What if the United States had not given up in Vietnam?

Status
Not open for further replies.
What is the Win Condition?

If it is a regime in Saigon with popular support in opposition to a One-Party State operating out of Hanoi? There are a few ways but one has to A) Make changes as far back as the Eisenhower administration & B) Be willing to back the (proto-)Viet Cong over Diem
 
I doubt that. I doubt Ho Chi Minh will be able to run a country(which will be inevitable after elections in 1956) without burying it into the ground first, causing at least as much deaths the war caused with re-educations and collectivization in Maoist styles. He'd outdo Pol Pot.

In 1956 the situation in Vietnam was so much different and under Ho Chi Minh not positively.

The Vietminh were the perfect war cabinet, but at peace, not so much.

I think you misread my comment, because i was talking about the United States, not Vietnam.
 
Having lived through the portuguese PREC (Período Revolucionário Em Curso translated as On Going Revolutionary Period) after the April 25th revolution I can assure you that they did, and that a possible US intervention was a factor in the test of strengh that ended the Communist attempt to take over the country.
Regarding what you say about Eastern Europe, try telling a Pole that his country became communist by their own choice.

Regarding Communist expansion/infiltration attempts, I sugest reading "Comrades" by Robert Service.
I think you misunderstood what I said. Eastern Europe had Communism imposed on it, at the end of a bayonet. The Nazis were kicked out the Communists took advantage of the situation and imposed their own rule in it's stead. That doesn't mean it was wanted by the locals, it just happened. despite the locals' wishes.
 
I think they are quite comparable. Far from a "hands off approach", don't you think?
No military invasion like Hungary or Czechoslovakia for the US in the New World.
There was little effort at infiltration of Communists in Greece. The Greek Civil War was between two (or three) opposing sides, all native to Greece.
that ended once Tito was on the outs with Stalin, no more support to the Communists in Greece, the supply lines to Yugoslavia were cut
Once a side loses their main backers and the other side doesn't, you get 1949 or 1975
 

Stenz

Monthly Donor
In Latin America a hands off approach was the right solution.

"Hands off"? No, the US had a very much "hands on" approach to Latin America.
would you compare what the Soviet spent and involved themselves

Far from a "hands off approach", don't you think?

I think the “hands” that were meant to be “off” were the hands of other powers, not the United States themselves. Many of the activities the US government carried out in Latin America were not publicly declared at the time, remember.

The United States was protecting Latin America from Communist and Imperialist exploitation after all...
 
how many Army and USMC divisions took place with that?

1956 had over 30,000 troops and 1000 tanks
1968 had 250,000 men and 2000 tanks
Way to go off track from the original question-the "hands off" approach of the US in the Americas to the military size of the various interventions (your irrelevant point is wrong just looking at the Dominican civil war and Hungary).
 
Way to go off track from the original question-the "hands off" approach of the US in the Americas to the military size of the various interventions (your irrelevant point is wrong just looking at the Dominican civil war and Hungary).
Again, when in the 20th Century, did the USA deploy Divisional sized units with thousands of tanks, to be the same amount of 'hands on' interventions like the USSR did in Eastern Europe, their sphere of influence?
Not Bay of Pigs, for starters.
 
Again, when in the 20th Century, did the USA deploy Divisional sized units with thousands of tanks, to be the same amount of 'hands on' interventions like the USSR did in Eastern Europe, their sphere of influence?
Not Bay of Pigs, for starters.

Unfortunately it seems you did not even read my single sentence correctly. It is the Dominican Republic, not Cuba. You are confusing Operation Power Pack with the Bay of Pigs which failed because a) it was carried through for political reasons, Kennedy could not be seen as 'soft' on the Cubans after he aggressively called out Eisenhower and Nixon during the campaign b) Kennedy desired plausible deniability of US involvement and c) due to this he changed the landing to the Bay of Pigs and d) slashed the US support in the operation itself. What is the "same amount of 'hands on' interventions"? That makes absolutely no sense at all. If you overthrow a small Caribbean government with 40,000 troops instead of 40 million that is a single intervention. The number of troops is irrelevant.
 
How many US Divisions were used in Latin America during the 20th Century, similar to what the USSR did

Stop dodging,and answer
 
Hungary appears to have been 22 divisions across three armies. (5 in country, severely reduced in use through fraternization and some small realignment, 17 external across 2 armies)

yours,
Sam R.
 
