proposition. North Vietnam definitely kept their eyes peeled on events in America and might have thought that a terrorist attack of some sort would help them like Tet did regardless of success or failure. After that, the US invokes Article 5, and North Vietnam suddenly becomes too hot for the Russians to handle.

This should have been my question ^^
 
That actually is an interesting proposition. North Vietnam definitely kept their eyes peeled on events in America and might have thought that a terrorist attack of some sort would help them like Tet did regardless of success or failure. After that, the US invokes Article 5, and North Vietnam suddenly becomes too hot for the Russians to handle.

The other side of that of course is, if the North Vietnamese launch terror attacks on US soil the domestic opposition they are relying on to win the war is going to...disappear I think is a good word.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
The other side of that of course is, if the North Vietnamese launch terror attacks on US soil the domestic opposition they are relying on to win the war is going to...disappear I think is a good word.

They might not realize that. Its not like North Vietnam were perfectly in tune to what they should have been doing on the propaganda front; the concept of trotting out POWs to make anti American statements, something that the Japanese did in WW2, massively backfired once it was clear, and it was abundantly clear, that the statements were coerced.

They might have thought wrongly that such an action would galvanize supporters to their side.

While it would be nice to see the anti war types get the shit beaten out of them, the true effect of such an action would be the Article 5 call.
 
They might not realize that. Its not like North Vietnam were perfectly in tune to what they should have been doing on the propaganda front; the concept of trotting out POWs to make anti American statements, something that the Japanese did in WW2, massively backfired once it was clear, and it was abundantly clear, that the statements were coerced.

They might have thought wrongly that such an action would galvanize supporters to their side.

While it would be nice to see the anti war types get the shit beaten out of them, the true effect of such an action would be the Article 5 call.

BUT

Would western Europe intervene? (France included)

If not, would NATO fall apart?
 

TinyTartar

Banned
BUT

Would western Europe intervene? (France included)

If not, would NATO fall apart?

France likely wouldn't, once they gave up on Algeria they became firmly inward looking, and their ties with NATO were weak as it was. Not only that, but we wouldn't want them to intervene. France would be a toxic ally in such a case seeing as the South Vietnamese hated them as much as the North Vietnamese did after Diem was deposed.

Britain might send a token force from their units in Malay, mostly elite light infantry types to help fight in the Mekong Delta. They would not do a full scale intervention however; their military was stretched enough as it was seeing as they were sending troops into Northern Ireland right about at this point.

I can't see Germany intervening either. The pro North sentiment there was pretty substantial, and more importantly, the anti war concept was huge there. Same with Italy.

Canada might send some troops if the terror attack was big enough.

I think that NATO in this case would either collapse or it would go through a reform process that basically meant that an invasion was necessary to invoke article 5. Nontheless, the alliance would be thoroughly discredited.

The only countries I can see sending help are those from the US's anti-communist sphere of influence who were global pariahs. South Africa and their very impressive light infantry units would do good service in Vietnam. South Korea would continue to play the baddie role, albeit in greater numbers, and Taiwan might also help. You'd also get help from Francoist Spain, Salazar's Portugal, although probably not Israel, who has their own issues to deal with. New Zealand and Australia would probably help more in such a scenario, also. And maybe even some banana republics in Central America might send some admittedly poor quality troops if it was asked of them.
 
The other side of that of course is, if the North Vietnamese launch terror attacks on US soil the domestic opposition they are relying on to win the war is going to...disappear I think is a good word.

Disappear is a mild word for it. The anti-war movement would take a hit that would be really difficult to recover from. The US military budget would go through the roof and there is a real chance that we would invade North Vietnam.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
They might not realize that. Its not like North Vietnam were perfectly in tune to what they should have been doing on the propaganda front; the concept of trotting out POWs to make anti American statements, something that the Japanese did in WW2, massively backfired once it was clear, and it was abundantly clear, that the statements were coerced.

They might have thought wrongly that such an action would galvanize supporters to their side.

While it would be nice to see the anti war types get the shit beaten out of them, the true effect of such an action would be the Article 5 call.

Ya, its always nice to see grandmothers and women with little kids, or even college kids exercising their 1st Amendment Rights get the snot knocked out of them.

Not.

Official Warning for trolling.
 
Ya, its always nice to see grandmothers and women with little kids, or even college kids exercising their 1st Amendment Rights get the snot knocked out of them.

...

Or my father a USAF Reserve Officer & WWII veteran. He gradually lost his support for the war with each returning Viet Nam vet he talked to & assorted decisions on how the war was run. Its become a pop myth the anti Viet war crowd were all a bunch of scruffy college age Commie wannabes.
 
Top