No U.S. Escalation in the Vietnam War in 1964

[futurist]

What if the U.S. refuses to escalate its involvement in the Vietnam War in 1964 and instead keeps its current 13,000 or whatever troops in Vietnam for the time being?

Any thoughts on this?

[lordroel]

Jul 5, 2016 4:59:30 GMT futurist said:

What if the U.S. refuses to escalate its involvement in the Vietnam War in 1964 and instead keeps its current 13,000 or whatever troops in Vietnam for the time being?

Any thoughts on this?

Would that be under the same president because a next president could still decide to increase the number of United States troops in South Vietnam.

[stevep]

South Vietnam is conquered some years earlier. Most likely the regimes in Laos and Cambodia are also going to be replaced by communist dictatorships but hopefully in the latter case by someone less murderous than Pol Pot. Its possible that, encouraged by the easy victories there would also be pressure on Thailand. Also that clashes between China and Vietnam occur earlier.

If the US government makes no serious attempt to prevent the communist take-over then:
a) Your almost certain to see a Republican, probably with a hard line on military matters, elected in 68.

b) Would China be less welcoming to an approach from the US under those circumstances? If Nixon or whoever was elected in 68 attempted to establish contact with them? Or possibly a more conservative republican might stick with the Nationalist Chinese, which means they could keep the UN permanent Security seat, at least for a while longer.

[futurist]

Jul 5, 2016 16:22:58 GMT stevep said:

1. South Vietnam is conquered some years earlier. Most likely the regimes in Laos and Cambodia are also going to be replaced by communist dictatorships but hopefully in the latter case by someone less murderous than Pol Pot. Its possible that, encouraged by the easy victories there would also be pressure on Thailand. Also that clashes between China and Vietnam occur earlier.

2. If the US government makes no serious attempt to prevent the communist take-over then:
a) Your almost certain to see a Republican, probably with a hard line on military matters, elected in 68.

b) Would China be less welcoming to an approach from the US under those circumstances? If Nixon or whoever was elected in 68 attempted to establish contact with them? Or possibly a more conservative republican might stick with the Nationalist Chinese, which means they could keep the UN permanent Security seat, at least for a while longer.

1. Agreed with all of this.

Also, though, do you have any candidates for an alternate, much less bloody-minded, Cambodian Communist leader?

In addition to this, though, out of curiosity--are large numbers of Vietnamese people still likely to immigrate to the U.S. in order to escape Communism in this scenario? Or would the U.S. refuse to allow large numbers of Vietnamese people to immigrate in to U.S. in this scenario?

2A. Frankly, I'm not so sure about this. After all, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia are just three countries and the U.S. economy was still in pretty good shape in 1968.

2B. I doubt that China would be less welcome to an approach from the U.S. under those circumstances. After all, I would think that Mao Zedong would have taken help from wherever he could get it in this scenario.

[futurist]

Jul 5, 2016 14:01:01 GMT lordroel said:

Jul 5, 2016 4:59:30 GMT futurist said:

What if the U.S. refuses to escalate its involvement in the Vietnam War in 1964 and instead keeps its current 13,000 or whatever troops in Vietnam for the time being?

Any thoughts on this?

Would that be under the same president because a next president could still decide to increase the number of United States troops in South Vietnam.

L.B.J. would be the U.S. President until 1969 in this scenario. Thus, any changes to the U.S.'s Vietnam policy would have to occur after 1969 in this scenario.

[stevep]

Jul 6, 2016 2:38:00 GMT futurist said:

Jul 5, 2016 16:22:58 GMT stevep said:

1. South Vietnam is conquered some years earlier. Most likely the regimes in Laos and Cambodia are also going to be replaced by communist dictatorships but hopefully in the latter case by someone less murderous than Pol Pot. Its possible that, encouraged by the easy victories there would also be pressure on Thailand. Also that clashes between China and Vietnam occur earlier.

