Alternate US Strategies in Viet Nam.

The title says it all. I mean we have all heard the massive invasion of the North etc. But what could the US realistically done differently. And this is not about the right or the wrong of the war. Purely about what other options the US could of used. Personally I think establishing a fortified line from the South China Sea to the Loatian-Thai border was one. The Trail was vital to the NV war effort. Air power couldn't cut it but what if it was cut physically?

And yes I did a search
 

Riain

Banned
I think a big vandalism raid in 1965 would be a good start. Airborne division onto Hanoi, Marine division into Hiaphong and an ACR yto link them and provide heavy punch to these infantry forces. They could smash everything they got their hands on and withdraw over the beaches when opposition started to mount. It would rock NthV back onto its heels and give SthV considerable breathing space without causing the US and China to come into direct contact with each other.
 
How about selling ARVN/VNAF firstline equipment such as Phantoms, Skyhawks and Corsairs? Most importantly, KC-130 tankers, refuelling probes and ECM. Then they can actually mount air offensives rather than waiting to be the target of an air offensive.
 
How about the US supporting a real government will real broad support across the country and dispense with the legal fiction that North Vietnam and South Vietnam were different nations?

That means the US takes uncle Ho up on the offer he made to the US after WW2 that Vietnam would be a friend of the USA if they support Vietnamese independence from France. In this case the would also have a friendly southeast Asian nation to counter balance the PRC.

In this case the war ends before it begins, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Asia in general are much better off and the USA's reputation isn’t marred by the outright war crimes committed during the course of the war. Up to and including chemical warfare.:eek:
 
Well I think the important thing is to establish a time frame. Post-1970 I think the only option was to GTFO, espc post-Tet offensive, and yes I know Tet was militarily more or less a wash but when LBJ heard Cronkite like he said "I've just lost Middle America" So, again it depends on when we are talking about. cheers
 
How about the Reagan Strategies and build a bridge from LA to Vietnam and turn it into a parking lot :rolleyes:
 
I think that the military strategies that were in place were essentially ineffective. There wasn't a lot that wasn't tried, and even less that wasn't contemplated.

Winning the Vietnam war would probably require a much more coherent counter-insurgency effort. The larger task would be restructuring South Vietnam's society. Much is made of the leadership, but really, the whole country was rotten from top to bottom. An effective efficient civil service, a competent armed forces, a government decision making structure which was responsive to the whole population and not a corrupt elite. A coherent effort at engaging an agrarian peasant economy and getting them to buy in, and a functioning urban economy.
 
The fact that arbitrary diving a country which in one had had a semi-heroic resistance movement which had fought the Japanese and humiliated the French and were then screwed out of nationwide elections which they would’ve won handily.

On the other side you have a corrupt, incompetent, set of junta’s and kleptocrattic leaders whose ‘’ideology’’ seemed to be ‘’embezzle as much as possible then flee the scene when things go wrong’’. SV was reliant woollily on the US to prop it up it cant survive as a legitimise state I the long term. Hanoi will keep presure on them even if they get stalled militarily. The Junta in Saigon barely controls the streets of the capital they have no control in the countryside beyond the range of US guns.

Whatever the US does wont change those basic facts.
 
Truman should've told the French to go fuck themselves, if they wanted in on the marshal plan they could give up on trying to oppress people on the other side of the world.
 
The real problem with the US in Vietnam was that we allied with the wrong side.

When Ho Chi Minh actually came out and asked for US support in the late 40s, Truman should have given it to him. America would have gained a friendly nationalist leader and also gain credibility as a truly anti-colonial Superpower. The repercussions from something like this are huge- for one thing a gesture like this from the US will have a huge effect on India. Nehru's idealistic socialism may well lead India firmly into the American camp (now with anti-colonial credibility) and away from the Soviet one. In SE Asia itself, this most likely means faster and earlier development without the bubbling threat of war ripping Indo-China apart.

ITTL the Soviets don't get to play the anti-Imperialist card nearly as effectively- throughout the Cold War America could portray itself as the true guardian of freedom, extending the hand of friendship and independence to the decolonising Asian and African states.
 

