WI: "Tet" is a total victory for Vietnamese in 1968?

Tet Offensive (1968) is a turn-over event during the Vietnam War. This is the turning point of the war, forcing the USA to "recognise" the failure there and bringing them to negotiation table. Sure, it took a few more years with a lot more deaths, military and civilian alike, but it achieved (partially) what it aimed for - the end of the war and the unification of Vietnam.

There are many factors why Tet Offensive (including the "mini-Tet" in May to August) was a failure, but underestimating the US and allies, and the Saigon Regime was a major failure of the DRVN and NLF (usually known as "North Vietnam" and "VC" respectively).

My question is - what if they did not? What if they were able to amass enough strength during the later half of 1967 and via build-up in previous years? Can they succeed in having a military victory?

I define "military victory" as taking control of most (over 75%) of cities in southern region of Vietnam for a period of time. Whether it ended with peace talk or the overwhelming retaliation of USA is a another story.

May be I can turn this one into a story if anyone is interested.

TLDR: Assuming the DRVN and/or NLF had better preparation and were able to gain (temporary/permanent) control of South Vietnam in Tet Offensive, what would happen?
 
1) not going to happen. The general offensive-general uprising line was incorrect. The revolution was centred in the rural proletariat not the urban liberal and Buddhist compradors

2) better for the Vietnamese? The VWP (south) and NFL win without PAVN support (see 1)

3) better for the VWP? Giap is rehabilitated in 1966 and takes over planning under a rolling general offensives line aimed at preserving NFL / PLAF forces at all costs

Yours,
Sam R.
 
I would also find this definition of total victory very difficult. Massive disparity in fire power. However, maybe, keep the general uprising as a short PR stunt and focus the major part of the forces on a few/single City could allow a military gain with less losses and a slightly bigger pr victory.
 
1) not going to happen. The general offensive-general uprising line was incorrect. The revolution was centred in the rural proletariat not the urban liberal and Buddhist compradors

The general uprising was very hard, even taking into account of the supportive cells there. I'm more inclined toward the idea of the "general uprising" as the "dessert", after the military victory.

VWP (south)

VWP? What does it stand for by the way?

I would also find this definition of total victory very difficult. Massive disparity in fire power. However, maybe, keep the general uprising as a short PR stunt and focus the major part of the forces on a few/single City could allow a military gain with less losses and a slightly bigger pr victory.

The military victory, if it happens, will very short-lived. In OTL, most cities were gained back after a few days for fighting (hours, in case of Sai Gon). Even the longest-captured city was Hue, with 25 days only (most of that was due to the sheer "fuck you" attitude of the Vietnamese). With the massive power disparity, I put the "average" time at about two weeks, may be three to five more days for heavy contest and the most resilient formation would break after a month of constant fighting - and I'm pretty sure I'm underestimating the Sai Gon regime and the USA here.

The general uprising (or at least, the acceptance of the local populace about the changes in power) would be invaluable political and diplomatic victory - more so compared to OTL. It is a more impressive proof to say/prove that the US is unwelomed in Vietnam and it is better for them to pull out.
 
My thoughts have been in the opposite dire. That US military, or at least Westmorlands command recognize the offensive preparations 60 to 90 days out & ambush the assembling Red forces about a week before Tet.
 
That US military, or at least Westmorlands command recognize the offensive preparations 60 to 90 days out & ambush the assembling Red forces about a week before Tet.

Really? I think that while some commanders may think that the PAVN/NLF would launch an attack, none thought that the attack will be on such a wide scale like in OTL.
 
Tet actually achieved the best possible result it could IOTL; expecting a bunch of insurgent fighters to go toe to toe conventionally with the U.S. Military was never going to work out well for the aforementioned insurgents. Honestly, had the U.S. instituted press controls during the war, Tet would probably be viewed as a great American victory in the present; it broke the back of the VC as a fighting force.
 
Really? I think that while some commanders may think that the PAVN/NLF would launch an attack, none thought that the attack will be on such a wide scale like in OTL.

They pretty much did. An attack was expected and most units were ready for it.
 
Tet actually achieved the best possible result it could IOTL; expecting a bunch of insurgent fighters to go toe to toe conventionally with the U.S. Military was never going to work out well for the aforementioned insurgents. Honestly, had the U.S. instituted press controls during the war, Tet would probably be viewed as a great American victory in the present; it broke the back of the VC as a fighting force.

