WI: No Watergate, Nixon gives all possible aid to S. Vietnam *except* reintroducing ground troops

Assume this policy of "no ground troops" is informal. Nixon doesn't want the North to know it, but he's much too canny to risk the political backlash from such a move.

How long can S. Vietnam hold on? I would guess, at least through the end of the Nixon administration, and that after that it would be hazy. How likely is it that S. Vietnam would have survived until the present day?
 
Assuming that Congress allows it (in actuality, I don't think they will), then South Vietnam has a very good chance of surviving. American airpower plus American supplies and finance I think would change the calculation of what to do in Hanoi. IOTL, there was a debate within the Vietnamese Politburo whether to press the war, or to abide by the peace accord terms and rebuild the country. That debate obviously went the way to reneging on the peace and continuing the war.

Hanoi was operating on the assumption they had a limited window for victory before the South Vietnam Army was well enough to survive, its economy had recovered, and when their own reconstruction needed to begin. If South Vietnam was supported by large American finance and supplies, and could rely upon American bombing campaigns against the Ho Chi Minh trail and conventional North Vietnamese forces, Hanoi cannot win within their window of opportunity. Most likely, North Vietnam does not even resume the war although continues to support the Viet Cong. Instead, they will hope to restart the war in a decade or so after they "recover". Of course by then, the Soviet bloc has begun its economic collapse and there will be no war. IOTL, communist Vietnam began economic reforms in 1986 to fend off collapse.

If you say there is no American air campaign, but that US provides sufficient financial and military aid, then Hanoi may continue the war as a gamble that they can win in several years. I think South Vietnam has a better than 50/50 chance of surviving until at least 1977 or 1978 by which time North Vietnam will have to give up so they can rebuild their country. IOTL, South Vietnam's plans were based on the lack of sufficient support given by the US. This lead to several errors which resulted in the quick collapse of Saigon. ITTL, Saigon won't need to do that and can retain the correct posture. However, there is always uncertainty in war, and a major mistake on the South's part could result in a significant Communist victory.
 
I'd say not possible. However, fears of Nixon would keep NV from invading and Congress would not quite be controlled by doves, so the fall of SV would be delayed until after his presidency.
 

ben0628

Banned
Does Nixon actually need congressional approval? Can't the president initiate hostilities without consulting Congress (I believe it's a grey area in the Constitution but I think Obama started bombing Libya without congressional approval but I could be wrong)?
 
If you say there is no American air campaign, but that US provides sufficient financial and military aid, then Hanoi may continue the war as a gamble that they can win in several years.

The only thing off the table in this scenario is American ground troops. And even there, we could fudge a little bit...maybe some very limited, almost certainly secret, involvement by some special forces troops. Something like this for example:

http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/air-americas-black-helicopter-24960500/?all&no-ist

This is based on a political calculation the the American electorate at this point would acquiesce to aerial and naval bombardment, and financial aid, but nothing that would involve more soldiers coming home in coffins...
 
The US public didn't want their sons coming back in body bags, but they had little trouble with the bombing campaign on North Vietnam and no almost trouble outside of hard core anti-war activists with the bombing campaign in South Vietnam at the behest of the government there. Obviously, Nixon dickering around with secret bombing raids in Cambodia and Laos was not popular by the 70s.

If South Vietnam gets continued funds to keep their army going and air power to defend against all out NVA armored thrusts South Vietnam has a better then even chance of making it depending on who wins in the 1976 election.

If it's Carter he likely stops the bombing period, but tries to continue some economic support.
 
South Vietnam has a chance, by the fall of Saigon the South had many more troops than the North, was after General Abrams basically didn't have to worry about guerrilla attacks. If they are backed by U.S air power than any invasion would just be a repeat of the Tet offensive in terms how stupid it would be, only it's the actual NVA, not the NLF getting beaten badly.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
I think they can hold on, but to what end?

South Vietnam would have been basically like Chiang's Taiwan: a corrupt and kleptocratic nationalist state without the benefit of an ocean to keep enemies away and without a strong leader to forestall constant coup-related instability.

US Airpower is a powerful thing, sure. But it can't fix inherent issues of poor governance, nor can it end a war in which South Vietnam is already infiltrated by the NVA. The Viet Cong were basically destroyed by the US, but the NVA could infiltrate the country and take up old Viet Cong positions almost at will until Nixon expanded the war, and after the US drawdown, they could become bolder.
 
I think they can hold on, but to what end?

South Vietnam would have been basically like Chiang's Taiwan: a corrupt and kleptocratic nationalist state without the benefit of an ocean to keep enemies away and without a strong leader to forestall constant coup-related instability.

US Airpower is a powerful thing, sure. But it can't fix inherent issues of poor governance, nor can it end a war in which South Vietnam is already infiltrated by the NVA. The Viet Cong were basically destroyed by the US, but the NVA could infiltrate the country and take up old Viet Cong positions almost at will until Nixon expanded the war, and after the US drawdown, they could become bolder.

That's true. However, Nixon could delay it to the point that SV is still standing by the time his presidency is completed.
 
South Vietnam would have been basically like Chiang's Taiwan: a corrupt and kleptocratic nationalist state without the benefit of an ocean to keep enemies away and without a strong leader to forestall constant coup-related instability.

This. Unless South Vietnam gets a Chiang Ching-Kuo-like figure to begin the path to reform, it's gonna remain a basketcase.
 