Larrikin

Banned
The fact that arbitrary diving a country which in one had had a semi-heroic resistance movement which had fought the Japanese and humiliated the French and were then screwed out of nationwide elections which they would’ve won handily.

Fought the Japanese my arse, they hid in Nationalist China until the Japanese were defeated, then came down and claimed they had been fighting them all along.
 
Fought the Japanese my arse, they hid in Nationalist China until the Japanese were defeated, then came down and claimed they had been fighting them all along.

However extensive (or non extensive) their anti-Japanese activities were, the fact remains that they did fight the French and attempted to gain legitimate international support from the US.
 

Larrikin

Banned
However extensive (or non extensive) their anti-Japanese activities were, the fact remains that they did fight the French and attempted to gain legitimate international support from the US.

And when they came to power in the north in 1956 1.5 million people went south to get away from them.
 
However extensive (or non extensive) their anti-Japanese activities were, the fact remains that they did fight the French and attempted to gain legitimate international support from the US.

Indeed they started out small but quickly grew and had to rely on themselves as they lacked any outside support, also you not defeat the French if you a small, ineffectual group lacking battle experience. So it’s quite obvious the Viet-Minh were active during WW2 even if they were pragmatic enough to see that Japan was losing the war so tried to obvious unnecessary losses by putting their full effort into fighting them

And when they came to power in the north in 1956 1.5 million people went south to get away from them.

A lot of those were the dregs of the French colonists and their local quislings, who fled the massive backlash against them once a genuinely nationalist government came to power. In Hanoi This was largely inevitable, given the effects and grudges built up by decades under the French bootheel. The fact that a fervent Catholic was in charge of the south and most of those who fled the north were Catholics/ French collaborators. Lots of fols also went north or stayed where they were andgave support to the local Viet-Minh cells as Vietnam was despite the crass and stuipd way the west tried to split it up, a single country and the Viet-Minh the most popular faction.
 
I think that the military strategies that were in place were essentially ineffective. There wasn't a lot that wasn't tried, and even less that wasn't contemplated.

The question is timing. Linebacker did have the desired effect but came too late to achieve much in long term other than allowing Us to get out with some sort of victory. Had that been done earlier it could do the trick.

Say US leadership realizes "Rolling Thunder" isn't working so instead of bomb-halt-talk it's bomb-the-crap-out-of-Vietnam-talk-halt. Plus remove the constrains (hit supplies while they are on ships in Haiphong, not when they travel down Hochiminh road). Mine it and say "It's a war zone. Proceed at your own risk."

But yes, in the long term the solution is viable SV gov't with (large degree of) populr support
 
And when they came to power in the north in 1956 1.5 million people went south to get away from them.

Yup- when a country has been put under foreign rule and subjected to invasion and occupation there are always going to be various interest groups and in a climate like that violence tends to be extremely common. That's sad but it doesn't mean that the Viet Minh were any worse than the regime in the South and Ho did attempt to reach out to the US and got the cold shoulder for his trouble.

Some interesting documents:

Ho's Letter to Truman said:
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:

Our VIETNAM people, as early as 1941, stood by the Allies' side and fought against the Japanese and their associates, the French colonialists.

From 1941 to 1945 we fought bitterly, sustained by the patriotism, of our fellow-countrymen and by the promises made by the Allies at YALTA, SAN FRANCISCO and POTSDAM.

When the Japanese were defeated in August 1945, the whole Vietnam territory was united under a Provisional Republican Government, which immediately set out to work. In five months, peace and order were restored, a democratic republic was established on legal bases, and adequate help was given to the Allies in the carrying out of their disarmament mission.

But the French Colonialists, who betrayed in wartime both the Allies and the Vietnamese, have come back, and are waging on us a murderous and pitiless war in order reestablish their domination. Their invasion has extended to South Vietnam and is menacing us in North Vietnam. It would take volumes to give even an abbreviated report of the crisis and assassinations they are committing everyday in this fighting area.

This aggression is contrary to all principles of international law and the pledge made by the Allies during World War II. It is a challenge to the noble attitude shown before, during, and after the war by the United States Government and People. It violently contrasts with the firm stand you have taken in your twelve point declaration, and with the idealistic loftiness and generosity expressed by your delegates to the United Nations Assembly, MM. BYRNES, STETTINIUS, AND J.F. DULLES.

