"What if..." Topic

…South Vietnam hadn't fallen?

I was just wondering what you guys think would have happened if the NVA had been defeated in 1975 and South Vietnam hadn't been overrun?

Would the two Vietnams have evolved in the same way as North and South Korea, would they have finally re-united in much the same way as the two Germanys, or would they have just squared up for the next clash on the battlefield?

Maybe you have another possible outcome?

The problem is that the South Vietnamese government was really ing off the general populace, particularly out in the rural areas. Not to mention the obscene levels of corruption.

I cannot see any way for the massively corrupt South Vietnamese government to stay in power beyond about 1980, even without the North Vietnamese stirring the pot. There would have been a popular uprising against the government like in the Arab Spring revolts.

If the US had been smarter, we should have backed Ho against the French (and helped keep him from going full Communist). Then we'd have a very solid ally against the Chinese there, instead of the somewhat shaky friendship.

It would depend, I think on why the North did not win. If because they just ran out of steam. Then a long truce and build up to another war. If because China invaded the North, Then a different war starts. If in the unlikely event that South somehow started winning without help, then wouldn't they be strong enough to capture the North? Perhaps leaving a small bit that would continue a long running terrorist campaign.

Then you have Pol Pot to consider would he tolerate a thriving non communist South Vietnam?

I suppose my answers come down to more war maybe in slightly different area with slightly different enemies.

Lion's right. Without legitimacy and popular support I just don't see how S. Vietnam can stave off defeat for very long.

China and the US may not make nice with each other nearly as easily, if there's another US backed presence in the region.

The South Vietnamese government and the higher ranks of the military were so staggeringly corrupt and so ineptly managed that it's highly unlikely that the country could've lasted much longer than it did, even without being attacked by the North.

I don't know. It seemed like they were recovering fairly well in the 70's. The '72 offensive was repulsed with heavy US support. If that support remained there's a fair chance that ARVN could have retaken much of their lost ground and that the '75 offensive, which was actually weaker than the '72 one could have been beaten off too. Turning China against the Soviets could have turned off the supply spigot to the Viet Communists who were more Soviet than Chicom.

The biggest problem would be getting the US population to stay on-board supporting the republic. All that air support and logistical aid costed a ton of money and the American public just couldn't see what good it was doing.

But with that support… it would have remained a stalemate with the Vietcong just not having the strength to overcome the US and ARVN. At least in my opinion. Here's a great book on the '72 offensive and how ARVN did. It's pretty objective IMO:

link

"If the US had been smarter, we should have backed Ho against the French (and helped keep him from going full Communist). Then we'd have a very solid ally against the Chinese there, instead of the somewhat shaky friendship."

Not a chance. Ho was a full blown communist before WWII. The idea that he could have been a western ally is a complete myth.

Regardless of political views of Ho, the chance of the US supporting Vietnam against a US ally (France) is negative 100%.

Although they happily left France and Britain to dangle in the wind in 1956.

Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist who wanted an independant Vietnam. He wasn't bothered about who he had to be allies with to do it.