The controversy really was the disproportionate hit to American military forces based on the hyper-rosy picture being fed to the public back home: many at the time believed the VC had already been neutered as a conventional military force, and one needs to remember large numbers of ARVN troops were off on leave for... well, the Tet celebrations, meaning the "sting" was harder since it fell almost entirely on the backs of the U.S military.
 
My thoughts have been in the opposite dire. That US military, or at least Westmorlands command recognize the offensive preparations 60 to 90 days out & ambush the assembling Red forces about a week before Tet.

As usual the military was fighting the last war in this case the most important measurement's were body counts. Ever time LBJ complained about the lack of progress Westmoreland gave him a higher body count,real or made up,and, I am far from a LBJ fan but his generation body count was very much a sign of win or loose. The TET offensive would not have had the impact that it did had the American people been told that NV could not do so since they were loosing the war. In fact it was a big loss, military but a win politically. The US should have counter attacked no matter the cost it may have collapsed NV. Vietnam is a case book study of why politicians should not micromanage the wars just set the goal's and let the trained military carry them out!
 

Ian_W

Banned
The US should have counter attacked no matter the cost it may have collapsed NV. Vietnam is a case book study of why politicians should not micromanage the wars just set the goal's and let the trained military carry them out!

Or it could have involved the US in a war with China. It's a 50/50 chance.

And if it happens, it's a 50/50 chance the Russians go 'Well, one in, all in'.

This kind of thinking is exactly why you need to keep the military on a tight leash.
 
Or it could have involved the US in a war with China. It's a 50/50 chance.

This, maybe.

The chance for a Chinese intervention is pretty low, and it will only be considered when North VN has been fucked up pretty much - think at least half of their land is overrun and the other half is soaked with blood. Exageration, sure, but the key idea is that the Vietnamese is pretty much against Chinese intervention and direct combat.

And if it happens, it's a 50/50 chance the Russians go 'Well, one in, all in'.

This would not happen.

This one is even less likely. There is only a single direct confrontation between a USSR/Russian pilot and a US one - and it was during a training exercise of a Vietnamese pilot (the plane was attacked by the US). All other incidents are "under the rug" because all advisors/teachers were put into a "do or die" situation in SAM batteries when under fire from US air raids.


Tet is the turning point in the war because it showed the US populace that the war is not as "rosy" or easy as they have thought or been told by their government. And that is only when they are watching the fighting scene in places like US Embassy in Sai Gon (fun fact: In a Vietnamese-made documentary, I remember that the US Embassy was one "by the last minute" target)

So, in this TL, the VPA/NLF has better preparation, they can have the ability to take control of many key infrastructures (including the Independence Palace, the Navy HQ, the Radio station and even the Tan Son Nhut/Nhat Airport). Combined with a strong presence in the US Embassy, the US populace will be shocked, thinking they have lost. And I'm even imagine that in certain areas, the population actually welcome the PA/NLF. Cronkite would (again) drop something long the line "the war is un-winnable" and "yeah, so much for heart and mind". The US counter will rid much of that military success (that is for sure), but not after a severe damage (much higher than OTL) has been done.
 
The general uprising was very hard, even taking into account of the supportive cells there. I'm more inclined toward the idea of the "general uprising" as the "dessert", after the military victory.

VWP? What does it stand for by the way?

Historically the general uprising didn't happen, in part because the capacity for revolutionary action had been dissipated, and in part because the "liberated areas" were the forefront of the revolution and had no power against the DRVN line.

The VWP was the Vietnamese Workers Party, the preeminent party in the liberated RVN and in the DRVN.

The controversy really was the disproportionate hit to American military forces

This is important to remember. The ARVN bore the brunt of the conflict, in part due to their numbers, and in part due to their being prioritised by the PAVN/PLAF forces.

It is also important to remember that neither the "general offensive general uprising" line nor the "general offensive" line viewed US domestic opinion as relevant to the conclusion of the war / revolution.

yours,
Sam R.
 
The Communist insurgency in South Vietnam collapses, with the bulk of VC troop strength destroyed in failed attacks. Nearly all the VC infiltrators into the RVN government and South Vietnamese cities are exposed or "expended" in the course of the offensive. The NVA forces in South Vietnam are also destroyed. So there is a total military victory.

Some terror attacks by Viet Cong commandos end in brutal atrocities in the full sight of members of the international press; in one case some French reporters intervened to help some girl students escape the Viet Cong attack on a boarding school for daughters of RVN elite figures - the rest being killed. These incidents are publicized, leading to total public-relations defeat for the Communists. (Note: this particular atrocity was invented by me, but the documented record of Communist actions in the Tet offensive and at other times in the war includes many comparable crimes.)