The French aggression on a peace-loving people is a direct menace to world security. It implies the complicity, or at least the connivance of the Great Democracies. The United Nations ought to keep their words. They ought to interfere to stop this unjust war, and to show that they mean to carry out in peacetime the principles for which they fought in wartime.

Our Vietnamese people, after so many years of spoliation and devastation, is just beginning its building-up work. It needs security and freedom, first to achieve internal prosperity and welfare, and later to bring its small contribution to world-reconstruction.

These security and freedom can only be guaranteed by our independence from any colonial power, and our free cooperation with all other powers. It is with this firm conviction that we request of the United Sates as guardians and champions of World Justice to take a decisive step in support of our independence.

What we ask has been graciously granted to the Philippines. Like the Philippines our goal is full independence and full cooperation with the UNITED STATES. We will do our best to make this independence and cooperation profitable to the whole world.

I am Dear Mr. PRESIDENT,

Respectfully Yours,

(Signed) Ho Chi Minh

And Vietnam's Declaration of Independence- I was actually surprised to note that it doesn't actually contain any Socialist rhetoric- this reads purely as a nationalist document.

The compatriots of the entire country,

All men are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of the French Revolution made in 1791 also states: All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights.
Those are undeniable truths.
Nevertheless, for more than eighty years, the French imperialists, abusing the standard of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, have violated our Fatherland and oppressed our fellow citizens. They have acted contrary to the ideals of humanity and justice.
In the field of politics, they have deprived our people of every democratic liberty.
They have enforced inhuman laws; they have set up three distinct political regimes in the North, the Center, and the South of Viet-Nam in order to wreck our national unity and prevent our people from being united.
They have built more prisons than schools. They have mercilessly slain our patriots; they have drowned our uprisings in rivers of blood.
They have fettered public opinion; they have practiced obscurantism against our people.
To weaken our race they have forced us to use opium and alcohol.
In the field of economics, they have fleeced us to the backbone, impoverished our people and devastated our land.
They have robbed us of our rice fields, our mines, our forests, and our raw materials. They have monopolized the issuing of bank notes and the export trade.
They have invented numerous unjustifiable taxes and reduced our people, especially our peasantry, to a state of extreme poverty.
They have hampered the prospering of our national bourgeoisie; they have mercilessly exploited our workers.
In the autumn of 1940, when the Japanese fascists violated Indochina's territory to establish new bases in their fight against the Allies, the French imperialists went down on their bended knees and handed over our country to them. Thus, from that date, our people were subjected to the double yoke of the French and the Japanese. Their sufferings and miseries increased. The result was that, from the end of last year to the beginning of this year, from Quảng Trị Province to the North of Viet-Nam, more than two million of our fellow citizens died from starvation.
On March 9 [1945], the French troops were disarmed by the Japanese. The French colonialists either fled or surrendered, showing that not only were they incapable of "protecting" us, but that, in the span of five years, they had twice sold our country to the Japanese.
On several occasions before March 9, the Việt Minh League urged the French to ally themselves with it against the Japanese. Instead of agreeing to this proposal, the French colonialists so intensified their terrorist activities against the Việt Minh members that before fleeing they massacred a great number of our political prisoners detained at Yên Bái and Cao Bằng.
Notwithstanding all this, our fellow citizens have always manifested toward the French a tolerant and humane attitude. Even after the Japanese Putsch of March, 1945, the Việt Minh League helped many Frenchmen to cross the frontier, rescued some of them from Japanese jails, and protected French lives and property.
From the autumn of 1940, our country had in fact ceased to be a French colony and had become a Japanese possession. After the Japanese had surrendered to the Allies, our whole people rose to regain our national sovereignty and to found the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam.
The truth is that we have wrested our independence from the Japanese and not from the French.
The French have fled, the Japanese have capitulated, Emperor Bảo Đại has abdicated. Our people have broken the chains which for nearly a century have fettered them and have won independence for the Fatherland. Our people at the same time have overthrown the monarchic regime that has reigned supreme for dozens of centuries. In its place has been established the present Democratic Republic.
For these reasons, we, members of the Provisional Government, representing the whole Vietnamese people, declare that from now on we break off all relations of a colonial character with France; we repeal all the international obligation that France has so far subscribed to on behalf of Viet-Nam, and we abolish all the special rights the French have unlawfully acquired in our Fatherland.
The whole Vietnamese people, animated by a common purpose, are determined to fight to the bitter end against any attempt by the French colonialists to reconquer the country.
We are convinced that the Allied nations, which at Teharan and San Francisco have acknowledged the principles of self-determination and equality of nations, will not refuse to acknowledge the independence of Viet-Nam.
A people who have courageously opposed French domination for more than eighty years, a people who have fought side by side with the Allies against the fascists during these last years, such a people must be free and independent!
For these reasons, we, members of the Provisional Government of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, solemnly declare to the world that:
Viet-Nam has the right to be a free and independent country—and in fact it is so already. The entire Vietnamese people are determined to mobilize all their physical and mental strength, to sacrifice their lives and property in order to safeguard their independence and liberty.