"Hands off"? No, the US had a very much "hands on" approach to Latin America. It intervened. It brought right-wing dictators to power through the "School of the Americas". It funded right-wing dictators with millions of dollars in aid. The US was very much involved in events in Latin America, much more than nearly anywhere else in the world.
[/QUOTE]
Not really. You had Guatemala in 1954 and the Dominican Republic in 1965 ; but even that was more of a civil war.

Not necessarily true. There were ways to win the war but they required an emphasis on the locals, through a proper "hearts and minds" campaign. Something Westmoreland only paid lip service to. The US Army had a proud counter-insurgency history in the Wild West and the Philippines. It basically ignored that. The US military saw Vietnam as a sideshow and carried on training explicitly for Europe and conventional battles. It took until Iraq in 2005 for the US Army to rediscover it's history and start to work to protect the locals from the insurgents

There was no more chance of winning the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese than Churchill had of doing so in India. Calling the "Wild West" counter insurgency is (Well let me be polite) preposterous. Were any nation to adopt today US Indian policy they would be hauled before the War Crimes tribunal at the Hague. It was a combination of ethnic cleansing, genocide and concentration camps. Have you ever heard of Wounded Knee, Sand Creek, Marais, Bear River ? Are you aware of Colonel Henry Bouquet distributing smallpox laden blankets to the Indians? He was actually pretty proud of what he did writing to his commander “Could it not be contrived to Send the Small Pox among those Disaffected Tribes of Indians? We must, on this occasion, Use Every Stratagem in our power to Reduce them.” William Sherman was the commanding general during what you would call the pacification of the Indians. His view "The more Indians we can kill... the less will have to be killed the next war, for the more I see of these Indians, the more convinced I am that they all have to be killed or be maintained as a species of paupers." and "We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children... during an assault, the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age." Compared to Sherman the Strategic Hamlet program seems altruistic .
 
Last edited:
There was no more chance of willing the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese than Churchill had of doing so in India. Calling the "Wild West" counter insurgency is (Well let me be polite) preposterous. Were any nation to adopt today US Indian policy they would be hauled before the War Crimes tribunal at the Hague. It was a combination of ethnic cleansing, genocide and concentration camps. Have you ever heard of Wounded Knee, Sand Creek, Marais, Bear River ? Are you aware of Colonel Henry Bouquet distributing smallpox laden blankets to the Indians? He was actually pretty proud of what he did writing to his commander “Could it not be contrived to Send the Small Pox among those Disaffected Tribes of Indians? We must, on this occasion, Use Every Stratagem in our power to Reduce them.” William Sherman was the commanding general during what you would call the pacification of the Indians. His view "The more Indians we can kill... the less will have to be killed the next war, for the more I see of these Indians, the more convinced I am that they all have to be killed or be maintained as a species of paupers." and "We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children... during an assault, the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age." Compared to Sherman the Strategic Hamlet program seems autistic.
Not only that, but the tactics employed by the US in the midst of Manifest Destiny were not appliable to Vietnam at all. The Native Americans were (through disease, loss of land and all sorts of mistreatments) a constantly diminishing minority that was scheduled to be violently overrun by white colonists. The US could not have done that in Vietnam even if they wanted to, because the premise of the Vietnam War was vastly different, and they would have encountered opposition not only from the Vietnamese, but also from basically every nation watching it with utter disgust.
 
The idea was, according to the Cold War Warriors in Washington, that Communism set out to undermine societies and take them them over. That did not occur in a single nation around the world. Not one was infiltrated by Communists who fomented a revolution. What occurred was that locals would get fed up and try and have a revolution, usually without any outside help. Eastern Europe saw Communism being exported on the end of a bayonet. Communism didn't despite what was claimed try and expand, it simply moved in there, when the Nazis moved out.
Were the Cold Warrors Republican?
 
No military invasion like Hungary or Czechoslovakia for the US in the New World.
No invason? Mmm, how about interventions such as in the Domincan Republic, the Bay of Pigs? Pretty bloody close IMO.
that ended once Tito was on the outs with Stalin, no more support to the Communists in Greece, the supply lines to Yugoslavia were cut
Once a side loses their main backers and the other side doesn't, you get 1949 or 1975
The thing is, the Communists were Greek. There were no forces from the fUSSR or Yugoslavia. None at all...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top