2. If the US government makes no serious attempt to prevent the communist take-over then:
a) Your almost certain to see a Republican, probably with a hard line on military matters, elected in 68.

b) Would China be less welcoming to an approach from the US under those circumstances? If Nixon or whoever was elected in 68 attempted to establish contact with them? Or possibly a more conservative republican might stick with the Nationalist Chinese, which means they could keep the UN permanent Security seat, at least for a while longer.

1. Agreed with all of this.

Also, though, do you have any candidates for an alternate, much less bloody-minded, Cambodian Communist leader?

In addition to this, though, out of curiosity--are large numbers of Vietnamese people still likely to immigrate to the U.S. in order to escape Communism in this scenario? Or would the U.S. refuse to allow large numbers of Vietnamese people to immigrate in to U.S. in this scenario?

2A. Frankly, I'm not so sure about this. After all, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia are just three countries and the U.S. economy was still in pretty good shape in 1968.

2B. I doubt that China would be less welcome to an approach from the U.S. under those circumstances. After all, I would think that Mao Zedong would have taken help from wherever he could get it in this scenario.

  Don't know enough about the Khemer Rouge to say on that.

  Without a fight that shows that the US can't win, at least using the OTL policies, then few Americans are likely to accept that the region wasn't defensible.  As such a lot of people are likely to accept Republican suggestions it was a question of weakness by the Democrats.  The economy may be significantly better without the economic and social costs of the Vietnam war but this may not be enough to counter than and win the Democrats a 3rd term.

  Possibly although a weak US unwilling to stand up to the Soviets and their Vietnamese satalites is unlikely to look as attractive.

[pericles]

Jul 6, 2016 2:38:46 GMT futurist said:

Jul 5, 2016 14:01:01 GMT lordroel said:

Would that be under the same president because a next president could still decide to increase the number of United States troops in South Vietnam.

L.B.J. would be the U.S. President until 1969 in this scenario. Thus, any changes to the U.S.'s Vietnam policy would have to occur after 1969 in this scenario.

Another effect is he's probably President longer. He ran in 1968 IOTL before being forced to drop out, without Vietnam hurting his popularity he probably runs and wins the Democratic nomination and wins a relatively close election. Humphrey nearly won after Vietnam and all those fiascoes, so LBJ probably wins. He is remembered relatively fondly by historians and his liberal programs are admired by Democrats for years to come.

[futurist]

Jul 6, 2016 22:03:40 GMT pericles said:

Jul 6, 2016 2:38:46 GMT futurist said:

L.B.J. would be the U.S. President until 1969 in this scenario. Thus, any changes to the U.S.'s Vietnam policy would have to occur after 1969 in this scenario.

Another effect is he's probably President longer. He ran in 1968 IOTL before being forced to drop out, without Vietnam hurting his popularity he probably runs and wins the Democratic nomination and wins a relatively close election. Humphrey nearly won after Vietnam and all those fiascoes, so LBJ probably wins. He is remembered relatively fondly by historians and his liberal programs are admired by Democrats for years to come.

Possibly, but LBJ might choose not to run for health reasons. Indeed, even after he retired in 1969 in real life, he only outlived the next U.S. Presidential term (1969-1973) by just two days!

[pericles]

Jul 6, 2016 23:35:10 GMT futurist said:

Jul 6, 2016 22:03:40 GMT pericles said:

Another effect is he's probably President longer. He ran in 1968 IOTL before being forced to drop out, without Vietnam hurting his popularity he probably runs and wins the Democratic nomination and wins a relatively close election. Humphrey nearly won after Vietnam and all those fiascoes, so LBJ probably wins. He is remembered relatively fondly by historians and his liberal programs are admired by Democrats for years to come.

Possibly, but LBJ might choose not to run for health reasons. Indeed, even after he retired in 1969 in real life, he only outlived the next U.S. Presidential term (1969-1973) by just two days!

Well he ran in 1968 IOTL until partway through the primaries when Kennedy and McCarthy's successful runs and his unpopularity forced him to drop out. Without Vietnam he probably keeps running and wins.

South Vietnam would fall earlier without US involvement. The US military would be in better shape and there'd be no 'Vietnam syndrome' so future crises might be handled diferently.