Or ended up at the bottom of a ditch with a bullet in the back of the head, a good example of what happened at Hue during Tet.
WI The US won in Vietnam
- Thread starter PhoenicianLegacy
- Start date
Or ended up at the bottom of a ditch with a bullet in the back of the head, a good example of what happened at Hue during Tet.
Barry Bull
Donor
Well, the 1979 invasion of Cambodia by PAVN may be the sole good result from the OTL Vietnam War.
From a strategic aspect, USSR and PRC sort of came out of the whole debacle with minor net gain. Of course, all such gain means nothing after 1991.
For his part Mao wished to maintain the status quo, fearing a united Vietnam would immediately turn to the USSR against China, which is exactly what happened.
Well then what are the possibilities of China turning against Vietnam then? Depriving them of sanctuary and support? Sure it won't save the south from itself but it may cripple the north.
South Korea seems like the closest analogy to a hypothetical surviving South Vietnam.
So you have a WI, a population of 40 million get possibly switched from Third World status to First World status, with all the positive effects included.
That's interesting to me.
Isn't that interesting to you?
Would be more difficult then Korea i think as Vietnam is surrounded by Communist nations and no ally of the USA like Japan close enough to support them. Closest one is Australia.
It won't get the first world status as easily as South Korea did. Might be more of a Israel/Palestine type of situation.
The Philippines aren't to far away, neither is Thailand, or Malaysia.
And did Japan really support South Korea?
On what basis? Apart from the fact that both nations had 'South' in their name.
To put it another way, despite a number of historical commonalities, 'south dakota' is not really the closest analogy to a 'south Carolina.'
I'm not saying that South Vietnam would not have urbanised and modernized. I just don't see compelling reasons to suggest that it would have done so based on some superficial parallels. Could you make your case in more detail?
A surviving South Vietnam seems more likely to follow the trajectories of the Phillipines or Thailand.
Vietnam's per capital GDP is 1,800$, Thailand's 6,500 and South Korea's 25,000.
Even if you're right, it's still a vast improvement.
And if you're wrong, it's an even VASTER improvement.
Imagine having a magic POD wand that can give any nation a random wealth increase from X3 to X14 plus more freedom.
(ONe charge unfortunately.)
Now, like I said, I find that interesting.
Don't you find that interesting?
But protecting a corrupt, feckless regime that appears incapable of even protecting itself without vast quantities of aid isn't really that wand. I also note that you left the Philippines off of your comparison, which isn't all that much better off than Vietnam (and who's economy is growing at a slower rate). DValdron's point seems to be that US domination and Capitalism aren't sure ingredients for economic growth, and when you look at countries in Asia such as the Philippines (perhaps the most US dominated of all) it would appear to be a rather valid point.
South Korea wasn't able to protect itself without vast quantities of aid either.
And no, it's not "sure ingredients", but it does raise the possibility of economic growth and freedom, as opposed to OTL Vietnam.
Well, you're talking apples and oranges in many ways.
First up, you'd have to assess the relative starting points of each state, the degree or amounts of infrastructure, the education of the population, the initial standard of living, the sort of agriculture/industry mix, the local production and the export. Say a 1920's French Colonial Vietnam, without the for oncoming dislocations of the depression.
Then you adjust for the depression, you adjust for the dislocations of WWII, Japanese invasion and occupation, famine killing 10% of the population, French re-conquest, war against the French, division of the country, civil war running from 1960's to 1970's, death of another 10% of the population during that period, massive devastation done by America, corrupt and incompetent southern government. Chinese invasion. Cold war with China. Cold war with US (because we don't forgive).
Basically, Vietnam's got the shit end of the stick in the form of famines, civil war, four separate protracted foreign occupations, cold wars against two of the three world superpowers, destruction of vast amounts of infrastructure and population, for damned near 35 years on a continuous basis. It's so far on the bottom, anything is a look up.
A POD which changes any of that would produce dramatic improvements in GDP and standard of living.
Apples and oranges?
Because South Korean did NOT have Japanese invasion and occupation, depressions, famine, "Civil War", Chinese invasion, American devastation, or COld War with China?
And they both have SOuth in the name.
I don't claim to be an expert on post WWII Asia, but you're the one that listed all those similarities, not me.
So, as I said, IMO, that big WI with South Vietnam is how well they might have done, if they had survived.
Apples and oranges?
Because South Korean did NOT have Japanese invasion and occupation, depressions, famine, "Civil War", Chinese invasion, American devastation, or COld War with China?