Last edited:
I think they can hold on, but to what end?

... The Viet Cong were basically destroyed by the US, but the NVA could infiltrate the country and take up old Viet Cong positions almost at will until Nixon expanded the war, and after the US drawdown, they could become bolder.

That last brings up a vision of the North infiltrating the Souths government & military leadership to the point where they are in charge.
 
That last brings up a vision of the North infiltrating the Souths government & military leadership to the point where they are in charge.

And then, as the ultimate irony, all the Northern infiltrators running the South's government and military decide that they like being in charge and refuse to take anymore orders from the North. XD
 
I think they can hold on, but to what end?

Avoiding the million or so sent to "re-education" camps, the hundred-thousand or so who were outright executed, hordes of desperate people trying to flee in leaky boats, the economic chaos and near-starvation conditions of the late 70s due to forced collectivization.



South Vietnam would have been basically like Chiang's Taiwan: a corrupt and kleptocratic nationalist state without the benefit of an ocean to keep enemies away and without a strong leader to forestall constant coup-related instability.

The pattern we've observed in nations such as Taiwan and S. Korea is one of corrupt and kleptocratic nationalist states eventually getting their acts together and becoming decent places to live. Whether S. Vietnam would have followed the same pattern is open to question of course, but I think they would have at least had a chance...
 

jahenders

Banned
Assuming that Congress allows it (in actuality, I don't think they will), then South Vietnam has a very good chance of surviving. American airpower plus American supplies and finance I think would change the calculation of what to do in Hanoi. IOTL, there was a debate within the Vietnamese Politburo whether to press the war, or to abide by the peace accord terms and rebuild the country. That debate obviously went the way to reneging on the peace and continuing the war.

Hanoi was operating on the assumption they had a limited window for victory before the South Vietnam Army was well enough to survive, its economy had recovered, and when their own reconstruction needed to begin. If South Vietnam was supported by large American finance and supplies, and could rely upon American bombing campaigns against the Ho Chi Minh trail and conventional North Vietnamese forces, Hanoi cannot win within their window of opportunity. Most likely, North Vietnam does not even resume the war although continues to support the Viet Cong. Instead, they will hope to restart the war in a decade or so after they "recover". Of course by then, the Soviet bloc has begun its economic collapse and there will be no war. IOTL, communist Vietnam began economic reforms in 1986 to fend off collapse.

If you say there is no American air campaign, but that US provides sufficient financial and military aid, then Hanoi may continue the war as a gamble that they can win in several years. I think South Vietnam has a better than 50/50 chance of surviving until at least 1977 or 1978 by which time North Vietnam will have to give up so they can rebuild their country. IOTL, South Vietnam's plans were based on the lack of sufficient support given by the US. This lead to several errors which resulted in the quick collapse of Saigon. ITTL, Saigon won't need to do that and can retain the correct posture. However, there is always uncertainty in war, and a major mistake on the South's part could result in a significant Communist victory.

Well said. If the North believes the US will counter any violation of the terms with a strong air campaign, they probably won't invade, but will continue to try to subvert the South (with mixed success). Once the North knows that's not going to be the US response, they'll probably gamble on invasion. However, if the US provided the military hardware that it agreed to in the Paris accords, the South could probably hold its own.

Here's an interesting summary:
 
Here's an interesting summary:

The Paris Peace Accord was not quite as favorable as the video makes it out to be, but we probably gotten a better one if they had really tried given North Vietnam was really buckling because of the Linebacker raids. There was a good reason South Vietnam opposed the Accord for so long.

Thiệu knew the US wouldn't keep to the terms, once the troops are pulled out then so too does support political and economic much like the idea the Obama WH had we could pull out from Iraq and still provide enough support from afar to avoid a conventional invasion on Iraq. When the troops leave the war emotionally 'ends' for the public and political class.

If Nixon was going to keep economic and air support coming for the South he needed to leave a few thousand troops behind in a base. Even without Watergate once the troops were gone it was going to be almost impossible to keep Congress from cutting the budget.
 
Last edited:
Well said. If the North believes the US will counter any violation of the terms with a strong air campaign, they probably won't invade, but will continue to try to subvert the South (with mixed success). Once the North knows that's not going to be the US response, they'll probably gamble on invasion. However, if the US provided the military hardware that it agreed to in the Paris accords, the South could probably hold its own.

Here's an interesting summary:

I believe those same guys made conspiracy theory videos about climate change, so I wouldn't really trust them.

The US could have beat Vietnam, but to what end? A lot of people would die and money that could be spent at home would be wasted. Not to mention Vietnam caused Stagflation. Vietnam would last longer without Congress controlled by doves opposed to aid as had happened IOTL, but it would, likely sooner rather than later, fall.
 
Avoiding the million or so sent to "re-education" camps, the hundred-thousand or so who were outright executed, hordes of desperate people trying to flee in leaky boats, the economic chaos and near-starvation conditions of the late 70s due to forced collectivization.





The pattern we've observed in nations such as Taiwan and S. Korea is one of corrupt and kleptocratic nationalist states eventually getting their acts together and .becoming decent places to live. Whether S. Vietnam would have followed the same pattern is open to question of course, but I think they would have at least had a chance...


Strongly agree.

Compare West and East Germany, compare North and South Korea, compare China to Taiwan...


NOt a lot of data points, but all the examples suggest that a surviving South Vietnam would have made the world a significantly better place.
 
Top