Hello everyone.
So after finding a few Vietnam War TLs on on this forum I was wondering about something: most rely on either the US fighting with a different strategy or not aiding South Vietnam at all.
So I was thinking of one middle ground TL:
What if the US never went beyond supplying South Vietnam and sending instructors?
So first, I have a few questions regarding the plausibility of this thread:
1) Is it ASB for the US to act pretty much the same as China and the USSR and just aid their ally instead of fighting for them?
2) Assuming that the US kept sending a steady flow of aid to South Vietnam (instead of IIRC slashing ARVN funding by 90% after 1973, probably one of the reasons for it's collapse in 1975), can the ARVN hold her own until a peace aggreement is found?
3) If not 2), what did need to change for South Vietnam to survive?
This is my take on what such a scenario would imply:
Note: Other countries than the US such as South Korea can still send troops to SV, though Australia is unliquely to intervene without US boots on the ground.
I) The South Vietnamese situation:
Perhaps the most important feature of a lonely (not entirely, see above) but well-supplied Republic of Vietnam is that it simply didn't have the capabilities of the US and as such would have a very different take on the conflict.
it probably wouldn't even bother trying to attack the VC in the jungle at the border the way the US did, nor launch mass bombing campaigns on NV, though it could still try to get the Hô-Chi-Minh road.
The US had nigh endless power in Vietnam but this also led it to go for unrealistic and inefficient methods of fighting. South Vietnam can't do that and as such has to maintain statu quo long enough for the North to give up (or be forced to). This defensive posture might actually be better in the long run because it can save it's forces and wait for the North to make a mistake.
At the same time, without US screwups in Vietnam, the South Vietnamese government might actually be more secure in the home front because people can't blame it for housing an army that throws Agent Orange on the Jungle and (for specific individuals) made war crimes. Corruption is still a huge problem.
II) The US position:
The choice of not directly intervening directly entails that the US push for a peaceful resolution for the conflict as SV simply can't win by force. This would likely lead to a attempt at making diplomatic ties with China or the USSR so that they can pressure NV to give up.
Without the enormous burden of the war the US can keep a steady, maybe more important funding to SV while still saving plenty of money. The war probably isn't all that expensive and most importantly it can't get unpopular because no American man is dying.
This would also have huge consequences on US culture and politics, which again impacts US' stance on the war.
III) Outside the scope of the war:
Some direct consequences of the US not going to war in Vietnam is that the country doesn't get very unpopular even among NATO allies but also doesn't spend a ridiculous amount of money to wage it.
The former means that servicing in the Army (not even necessarily the US one) doesn't become so unpopular in the 70s (and moreover the US in particular can spend some of the saved money on improving quality of life in it, for example wages so it could still be a good job opportunity for people).
Combine that with vastly reduced indiscipline and drug abuse and Western Armies could have far lower recruiting and indiscipline issues.
Moreover, with a US defense budget still centered on modernizing/expanding the armed forces and no forces stuck in Vietnam for years and no material losses beyond peacetime attrition(human losses aren't that important in this context given that there weren't thousands of peopple drafted), the US would probably be better prepared for the 70s.
Overall, NATO might not experience as big of a conventionnal power gap in the 70s and can adapt to 1973's October War lessons more quickly, which could have serious consequences on the Cold War later on.
The US also can use part of the saved money (let's assume they kept a roughly constant proportion of the GDP on defense since 1964, increasing it to offset the effects of inflation) to keep a somewhat stronger economy come the 70s.
Of course, regardless of the outcome of the Vietnam war, the country as a whole would have suffered far less destruction and loss of human life and would have been in a quite different situation post-war. This might even butterfly the war between Cambodia and Vietnam (and then the Chinese intervention in 1979), if Cambodia (and Laos) even went the way they did OTL, which is not certain.
What do you think about this?
So after finding a few Vietnam War TLs on on this forum I was wondering about something: most rely on either the US fighting with a different strategy or not aiding South Vietnam at all.
So I was thinking of one middle ground TL:
What if the US never went beyond supplying South Vietnam and sending instructors?
So first, I have a few questions regarding the plausibility of this thread:
1) Is it ASB for the US to act pretty much the same as China and the USSR and just aid their ally instead of fighting for them?
2) Assuming that the US kept sending a steady flow of aid to South Vietnam (instead of IIRC slashing ARVN funding by 90% after 1973, probably one of the reasons for it's collapse in 1975), can the ARVN hold her own until a peace aggreement is found?
3) If not 2), what did need to change for South Vietnam to survive?
This is my take on what such a scenario would imply:
Note: Other countries than the US such as South Korea can still send troops to SV, though Australia is unliquely to intervene without US boots on the ground.
I) The South Vietnamese situation:
Perhaps the most important feature of a lonely (not entirely, see above) but well-supplied Republic of Vietnam is that it simply didn't have the capabilities of the US and as such would have a very different take on the conflict.
it probably wouldn't even bother trying to attack the VC in the jungle at the border the way the US did, nor launch mass bombing campaigns on NV, though it could still try to get the Hô-Chi-Minh road.
The US had nigh endless power in Vietnam but this also led it to go for unrealistic and inefficient methods of fighting. South Vietnam can't do that and as such has to maintain statu quo long enough for the North to give up (or be forced to). This defensive posture might actually be better in the long run because it can save it's forces and wait for the North to make a mistake.
At the same time, without US screwups in Vietnam, the South Vietnamese government might actually be more secure in the home front because people can't blame it for housing an army that throws Agent Orange on the Jungle and (for specific individuals) made war crimes. Corruption is still a huge problem.
II) The US position:
The choice of not directly intervening directly entails that the US push for a peaceful resolution for the conflict as SV simply can't win by force. This would likely lead to a attempt at making diplomatic ties with China or the USSR so that they can pressure NV to give up.
Without the enormous burden of the war the US can keep a steady, maybe more important funding to SV while still saving plenty of money. The war probably isn't all that expensive and most importantly it can't get unpopular because no American man is dying.
This would also have huge consequences on US culture and politics, which again impacts US' stance on the war.
III) Outside the scope of the war:
Some direct consequences of the US not going to war in Vietnam is that the country doesn't get very unpopular even among NATO allies but also doesn't spend a ridiculous amount of money to wage it.
The former means that servicing in the Army (not even necessarily the US one) doesn't become so unpopular in the 70s (and moreover the US in particular can spend some of the saved money on improving quality of life in it, for example wages so it could still be a good job opportunity for people).
Combine that with vastly reduced indiscipline and drug abuse and Western Armies could have far lower recruiting and indiscipline issues.
Moreover, with a US defense budget still centered on modernizing/expanding the armed forces and no forces stuck in Vietnam for years and no material losses beyond peacetime attrition(human losses aren't that important in this context given that there weren't thousands of peopple drafted), the US would probably be better prepared for the 70s.
Overall, NATO might not experience as big of a conventionnal power gap in the 70s and can adapt to 1973's October War lessons more quickly, which could have serious consequences on the Cold War later on.
The US also can use part of the saved money (let's assume they kept a roughly constant proportion of the GDP on defense since 1964, increasing it to offset the effects of inflation) to keep a somewhat stronger economy come the 70s.
Of course, regardless of the outcome of the Vietnam war, the country as a whole would have suffered far less destruction and loss of human life and would have been in a quite different situation post-war. This might even butterfly the war between Cambodia and Vietnam (and then the Chinese intervention in 1979), if Cambodia (and Laos) even went the way they did OTL, which is not certain.
What do you think about this?
Last edited: