Plausibility Check: Victory in the Nam

[Gosing]

Points to anyone who gets the comic reference in the title.

Anyway, I've recently been reading up on the Vietnam War. In OTL, t really seems that the whole thing could be a parable, a story of the fruitlessness of imperialism and a warning about the dangers of a zero-percent popularity rating.

I've seen a couple of scenarios where the war is averted, with Vietnam remaining divided, but the only scenario I've seen where the South actually "wins" (Vietnam is reunited under the South) is Watchmen, an ASB dystopia. While a Nationalist victory in China could probably do the trick, I was more interested in a war with the OTL factors in place. So, as a genuine question, is it possible (not plausible; weird things happen in OTL) to have a non-ASB U.S/Southern "victory" in Vietnam with a post-1954 POD?

 

[Hades]

the Vietcong were on their knees following the Tet offensive (which was a complete trainwreck for the vietcong and the NVA). It was only because of the way the media reported it that the US public began to lose faith in the war.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

You could not defeat the North/rebellion once the US Americanized the war, because the Vietnamese had been fighting for centuries by the time the US had become involved. They had fought the Chinese, French, Japanese, etc. The Vietnamese had lost a portion of their population that would be something like the death of 9 million Americans during the Vietnam war, and they were still willing to fight because they were fighting for independence.

What the US failed to understand was the complexity of the situation, and this was not puppets of the US and Soviets fighting (though I'd like to point out, by a certain point the South was more a puppet than the North), but a regional civil war, and a regional matter. The US also failed to understand that the leadership of the North were hardened nationalists who would not give up and would flee into the hills and fight with bamboo and twigs if need be.

If the war continues, the Vietnamese continue, reorganize, fight on, and do this ad infinatum.

The best one could ever hope for was either a peaceful division between North and South or a coalition government.

the Vietcong were on their knees following the Tet offensive (which was a complete trainwreck for the vietcong and the NVA). It was only because of the way the media reported it that the US public began to lose faith in the war.

The public had already been losing faith in the war; its just that Tet blew the lid off the rhetoric of the military. Westmoreland had been saying that the Vietnamese were near defeat or on there last legs and that the war would be over soon, and then came the massive offensive of Tet where this was very evidently not clear. Certainly Tet was a "military victory", but there were numerous "military victories". The issue was that this wasn't that type of war. It wasn't a conflict where two nations were at war, you could defeat one, maybe change the government and do some rebuilding, and save the day like the US was used to. It was a guerrilla war, which is basically near impossible to win if you're a nation hundreds of miles away involved because you want to be in another nations affairs and it isn't in your own backyard. An army loses if it does not win; a guerrilla wins if he does not lose. The spirit of nationalism and independence would compel rebellion, guerrilla conflict, and so forth even if the revolutionaries had to run to the mountains. It also was not in cultivated land and open cities exclusively, but in the nooks and crannies of jungles and mountains and terrain where it is easy to disappear.

 

[RogueBeaver]

As usual, I agree with Norton. The best possible solution in Vietnam is a Korean-type armistice: nothing else comes close to ensuring SVN's survival. Now for the presidential candidates' positions...

Nixon: same as OTL.

Humphrey: same as Nixon, without the Cambodian bombing.

Kennedy: phased withdrawal of all US ground and air forces ASAP, Vietnamization with arms sales as required. No Cambodia unless it's a solely ARVN/VNAF op.

 

[Hades]

Norton, do you read William Blum eek on the vietnam war? If so, i suggest you get some other stuff. NOT hagiographers like Dallek. Chomsky at the very least does go into declassified documents but gives us a mirror version of Dallek's kennedy.

The VC were Crushed at Tet, where they lost 2/3 of their military capabilities. The rest of the war involved NVA Units. Even by Paris, the North were still losing. It was when the US pulled out that the NVA won.

 

[RogueBeaver]

Is this the same William Blum whose book was recommended by OBL? I'll take one of the foremost Kennedy authors, thank you very much. I won't even discuss Chomsky.

As for the assertions of the VC's decimation: there you are 100% correct.

 

[DG Valdron]

the Vietcong were on their knees following the Tet offensive (which was a complete trainwreck for the vietcong and the NVA). It was only because of the way the media reported it that the US public began to lose faith in the war.

As pointed out, both of those points are pretty debateable.

But more than that, I think that focusing on the Tet offensive as a crucial turning point is misguided.

Even if we accept the conventional wisdom that the Tet offensive marked the failure and the long term vanquishing of the Vietcong, there are two significant factors that have to be recognized.

1) Was the complete failure of American or South Vietnamese forces or governments to capitalize in any meaningful way on their 'victory.' After the Tet offensive, the US was essentially no further ahead than the day the offensive started. America made no gains and kept no advantages. If anything, South Vietnam was materially weaker after than before, it was not able to capitalize on 'victory' not able to take or procure or consolidate advantages. It was merely sapped. That's fatal.

2) Tet can be read as an internal consolidation. One viable interpretation may be that the North Vietnamese hung the Vietcong out to dry. No lose situation, if the Vietcong won, the Americans were out. If the Vietcong were decimated, then the North Vietnamese politics and politburo had consolidated complete power. From there on in, the north was in control, and the southern movement was subordinated both politically and strategically, and their leadership was eliminated.

In either case, the failure of the Tet offensive does America and South Vietnam no good and a lot of harm.

Now, if you wanted an interesting shot at a South Vietnamese victory, maybe turn history on its head.

Let's suppose that the Chinese communists take over in 1949. They did in our timeline. Let's suppose that 1951-1953 the Chinese communists intervene in the Korean war they did so in our timeline. Let's suppose that the Vietnamese nationalists win at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, they did so in our timeline.

Okay, so let's suppose that following Dien Bien Phu, and in violation of a covenant on elections, Mao decides that Ho Chi Minh is a little too independent. He figures that China doesn't need a 'Yugoslavia' type troublemaker on its southern border, or even, heaven forbid, a Vietnam that might be inclined to play ball with America or the USSR.

So, Mao sends a few hundred thousand troops south to establish the Peoples Republic of North Vietnam, with a handpicked loyal leadership that excludes people like Ho and Giap, who are too regressively nationalist.

The US puts its foot own to preserve Laos and South Vietnam, but keeps it light. Meanwhile, the Chinese overlords in the North begin a campaign of occupation and repression. Ethnic chinese merchants, who would normally be screwed in Mao's china become valued collaborators. A Vietnamese resistance movement begins....

 

[Gosing]

Now, if you wanted an interesting shot at a South Vietnamese victory, maybe turn history on its head.

Let's suppose that the Chinese communists take over in 1949. They did in our timeline. Let's suppose that 1951-1953 the Chinese communists intervene in the Korean war they did so in our timeline. Let's suppose that the Vietnamese nationalists win at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, they did so in our timeline.

Okay, so let's suppose that following Dien Bien Phu, and in violation of a covenant on elections, Mao decides that Ho Chi Minh is a little too independent. He figures that China doesn't need a 'Yugoslavia' type troublemaker on its southern border, or even, heaven forbid, a Vietnam that might be inclined to play ball with America or the USSR.

So, Mao sends a few hundred thousand troops south to establish the Peoples Republic of North Vietnam, with a handpicked loyal leadership that excludes people like Ho and Giap, who are too regressively nationalist.

The US puts its foot own to preserve Laos and South Vietnam, but keeps it light. Meanwhile, the Chinese overlords in the North begin a campaign of occupation and repression. Ethnic chinese merchants, who would normally be screwed in Mao's china become valued collaborators. A Vietnamese resistance movement begins....

Hmmm... A Vietnamese revolution against the evil communist overlords... this is interesting, and within the POD range. If the South can find a good, not corrupt, decisive, and Bhuddhist leader, I think that might reverse Vietnam.

 

[AmIndHistoryAuthor]

Norton, do you read William Blum eek on the vietnam war? If so, i suggest you get some other stuff. NOT hagiographers like Dallek. Chomsky at the very least does go into declassified documents but gives us a mirror version of Dallek's kennedy.

The VC were Crushed at Tet, where they lost 2/3 of their military capabilities. The rest of the war involved NVA Units. Even by Paris, the North were still losing. It was when the US pulled out that the NVA won.

You might have more credibility to your claim if you didn't use the propaganda term "VC". Their real name was the NLF and like the name points out, they were a broad front, a coalition that including a minority of Communists among them. Most of the so called VC weren't Cong/Communist.

This means that they simply rebuild under almost any scenario, as they had very broad support, whether you like to admit it or not. BY the CIA's own estimate, perhaps 80% popular support. And as long as the US stays there, that support continues. This was not a war amenable to purely military solutions. Ironically the longer the US stayed there, the stronger Communists within the NLF became.

It might also help if you didn't outright reject authors for ad hominem reasons, simply because you don't agree with their ideology. Any facts they state stand or fall on their own, regardless of political POV.

And frankly, US defeat in Vietnam was better for most of the world. Among other things it prevented direct US military intervention in Central America, other than the surreptious bombing from Panama. I'd argue it's even better for the US in the long run. A series of failed wars, from Vietnam to the current two wars, can disabuse the US from its imperial mission, with all of the worser traits of empire undercutting its own democracy within.

Really, South Vietnam was a state with no legitimacy since it was a US creation, with a ruling class made up of former French collaborators, French Vietnamese mixedbloods, Catholic converts, and ethnic Chinese businessmen. They were all to varying degrees considered alien by the majority of the populace, so the notion that South Vietnam could somehow be saved and eventually evolve into something like South Korea is farfetched.

 

[Riain]

In open warfare, when it occured, the US won every battl. So you just have to have battles occur where they can do the most good strategically. I'd suggest Hanoi and Hiaphong within months of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. I'd imagine the US Army Engineers could destroy the Paul Doumer bridge good and proper, as well as a lot of other stuff that poor little Nth Vietnam could ill afford to lose while fighting a war in the south. And if China is provoked to respond that's even better, since it is a raid and the US will pull out no matter what the Chinese will distract the Nth Vietnamese.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Hmmm... A Vietnamese revolution against the evil communist overlords... this is interesting, and within the POD range. If the South can find a good, not corrupt, decisive, and Bhuddhist leader, I think that might reverse Vietnam.

The Viet Minh had basically already claimed the monopoly on the independence and nationalism and the South represented a last ditch Capitalist/Western friendly state of sorts (filled with corrupt generals and warlords, and a lot of people vying for their own self interests). And If I recall, it was Diem who would not allow the elections that were originally to unite Vietnam to take place (the division was only supposed to be temporary) lending further credence to the Viet Minh.

 

[Hades]

I'm gonna tear this apart, right here.

You might have more credibility to your claim if you didn't use the propaganda term "VC". Their real name was the NLF and like the name points out, they were a broad front, a coalition that including a minority of Communists among them. Most of the so called VC weren't Cong/Communist.

Excuse me, then how come these terrorists were wielding weapons that only the USSR/Chinese would allow them to get? And the NLF was a brutal bunch who committed their fair share of atrocities. As well as that, you lost all credibility when you said.

The Domination of the Draka "were a broad front". does that justify what they did?

the NLF were majority communists who were lapdogs for Hanoi, which was a totalitarian nightmare (they effectively created the Khmer Rouge )

This means that they simply rebuild under almost any scenario, as they had very broad support, whether you like to admit it or not. BY the CIA's own estimate, perhaps 80% popular support. And as long as the US stays there, that support continues. This was not a war amenable to purely military solutions. Ironically the longer the US stayed there, the stronger Communists within the NLF became.

The NLF were in tatters by the time of the Paris Accords (most of the fighting was done by the NVA. And what happened to them after the "liberation" in 1975? They were all imprisoned and killed. Such gratitude for the quislings.

And many people hated the NLF for being just as much, if not possibly more, brutality as the US in Vietnam.

It might also help if you didn't outright reject authors for ad hominem reasons, simply because you don't agree with their ideology. Any facts they state stand or fall on their own, regardless of political POV.

William blum is a suspected 9/11 truther which destroys any shred of credibility he has. As well as that, he has been proven wrong on many occasions and idealises Stalin and Mao. He would fit very well into the Drakaverse. As well as that, there is his apologia for Slobodan Milosevic, who was the butcher of the balkans.

And frankly, US defeat in Vietnam was better for most of the world. Among other things it prevented direct US military intervention in Central America, other than the surreptious bombing from Panama. I'd argue it's even better for the US in the long run. A series of failed wars, from Vietnam to the current two wars, can disabuse the US from its imperial mission, with all of the worser traits of empire undercutting its own democracy within.

And allow the US's enemies to become even more powerful than they were OTL? You would fit very well into King Aethelred's court, arguing that the Viking Raiders had "popular support" and instead of confronting them, you would argue that danegeld be paid.

In Central America (more specifically, Nicaragua and El Salvador) The USSR, East Germany and Cuba were all helping the Sandinistas/FMLN (Source: Mitrokhin Archive by Cambridge Professor Christopher Andrew)

And calling the US an "Empire" just lost you the argument. You would rather have the US sit out in WWII when the Axis could butcher eurasia to their heart's content because it is "imperialism" to stop another totalitarian power from expanding its sphere of influence. When was the last time people were rounded up into fema death camps when George Bush conquered canada?

Really, South Vietnam was a state with no legitimacy since it was a US creation, with a ruling class made up of former French collaborators, French Vietnamese mixedbloods, Catholic converts, and ethnic Chinese businessmen. They were all to varying degrees considered alien by the majority of the populace, so the notion that South Vietnam could somehow be saved and eventually evolve into something like South Korea is farfetched.

What is your yardstick for a legitimate state? Bear in mind, people's will does NOT give a nation, or a tyrant legitimacy (otherwise the allies were wrong to remove Hitler and Tojo)

South Vietnam was a recognised state which became a member of the United Nations. Was the postwar germany illegitimate because it was a US creation with former German socialists, liberated political prisoners ets?

 

[Gosing]

The Viet Minh had basically already claimed the monopoly on the independence and nationalism and the South represented a last ditch Capitalist/Western friendly state of sorts (filled with corrupt generals and warlords, and a lot of people vying for their own self interests). And If I recall, it was Diem who would not allow the elections that were originally to unite Vietnam to take place (the division was only supposed to be temporary) lending further credence to the Viet Minh.

Like I said in the OP, a total Southern/U.S victory in Vietnam probably couldn't be plausible-but OTL (in my opinon) was implausible in many places-if you flip a coin 50 times, it won't be 25-25. DValdron proposed a very interesting scenario about Mao (who, TBH, was just a leeeeeeeeetle odd in the head) attacking the North for a pretty good political reason-which may be the best way for the South to survive.

I was just saying that they wiould need some competent leader who was Bhuddhist (sp?) and able to rally the people against Chinese agression.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Since the Vietnamese could won the war, Americans could have too. Sun Zu won a war against 10 times bigger army, so I´d say Americans could have won even if they were 10 times smaller and weaker, than Vietnam.

The South could not have "won" the war. The best it could hope to do was work out a Korea type peace, and even that is shaky since the situation as Vietnam was not a carbon copy of the situation in Korea (Vietnam was regional; Korea was more an exertion of puppet authority between the superpowers in a half-hearted Soviet supported North Korean invasion of the South). The South can manage stalemate, never victory.

The US was superior and I think its army bigger; on paper, it had the upper hand in everything. On paper, the US should have won. But, as stated, a guerrilla war is not one that follows logic of other forms of warfare. Attrition does not work in a guerrilla war, technical superiority is not necessarily any upper hand in a guerrilla war, and size can be detrimental. I think you're making the mistake that the military did in thinking of this in terms of a traditional war whereby two organized nations fight in organized battles and so forth.

Some mistakes, USA made:

1) Too much white troops. Colonial powers are supposed to train and lead
local troops. White men are supposed to be only 1/5 to 1/50 of the whole
number of the troops. Locals are cheaper, and understand the people.

The original policy for Vietnam was to have advisers train local forces. During the Vietnam war, when the US Americanized the conflict, advisers were still training Vietnamese troops.

For the US to keep Vietnam "non-white" (although I don't like that term so much as "non-American", as a portion of blacks relative to the portion of blacks in the US population made up the army in Vietnam), it has to pretty much keep out of the war, keeping to its role as a far away nation offering aid.