Faced with the complete failure of their plans, the destruction of their forces, and loss of support in "world opinion", the DRV gives up on the war - Ho and other militants are kicked off the Politburo.

Lyndon Johnson easily wins re-election.

That's what I would consider "a total victory for the Vietnamese" in 1968. I do not consider the brutal, murderous, Stalinist dictatorship of North Vietnam to represent "Vietnam".
 
The chance for a Chinese intervention is pretty low, and it will only be considered when North VN has been fucked up pretty much - think at least half of their land is overrun and the other half is soaked with blood. Exageration, sure, but the key idea is that the Vietnamese is pretty much against Chinese intervention and direct combat.
.
Interesting isn’t it. It didn’t come close IOTL, but in strategic terms, what the US military was fighting for (really Breaking North Vietnam) was Chinese intervention. Cf. Korean war.
It really was a mess, politically and military wise.
 
Interesting isn’t it. It didn’t come close IOTL, but in strategic terms, what the US military was fighting for (really Breaking North Vietnam) was Chinese intervention. Cf. Korean war.
It really was a mess, politically and military wise.

Another part where they muck it up, simply because they do not study their enemy closed and carefully enough.
 
The Communist insurgency in South Vietnam collapses, with the bulk of VC troop strength destroyed in failed attacks. Nearly all the VC infiltrators into the RVN government and South Vietnamese cities are exposed or "expended" in the course of the offensive. The NVA forces in South Vietnam are also destroyed. So there is a total military victory.

Some terror attacks by Viet Cong commandos end in brutal atrocities in the full sight of members of the international press; in one case some French reporters intervened to help some girl students escape the Viet Cong attack on a boarding school for daughters of RVN elite figures - the rest being killed. These incidents are publicized, leading to total public-relations defeat for the Communists. (Note: this particular atrocity was invented by me, but the documented record of Communist actions in the Tet offensive and at other times in the war includes many comparable crimes.)

Faced with the complete failure of their plans, the destruction of their forces, and loss of support in "world opinion", the DRV gives up on the war - Ho and other militants are kicked off the Politburo.

Lyndon Johnson easily wins re-election.

That's what I would consider "a total victory for the Vietnamese" in 1968. I do not consider the brutal, murderous, Stalinist dictatorship of North Vietnam to represent "Vietnam".
I'll point out that by this point, Ho had been politically marginalized; he had actually been the head of the North First faction in the DRVN, which didn't want an immediate, aggressive conquest of the South. He was still an important symbol, but real power was in the hands of Le Duan, an aggressive South First advocate. In the aftermath of a failed Tet Offensive, Ho could form a key figure for the North First faction to regroup around.
 
That's what I would consider "a total victory for the Vietnamese" in 1968. I do not consider the brutal, murderous, Stalinist dictatorship of North Vietnam to represent "Vietnam".

Hmm, that is where our ideas are different. For me, a total victory for Vietnamese is the unity of our country (and yes, I'm a Vietnamese) and the USA had to pull out, preferably when they were still able to claim "peace with honour".

Note that the condition I put in the first post - I give the VPA/NLF sufficient preparation and force amplifier to make Tet even a more shocking event for the US and her allies' militaries. For example, they could take control some key targets in Sai Gon and remained control long enough to dealt critical strategic damage (like broadcasting propaganda on radio net, destroying and/or capturing enough material in the navy HQ, cutting of the Tan Son Nhat Airport) - if this is done, then it would be "enough" to consider as a "victory".

I'll point out that by this point, Ho had been politically marginalized; he had actually been the head of the North First faction in the DRVN, which didn't want an immediate, aggressive conquest of the South. He was still an important symbol, but real power was in the hands of Le Duan, an aggressive South First advocate. In the aftermath of a failed Tet Offensive, Ho could form a key figure for the North First faction to regroup around.

In combination of this idea, President Ho Chi Minh could launch a PR stunt (something like publicly visit some provinces in the southern region of Vietnam in person). In the same time, depending on the certain circumstances, we can probably have the local populace cheer on when seeing him.

Rumors say that the severe loss incurred by NLF during and after Tet was a serious blow to Ho Chi Minh's health, something along the like of "heartache" (which brought him his death in September 2 1969 - the same date as the 24th anniversary of our Independence, ironically enough)
 
Top