Was a Vietnam-like War Inevitable?

Was an American involvement in a guerilla war in some far-flung corner of the planet inevitable after World War II? Not necessarily literally inevitable, but inevitable in the sense that the emergence of an extreme-right-wing movement was inevitable in Germany after World War I. Would hubris, lack of understanding of guerilla warfare, and a sociological need to be Tough on Commies lead to a similar American involvement elsewhere?

And, if so, any suggestions as to where?
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
I don't see why it would be. You might be able to make the argument for Korea, though even there it's oversimplistic, but definitely not for Vietnam. By the time of Vietnam relations between the two Great Communist Powers and the US had clearly established boundaries. This was actually one reason the war there went on so long. It very quickly settled into routine with levels which both sides knew and expected would not change.

For the US it became a Proving Ground for our arms industry, for the Soviets it was the same, but for their expansion policies in the Third World.

Besides. Nothing is inevitable, that's why this board is here, innit?
 
Nothing is inevitable.
But certain things are more likely than others.

Once China is communist, it is very likely that communist movements shall grow in Asia and that these shall seek to control these states.
It is very unlikely that the USA shall permit these states to become communist unchallenged.

Thus the USA will fight.
 
Certainly not inevitable.

Had JFK not approved the murder of South Vietnam's president, then been terrified that the resulting chaos would cost him the 1964 election, the US might never have gotten involved beyond a few advisors and arms sales.

Had the break between China and Russia come a bit sooner South Vietnam might have survived as North Vietnam not only lost Chinese aid but had to guard the border.

For real fun, imagine the break coming a bit sooner and Nixon/Kissinger coming to the idea that South Vietnam should go down because North Vietnam is obviously more capable and will inevitably desire some choice other than utter dependence on Moscow. Which is what actually did happen in economic terms after 1989.
 
I would say yes but it might be far from Vietnam. A lot of conflicts will pop up during/after decolonisation and I think the odds of US involvment in one of them is likely.
 
yes. after Korean war both sides realised that they might come directly face to face and that wasn't sch a good idea. So it became inevitable that communists will try to gain power somewhere and US will try to prevent it by backing government's side.
 
I would say yes but it might be far from Vietnam. A lot of conflicts will pop up during/after decolonisation and I think the odds of US involvment in one of them is likely.

Yes, one could imagine it happening in somewhere like Peru, where the US views it as being in its backyard, the Maoists as easy to beat down, but all it does is whip up local rebellion and then ends up fighting in the Andes and jungles...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Vietnam? No Vietnam like? Probably. Vietnam was a surrogate war between the Superpowers, one mainly focused on testing exactly what American resolve was during the '60's.

From the Soviet side: If the U.S was willing to lose 58,000 men in VIET NAM (or some other godforsaken locale):eek:, it was pretty damned clear that it would go to the Wall for NATO. As a secondary benefit to Moscow, the billions spent in the 'Nam weren't being spent on NATO.

At the same time, Vietnam was critical for the U.S., as it demonstrated to American allies that the U.S. would spend lives to help defend against communism even half way across the globe.

Viet Nam was just a convenient spot for the $%#@ to hit the fan.
 
Vietnam? No Vietnam like? Probably. Vietnam was a surrogate war between the Superpowers, one mainly focused on testing exactly what American resolve was during the '60's.

From the Soviet side: If the U.S was willing to lose 58,000 men in VIET NAM (or some other godforsaken locale):eek:, it was pretty damned clear that it would go to the Wall for NATO. As a secondary benefit to Moscow, the billions spent in the 'Nam weren't being spent on NATO.

At the same time, Vietnam was critical for the U.S., as it demonstrated to American allies that the U.S. would spend lives to help defend against communism even half way across the globe.

Viet Nam was just a convenient spot for the $%#@ to hit the fan.


It's good a good cause
2 million people died
and my grand uncle became addicted to heroin and speed for 20 years as well as continue to have nightmares for such a worthy cause
a pissing match
thats all history boils down to when you think about it....all wars other then national survival are pissing match's
 
Top