WI Tet Hadn't Been A Political Victory for NV?

[Hannibal.Caesar]

You're misinterpreting it, I think. IOTL Tet destroyed the VC and the NVA lost conventionally as well when they attacked. After that the VC never regained its strength even as Americans drew down their forces.

We're not changing what happens there—all we're changing is the political impact on the American public.

So. Everything in Viet Nam that happened in real life continues to happen up to and including Tet, but the political impact is changed in America.

Your point is relevant to an alternate Tet with a smarter North Vietnam, but we're accepting the OTL Tet where the North Vietnamese were stupid (militarily speaking) and lost badly.

Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make. Thanks, Monk! Anyway, would the war have changed at all if Tet was not as much of a political victory for the communists as it was in OTL? Some discussions in this thread seem to point that it wouldn't have, and that the war would have kept plodding on until the US just got frustrated with it all (which I suppose is what happened in OTL anyway).

Bringing up a point noted earlier, I think one of the most important factors in a post-US-"won"-Tet Vietnam is the reaction of China. I'm not one for knowing the stability or effectiveness of China circa the Vietnam War, but how nosy could they have gotten? Furthermore, would the NV and VC even allow China to operate, given historic anti-Chinese sentiment? I'm partial to thinking that the Vietnamese wouldn't allow it, but it'd give rise to an interesting TL nonetheless.

 

[Earling]

Is there something wrong with the conclusion that once the USA effectively withdraws from South Vietnam, the North will win?

Is there something wrong with the conclusion that in time the USA will inevitably withdraw (or refuse to launch offensives, air strikes etc)? It seems not unreasonable that the haemorrhage of blood and money will have to stop.

Its a bit different to Korea. North Korea had been defeated. If China hadn't entered into the war it would have been a complete victory. The draw was reached entirely through Chinese military strength.

This isn't the case in Vietnam. If the USA can inspire any communist support to be cut off, North Vietnam will probably collapse. Such is however unlikely. But in terms of military force they are still in existance and the foe who has to be vanquished (something which had thus far not been accomplished with no real likelyhood of occuring).

Eventually the political will in the USA will snap and when it does South Vietnam falls.

 

[NapoleonXIV]

After? Tet was the final, conventional phase where VC was transformed from guerilla to conventional force.

Exactly, which could only have happened if Tet was a victory for NV, if it was a defeat they would stay guerillas

Had the US not betrayed South Vietnam by allowing Hanoi to maintain forces in South Vietnam and then provided the promised aid and air support then South Vietnam would probably still be here today. Note that it was Nixon and Dr K who stabbed Saigon in the back, NOT Democrats.

Once the Soviets and Chinese started pawing at each in the late 1970s then North Vietnam, hopelessly in debt to Moscow, had no choice but to take a side and could never have continued the war. No support from China, no support from Moscow allowed through China, no threat to the US of China intervening as an opponent, most of Hanoi's forces deployed to the north...if Hanoi's leadership has any sense at all they're ending all tensions with the US for fear Beijing and DC might get together with a plan.

Hell, we might well have seen North Vietnam collapse as East Germany did, to be bailed out by Saigon!


Napoleon, the VC and NVA were NOT the same organization. With an eye for the future Hanoi absolutely considered the day when(if) they had won and what was to be done about an effective guerrilla army whose goals did NOT square with Hanoi's. Had Tet not been perceived as a serious moral and media victory Hanoi would have sent much more aid to the VC instead of deploying the NVA but once they began to sense an opportunity for victory then further arming of a future rival made no sense at all.

It was Hanoi which finally crushed the Viet Cong, some of whose leaders wound up living in exile in France and, irony of irony, even in the US. The agony of men who won the war, lost their country in the process, and ended their lives on the charity of the enemies they defeated can be imagined.

OK, yes, the NV saw Tet as a victory for them, which it was.

You're misinterpreting it, I think. IOTL Tet destroyed the VC and the NVA lost conventionally as well when they attacked. After that the VC never regained its strength even as Americans drew down their forces.

