WI: USA won Vietnam

Status
Not open for further replies.
Less corruption, long term planning, let the military determine martial policy...or you could have the US realize the usefulness of Ho Chi Minh rather than cast him aside due to racial and Communist issues.
 
How they can win this war in realistic way? Except bombing Dikes.
Or was that impossible to win this proxy-war?

Please define your "win" condition for the USA.

Note, it is also assumed that the USA still wanted to get involved in SEA politics with the Domino Theory, and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (1964) still took place like OTL. Short of a total change to the doctrine (military, politics, and diplomacy) compared to OTL, the only way for the USA to "win" is to retreat before getting bogged down in the war.
 
Please define your "win" condition for the USA.

Note, it is also assumed that the USA still wanted to get involved in SEA politics with the Domino Theory, and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (1964) still took place like OTL. Short of a total change to the doctrine (military, politics, and diplomacy) compared to OTL, the only way for the USA to "win" is to retreat before getting bogged down in the war.
Like post Korea. Both Vietnams existing, but South by 80ies-90ies is WAY better in terms of living conditions than North.
 
Like post Korea. Both Vietnams existing, but South by 80ies-90ies is WAY better in terms of living conditions than North.

There is one school which claims conditions were very close to achieving this circa 1973. The failure of the previous Easter Offensive is used as evidence of what the ARVIN could do. This school argues then drastic reduction in aid from the undercut the ability of the ARVIN to carry on. The 1974 decision to abandon significant periprhial provinces was based on the inability of a reduced ARVIN to cover all it had to 1973. This and the lack of assurance of continued US air support badly undercut the morale of the ARVIN leaders. With continued US support of the South & the ongoing cost would cause the northern leaders to scale back their efforts, in the hope conditions might change to favor them in the 1980s or 90s. As it was Hi Chi Minh & Co were taking the long view & hoped they could continue chipping away as long as it took.

I am not completely convinced of that one, tho there is some collaborating evidence. Another school simply proposes a continuing war As the NVA is used to repeatedly apply pressure and attrition away the South Vietnamese state until it collapsed. This assumes the Northern population is not pushed to the point of ceasing to support this ongoing war, or that the inevitable change in senior leaders does not bring a new policy. The North lacked the conditions that made North Korea a hermit failing state. Its possible the new leaders would institute a policy of rapprochement or detente with the south. Perhaps in the 1990s the fall of the Iron Curtain occurring in Indochina as well.
 
There is one school which claims conditions were very close to achieving this circa 1973. The failure of the previous Easter Offensive is used as evidence of what the ARVIN could do. This school argues then drastic reduction in aid from the undercut the ability of the ARVIN to carry on. The 1974 decision to abandon significant periprhial provinces was based on the inability of a reduced ARVIN to cover all it had to 1973. This and the lack of assurance of continued US air support badly undercut the morale of the ARVIN leaders. With continued US support of the South & the ongoing cost would cause the northern leaders to scale back their efforts, in the hope conditions might change to favor them in the 1980s or 90s. As it was Hi Chi Minh & Co were taking the long view & hoped they could continue chipping away as long as it took.

I am not completely convinced of that one, tho there is some collaborating evidence. Another school simply proposes a continuing war As the NVA is used to repeatedly apply pressure and attrition away the South Vietnamese state until it collapsed. This assumes the Northern population is not pushed to the point of ceasing to support this ongoing war, or that the inevitable change in senior leaders does not bring a new policy. The North lacked the conditions that made North Korea a hermit failing state. Its possible the new leaders would institute a policy of rapprochement or detente with the south. Perhaps in the 1990s the fall of the Iron Curtain occurring in Indochina as well.
So, theres no possibility for ROV to became ROK?
 
There are others arguing for that outcome. Its been four decades since I read much on this subject, but a permanent split runs against what I remember of the Vietnamese character.
 
Follow their Australian partners actions instead of using a sledge hammer to thump in a tac.

I'd like to see sustained Borneo style 'Claret' operations once the interior is secured; covert operations over SthVs various borders to disrupt the insurgency in the sanctuary areas. These have to be ultra-discreet, although the odd armored raid over the DMZ wouldn't hurt.
 
Like post Korea. Both Vietnams existing, but South by 80ies-90ies is WAY better in terms of living conditions than North.

Yeah, no way. That would mean the NVA and VC actually leaving South Vietnam at some point or never entering. Either way, its either no North Vietnam or no South Vietnam.

What @Inferus said basically. But even then, its tricky to actually think of a way for the US to win. I mean, they would have to actually know its an independence war, not a war against communism. With that knowledge, how can they win? How can they excuse their actions?
 
There's no way for the US to win without not going to war in Vietnam on the side they did or committing atrocities so horrific that Vietnam as we know it would no longer exist.

Incidentally, why are there so many thread these days trying to relitigate the American Dolchstoßlegende lately?
 
Best possible outcome is to have the US support the Viet Minh in the late 1940s.

Which they won't do, since the price would be the far more valuable France leaving the American bloc; during a critical period where there's a very real chance of the country going Red or at least moderately Pro-Soviet which would fatally undermine the Capitalist position in Western Europe as a whole
 
Which they won't do, since the price would be the far more valuable France leaving the American bloc; during a critical period where there's a very real chance of the country going Red or at least moderately Pro-Soviet which would fatally undermine the Capitalist position in Western Europe as a whole

Unlikely in the extremis.
 
Keep the infighting amount rvn brass to a minimum. Thieu and ky worked better as partners.
Assemblyman Chou, in spite of meeting his NLF brother, didn’t deserve imprisoment.
He was an honest, politician who won the hearts of his people. Ambassador diem, and General cao vien, had a lot of Australian and American friends.
 
Keep the infighting amount rvn brass to a minimum. Thieu and ky worked better as partners.
Assemblyman Chou, in spite of meeting his NLF brother, didn’t deserve imprisoment.
He was an honest, politician who won the hearts of his people. Ambassador diem, and General cao vien, had a lot of Australian and American friends.
The problem is some of the top brass are working for the Communists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top