And they both have SOuth in the name.
I don't claim to be an expert on post WWII Asia, but you're the one that listed all those similarities, not me.
So, as I said, IMO, that big WI with South Vietnam is how well they might have done, if they had survived.
I'm not an expert of post-WWII Asia either, but as I see it, there's already one vast difference separating South Korea and South Vietnam: the ROKA was willing to fight, even after most of the South had been overrun and despite being poorly armed and equipped in the beginning (the latter reason being why the ROKA was pushed to the Pusan pocket to begin with).
The ARVN, by contrast, was one of the best equipped militaries in the world, and had a large number of troops. Despite that, they only lasted a little over two years without American help. Except for a few notable exceptions - such as the 18th Infantry Division, which distinguished itself at Xuan Loc, the last battle of the war - the ARVN was simply unable and unwilling to fight a war by itself.
There are qualitative differences. The actual Korean war lasted only three years. South Korea is the beneficiary of 60 years of peace and security, during which the United States invested heavily in the country and its defense, and provided preferential trade treatment.
South Vietnam was the result of sore losers in trying to frustrate an independence movement by partitioning the country. The 'civil war' was on since day one, and essentially endured through the entire history of South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese government, unlike the South Korean, seems to have been hobbled with institutional and infrastructural corruption since day one.
If you want an Asian comparison to South Vietnam, then your most appropriate standard is probably Afghanistan - another state which has experienced several decades of continuous warfare/civil war/foreign occupation. Not all outcomes are positive, consider Haiti.
If you are going to argue that South Vietnam or Vietnam as a whole might have done better under some other circumstances.... that's extremely vague and its hard to provide a constructive response, except to say 'in OTL Vietnam was so horrifically screwed every which way that almost any POD would lead to better outcomes.'
And they both have SOuth in the name.
Which really is the best thing you've got going for you?
But does that excuse your not doing any work at all? It seems to me that if you put an idea out there, or advance a thesis, isn't there an obligation on you to do some kind of homework. To think it through carefully, look at the variables, and then put something more coherent than a random brain fart on the table?
You have a notion "Could South Vietnam have paralleled South Korea's development..." Well... explore that?
Under what terms or circumstances does that survival come about? A surviving south Vietnam, you argue, could have been South Korea. But then again, it could have ended up as Haiti or El Salvador. What's your POD, and how do events flow.
Go write a timeline. I say that in the kindest fashion possible. You have an interesting idea, it is testable, it needs research and development. Choose a POD, and then explore.
It would at least be an interesting project. There's a lot of "How can we win Vietnam" threads, but there's not a lot of threads exploring what happens after.
Last edited:
Ironic that a thread about the US winning Vietnam is one big flamewar.
Anyway I don't really think the US can win Vietnam, except maybe by not fighting it.
Anyway I don't really think the US can win Vietnam, except maybe by not fighting it.
Well, there's the Ethiopian option. In the 80's, the USSR basically won the whole Horn of Africa, when they ditched their client Somalia, and switched over to its nemesis, Ethiopia.
Conceivably, the US could strike a deal with Ho Chi Minh, renounce communism, kick loose the Soviet Union and China and form a 'Vietnamese National Unity' government, followed by 'free' elections'
Let's face it, the Vietnamese hated the Chinese. The Soviets weren't really in a good position to help the Viets. Strategically, America could offer a much much better deal.
That would require a level of flexibility and opportunism not really available to cold war thinkers though.
And there's the whole matter that no one is trusting each other very much...
redlightning
Banned
The only way in which the US could probably save the South is if it keeps funding them with weapons and aid indefinitely like South Korea. Which probably means no Americanization of the war in the first place and no Congress that wants to cut the funding off. The amounts of money are also greater than OTL. American is not going to win through brute strength alone.
Well, I think that the problem was that simply funding with weapons and aid indefinitely was already a failing strategy by 1963.
The Strategic Hamlet's Program and its predecessor between 1959 and 1963 relocated about eight million people. This in a country of maybe 11 million. Contemplate the scale of that.... almost 3 out of every 4 Vietnamese had been relocated from traditional homes and villages, with centuries of history and tradition, into what were essentially government run prison or concentration camps in an effort to defeat an insurgency. It not only failed, it failed spectacularly, 80% of the hamlets were under the control of the enemy by 1963. The scale of disruption worked on behalf of the Vietcong.
When you've fucked it up on that colossal scale so early in the game... It's hard to imagine how you were going to salvage the situation.