WI: No Tet Offensive?

Tet was a turning point for the war, in multiple ways. The massive North Vietnamese offensive, though beaten back, almost wholly shattered the belief presented by the Military that the war was being won and that the North Vietnamese and Vietcong were on their last legs. It was after this point that Vietnam would be considered a lost war to end in loss or stalemate, which is a belief which permeated both the troops and the public at home. However, Tet was also a major failure for the Vietnamese Communists. They had previously been working with the view that they could not defeat the US head to head, so they had to pick and choose, and fight a guerilla war, and Tet was the total opposite of that policy, and resulted in a major defeat. It devastated the Vietcong to the point that they were no longer a viable fighting force and were almost totally wiped out, and the war after Tet turned from a guerilla war to a more conventional one. The US could perhaps have won this, but Tet destroyed public support for the war.

My question is, what if the North Vietnamese kept their better judgment, and did not launch the major offensive, and major military failure, that was Tet?
 
I've actually heard many people claim that the North Vietnamese intended for the Viet Cong to be wiped out, as they were potential political rivals. The North didn't want a communist regime to take over the South, they wanted a single country ruled from Hanoi.
 
Politically: LBJ still retires, since he'd made that decision long before Tet. Race focuses mostly on domestic issues. Hawks in both parties are strengthened.

Militarily: Westy sticks around until the new administration is in place.
 

Glen

Moderator
It's an interesting question - the US would probably still develop war fatigue, though not quite as demoralized by the media reporting without the casualties of Tet to play up. But the much bigger result is that the Viet-Cong might survive until the US eventually decides to withdraw. However, they're not likely to take over on their own, even without the US there, so still see the North Vietnamese Army invading the South to really end the war. The North Vietnamese likely purge the Viet-Cong of potential rivals. The media likely plays down the purges in favor of the story of reunification.

I guess in the end it wouldn't necessarily make a difference, not without something to change the course of public opinion in the US.
 
However, Tet was also a major failure for the Vietnamese Communists. They had previously been working with the view that they could not defeat the US head to head, so they had to pick and choose, and fight a guerilla war, and Tet was the total opposite of that policy, and resulted in a major defeat. It devastated the Vietcong to the point that they were no longer a viable fighting force and were almost totally wiped out, and the war after Tet turned from a guerilla war to a more conventional one. The US could perhaps have won this, but Tet destroyed public support for the war.

My question is, what if the North Vietnamese kept their better judgment, and did not launch the major offensive, and major military failure, that was Tet?

Tet was a major failure for the VWP, North and South. Tet eliminated major VWP assets within the PLAF and NFL—very much against the desires of the VWP leadership in Hanoi.

Your characterisation of VWP policy is frankly ridiculous, I strongly suggest you read scholarship from the last 15 years in the academic journals:
*The VWP strategy was always composed out of the balance of "General Uprising / General Offensive."
*The VWP politbureau was surprisingly united (I read politbureau minutes for fun, and so have a basis for comparison). However, prior to 1968 a line that focused on the Uprising as an Offensive gained ground, against Giap's advice. The extent of the planning for this cycle of offensive indicates that it may have begun as early as the wind down of the 1965 General Uprising/General Offensive.
*The VWP planned a three phase year long campaign, on the basis of expected urban uprisings.

Fighting a guerilla war was never a PLAF/PAVN strategy; it was always contingent upon a definite plan to cause a campaign situation that would be decisive.

After the failure of Tet-1 in political and military senses, elements of Tet-2 and even Tet-3 were activated where they were considered beneficial for their ordinary military benefits. The VWP went back to planning for the next General Offensive, this time decisively phrased as such, and the remaining VWP assets in the NFL were primarily women commanders of liberated villagers who had long hard economic struggles to face.

yours,
Sam R.
 
Top