2) Lack of will to stay. If you say, ur going to leave as soon as possible,
your allies are going to change they´re loyalties as soon as possible.

Allies began to flock away from US friendship because the US wouldn't leave, not because it spoke of leaving. A very big part of the Vietnam landscape is that our allies weren't behind us on this. And us leaving came only after things proved themselves to be so bad that public sentiment turned against the war. The situation as it was created the mood, not the other way around.

4) They didn´t sent land-forces to close Ho Chi Minh trail, only bombers.

You could try a more intensive strategy on the trail. The issue is with the complexity of the trail networks and that the Vietnamese can just rebuild.

5) Carrot and Stick bombing of North-Vietnam. If someone is sending
thousands of people across the border with AK-47, to seriously attack
your citizens (South-Vietnamese), you at least bomb all his military
facilities all-over his country. LBJ was stupid to believe in diplomatic
bombing. It can only work with nukes (take out Hiroshima, the other side
gets, what you´re saying).

....so we're advocating atomic warfare now? If you nuke Hanoi, you just decentralize the problem. With a central government, you can talk in some form. If you destroy it, the problem is blown to the winds and becomes far, far worse.

If you make the war atomic, not only do you knock down the civility that kept everyone else from using nukes in their conflicts nor alienate the rest of the world (as you would); the action would far outweigh, in its horrors, the goals to be achieved.
********************************************
Watch:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8653788864462752804#

This will educate you and serve to help my sanity.

 

[Faeelin]

This discussion makes me very curious if there's been any writing on this from the perspective of the Vietnamese themselves. We have started to get historical works about the CCP and its thinking, so I'm wondering if we have anything about the North Vietnamese government. I suspect that Avalon's citing people who haven't, or can't, look.

 

[aktarian]

2) Lack of will to stay. If you say, ur going to leave as soon as possible,
your allies are going to change they´re loyalties as soon as possible.

Western vs eastern way of war. Though COIN is by definition a long war

5) Carrot and Stick bombing of North-Vietnam. If someone is sending
thousands of people across the border with AK-47, to seriously attack
your citizens (South-Vietnamese), you at least bomb all his military
facilities all-over his country. LBJ was stupid to believe in diplomatic
bombing. It can only work with nukes (take out Hiroshima, the other side
gets, what you´re saying).

Linebacker worked and it was no nukes, only serious escalation. I said before, had something similar be done in 1965 it would force NV to negotiating table where some sort of peace would be reached which would stick.

 

[Faeelin]

Western vs eastern way of war.

I have no idea what this means. Could you elaborate?

 

[Typo]

Since the Vietnamese could won the war, Americans could have too. Sun Zu won a war against 10 times bigger army, so I´d say Americans could have won even if they were 10 times smaller and weaker, than Vietnam.

Some mistakes, USA made:

1) Too much white troops. Colonial powers are supposed to train and lead
local troops. White men are supposed to be only 1/5 to 1/50 of the whole
number of the troops. Locals are cheaper, and understand the people.
2) Lack of will to stay. If you say, ur going to leave as soon as possible,
your allies are going to change they´re loyalties as soon as possible.
3) Incapable secret police. I mean, come on... 700 CIA bureaucrates in
white collar shirts and ties in the embassy? They are not capable of
the type of schemes and activities, it takes to destroy a guerilla
movement with popular support. Fenix was good, but if you want to win,
Fenix was the type of operation, you should have begun with.
4) They didn´t sent land-forces to close Ho Chi Minh trail, only bombers.
5) Carrot and Stick bombing of North-Vietnam. If someone is sending
thousands of people across the border with AK-47, to seriously attack
your citizens (South-Vietnamese), you at least bomb all his military
facilities all-over his country. LBJ was stupid to believe in diplomatic
bombing. It can only work with nukes (take out Hiroshima, the other side
gets, what you´re saying).

what the hell none of this makes any sense

 

[RogueBeaver]

Let's ignore "baby boy", shall we.

 

[Typo]

come to think of it it's pretty racist too, america should have apparently sent exclusively white men to lead the locals who are their inferiors in vietnam