We're not changing what happens there—all we're changing is the political impact on the American public.

So. Everything in Viet Nam that happened in real life continues to happen up to and including Tet, but the political impact is changed in America.

Your point is relevant to an alternate Tet with a smarter North Vietnam, but we're accepting the OTL Tet where the North Vietnamese were stupid (militarily speaking) and lost badly.

Were the NV able to mount conventional attacks after Tet? If they were then how had they been defeated in Tet.

 

[aktarian]

Exactly, which could only have happened if Tet was a victory for NV, if it was a defeat they would stay guerillas

It happened for Tet. Tet was the transformation to conventional force. Becasue it was unsuccessfull they went back to being guerillas

 

[Hannibal.Caesar]

OK, yes, the NV saw Tet as a victory for them, which it was.

No. Tet was a victory for NV and the VC because of the fear, concern, and anger that it put into the American public mind. It wouldn't have been such a victory if all of those controversial images hadn't been aired directly into a family's living room. Militarily, Tet was a disaster for the communists. As stated before, the VC were heavily damaged and the NVA had to replace 1/3 of the VC with its own soldiers. The NVA and the VC had abandoned guerrilla warfare and faced the US Army conventionally, and they lost the Offensive for it. After Tet, the communists returned to guerrilla warfare until the US began to pull out of SV.

 

[Electric Monk]

Exactly, which could only have happened if Tet was a victory for NV, if it was a defeat they would stay guerillas

Were the NV able to mount conventional attacks after Tet? If they were then how had they been defeated in Tet.

It was a huge defeat for the VC & NVA, and the VC did stay guerillas to some extent—but they never regained their former strength in the countryside. The insurgency was fatally crippled post-Tet.

The NV mounted a number of conventional attacks, and anytime they faced the South Vietnamese even with only American tactical airpower in support they lost.

Assuming that at least American tactical airpower remains committed to Viet Nam there's no particular reason to think the North Vietnamese would ever win—with a more stable political situation developing South Vietnam might well get a decent government and the North Vietnamese could accept the situation.

I'm just contesting that Viet Nam = defeat. North Vietnamese victory is more likely, sure, but it's not one of those foregone conclusion.s

 

[NapoleonXIV]

It was a huge defeat for the VC & NVA, and the VC did stay guerillas to some extent—but they never regained their former strength in the countryside. The insurgency was fatally crippled post-Tet.

The NV mounted a number of conventional attacks, and anytime they faced the South Vietnamese even with only American tactical airpower in support they lost.

Assuming that at least American tactical airpower remains committed to Viet Nam there's no particular reason to think the North Vietnamese would ever win—with a more stable political situation developing South Vietnam might well get a decent government and the North Vietnamese could accept the situation.

I'm just contesting that Viet Nam = defeat. North Vietnamese victory is more likely, sure, but it's not one of those foregone conclusion.s

Yeh, right, after 30 years, they just give up.

I still don't accept it as a VC/NV defeat. It certainly wasn't seen as one at the time and it's only in the last few years that this interpretation has come to the fore. Considering Westmoreland's admission in regard to casualty figures at the time I question the accuracy of ANY figures anyone might cite 30 years later

And it's moot in any case, your scenario above gives pollyanna a whole new meaning.

Vietnam DID equal defeat. There are certain wars that are plain unwinnable no matter how lopsided the combatants. The American Revolution was one, Vietnam, Iraq...you can't "conquer the map" if the people are willing to actively fight you, you can't win.

 

[Thyme]

Exactly, which could only have happened if Tet was a victory for NV, if it was a defeat they would stay guerillas

OK, yes, the NV saw Tet as a victory for them, which it was.

Were the NV able to mount conventional attacks after Tet? If they were then how had they been defeated in Tet.

It was a defeat for the VC. They tried to convert to convertional forces and had their rears handed to them. That's why the NV had to do the bulk of the fighting for the Communists after Tet. Their cat's paws got dinged up and were useful mainly for propoganda rather than force afterwards.