This is an anecdotal quote so I won't vouch for it's veracity but if true it does add evidence to the idea that Ho was a nationalist first and a Communist second.

I have always been impressed with your country's treatment of the Philippines. You kicked the Spanish out and let the Filipinos develop their own country. You were not looking for real estate, and I admire you for that. I have a government that is organized and ready to go. Your statesmen make eloquent speeches about helping those with self-determination. We are self-determined. Why not help us? Am I any different from Nehru, Quezon- even your own George Washington? I, too, want to set my people free

All quotes sourced from here.
 
Last edited:
If we're assuming it's the early 1960s and you want a South Vietnam not run by Ho Chi Minh and company, the most important thing is to understand Vietnamese psychology, geography, politics and history much more thoroughly.


  • The South Vietnamese leadership was not composed of all good guys or all incompetents. Neither was the North Vietnamese leadership all ruthless communists or misunderstood nationalists.
  • Vietnamese of almost all political stripes did not want a new colonial power to replace the French. Given Vietnamese history, a large influx of white guys with guns was going to delegitimize any group they supported, no matter what the intentions of those guys with guns officially was. An outside power attempting publicly to change the composition or policies of the South Vietnamese government was also going to be perceived as attempts at colonialism and would further delegitimize the result.
  • Most people in Vietnam just wanted to be left alone to live their lives in their villages or towns. The politics of which side they end up supporting is going to be local, and is going to be dependent on which side is more likely to let them live their lives, and on which side is going to be able to do them damage if they're perceived to be on the other side.
  • Militarily, the south is almost undefendable if the north has control of adjacent regions of Cambodia and Laos. The border is too long and there isn't enough strategic depth. The quality of the South Vietnamese army or its leadership is important in some ways, but is ultimately irrelevant, because it can't do its job.
With that in mind, you don't send a huge army of white guys with guns to Vietnam. You send the minimum necessary of high quality people to keep the north from taking the major cities and you minimize contact between them and the Vietnamese. If you have a problem with the South Vietnamese government you keep it very low key. You keep a naval presence off Cambodia and do whatever legal prep it takes to let you seize arms coming to the Viet Cong. You gain strategic depth by equipping South Vietnamese forces to go into Cambodia or Laos if Viet Cong or northern troops are there. You do thorough human intelligence work, infiltrating and turning Viet Cong networks. You train southern forces to infiltrate north of the DMZ and stir up problems. You identify key enemy leaders and put prices on their heads. You study enemy logistics and tie down their forces by South Vietnamese raids on key points. You study the northern leadership and try to figure out what they fear the most. Then you make some of those fears come true. You work to make ARVN effective, not by giving them a lot of material but by giving them a lot of training. You understand that this war is more about intelligence and propaganda than body counts. You also understand that US public opinion will only support about 3 to 4 years of war before getting tired of it and wanting the boys home.

Do you win? I don't know. It wouldn't be easy. It might not even be possible. Certainly the way the war was fought in the Johnson years was a case study in how not to fight a war.
 
Top