WI: Eisenhower pressures South Vietnam to have the '56 unification election

I'm guessing that the losing side accuses the other side of voter fraud and the war erupts anyways.
 

Orry

Donor
Monthly Donor
How is he going to get the north to have a free and fair election?

Neither side was a democracy or had any democratic traditions
 
Ho will win in any free vote, thats the reason the Commies wanted to let the elections go ahead and why the US puppet regime in ''South Vietnam'' didnt because they knew they would lose very very badly.

In this case you have a united Communist Vietnam, that hasnt been utterly ruined by war. Laos and Cambodia are spared a lot of grief, and the newly united Vietnam will concente on internal development, being mostly passive through Soviet leaning in world affairs. Tensions with China will still be present and may lead to fighting earlier than OTL. Through I see this stronger Vietnam humbling the PLA much as they did OTL.
 
Northern Vietnam had a larger population than the south so it would probably use its greater numbers to win the vote for Ho, as has already been mentioned. Everyone knew this at the time and that's why the vote was never held IOTL. allowing the vote would make about as much sense from the American perspective as some kind of vote on German reunification would make for the USSR. For this to happen you need a serious lapse in judgment on Eisenhower's part or an earlier POD which makes the above untrue.

As far as the effects go. There is probably a conservative backlash if the vote goes through and republican cries about 'who lost Vietnam' that echo the fears about the PRC a few years previously.

and obviously no Vietnam war, which is a big butterfly whose effects have been discussed previously in many threads.
 
Perhaps people listen to Robert Welch (who famously called Eisenhower "A dedicated, conscious agent of the International Communist Conspiracy") and form a new party or try to take one over. (Of course, it'll backfire.)
 
Northern Vietnam had a larger population than the south so it would probably use its greater numbers to win the vote for Ho, as has already been mentioned. Everyone knew this at the time and that's why the vote was never held IOTL. allowing the vote would make about as much sense from the American perspective as some kind of vote on German reunification would make for the USSR. For this to happen you need a serious lapse in judgment on Eisenhower's part or an earlier POD which makes the above untrue.

As far as the effects go. There is probably a conservative backlash if the vote goes through and republican cries about 'who lost Vietnam' that echo the fears about the PRC a few years previously.

and obviously no Vietnam war, which is a big butterfly whose effects have been discussed previously in many threads.

Um, Ho would easily win the popular vote in the south too. The Viet-Minh had pushed the French out of all of Indochina and were basically screwed by the peace settlement. From the US POV propping up an unsustainable puppet state and getting involved in an unjust war is far more damaging in the long term.

With a little insight Ike could perceive Ho as more of a nationalist who through Communist was more in Tito’s mould. I.E a self-made leader rather than a Soviet puppet. Indeed if the USA hadn’t been so blithely ignorant of the real situation, Vietnam could’ve been united & non-aligned in the 1950's saving everyone a shitload lot of trouble.
 
It would have been political suicide for Eisenhower to give the Communists vietnam on a silver platter.
 
It would have been political suicide for Eisenhower to give the Communists vietnam on a silver platter.

Only amongst the nitwits who Vietnam was theirs to ‘’give‘’ in the first place.:rolleyes: The Viet-Minh had already taken Vietnam for themselves, and then got screwed at the peace-table.

So Ike may incur short term problems, but the long term sense in having Ho as an ''Asian Tito'' would become apparent. Particularly vis-à-vis Maoist China. If the USA public can understand the reasons for helping Tito they can swallow this.
 
Only amongst the nitwits who Vietnam was theirs to ‘’give‘’ in the first place.:rolleyes: The Viet-Minh had already taken Vietnam for themselves, and then got screwed at the peace-table.

So Ike may incur short term problems, but the long term sense in having Ho as an ''Asian Tito'' would become apparent. Particularly vis-à-vis Maoist China. If the USA public can understand the reasons for helping Tito they can swallow this.
You're assuming that the United States is populated by 21st century people with the benefit of hindsight. This is the height of McCarthyism, and Eisenhower would be very conscious of the fact that his predecesor's political career was ruined by the perception that he was soft on Communism and had given up China to the Reds (and nearly lost Korea as well). 1956 is an election year, and if Eisenhower wants a second term he knows he needs to seem touch on Communism.
 
If it happened, USA could agree with Ho behind the scenes to go neutral or at least non-aligned. Those would likely be only conditions on which USA could allow it.

But like above posters said, mid '50es are worst possible time for "our commies". Tito was only one who managed that. USA similarly failed by letting all those Arab countries go pro-Soviet instead of trying to negotiate a settlement between Arabs and Israel.
 
Top