• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What if there was no Vietnam War?

JC Callender

JC Callender

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
6,477
Reaction score
3,270
Location
Metro Detroit
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The general consensus from everything I've heard about the Vietnam War is that it was a total failure for the U.S.. But how would things have turned out if we never fought there? Would Communism just fizzle out on it's own? Or would the Communist powers realize the lack of resistance and put all of their resources into conquering more countries?
 
JC Callender said:
The general consensus from everything I've heard about the Vietnam War is that it was a total failure for the U.S.. But how would things have turned out if we never fought there? Would Communism just fizzle out on it's own? Or would the Communist powers realize the lack of resistance and put all of their resources into conquering more countries?
Click to expand...

Oh, they certainly would have tried to keep expanding, but the domino theory only goes so far. You would have seen Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and maybe Thailand go communist and a bigger expansion of guerilla movements throughout Southeast Asia but the idea of having to fight them one day in Hawaii was a fantasy. It would be interesting to see how Soviet Chinese relations would have been affected by additional communists to the south who were more likely to be friendly to Moscow than Beijing.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Oh, they certainly would have tried to keep expanding, but the domino theory only goes so far. You would have seen Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and maybe Thailand go communist and a bigger expansion of guerilla movements throughout Southeast Asia but the idea of having to fight them one day in Hawaii was a fantasy. It would be interesting to see how Soviet Chinese relations would have been affected by additional communists to the south who were more likely to be friendly to Moscow than Beijing.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't they attempt to go into Australia or Hawaii?
 
JC Callender said:
The general consensus from everything I've heard about the Vietnam War is that it was a total failure for the U.S.. But how would things have turned out if we never fought there? Would Communism just fizzle out on it's own? Or would the Communist powers realize the lack of resistance and put all of their resources into conquering more countries?
Click to expand...

It wasn't a complete failure. The US might not have been willing to do the things necessary to win in an outright way, but no further dominoes fell and no country crossed the US in direct confrontation again for many, many years.
It is hard to measure reality against maybes, but that probably saved us other necessary military action and stabilised the Cold War as it was becoming less manageable.
 
joG said:
It wasn't a complete failure. The US might not have been willing to do the things necessary to win in an outright way, but no further dominoes fell and no country crossed the US in direct confrontation again for many, many years.
It is hard to measure reality against maybes, but that probably saved us other necessary military action and stabilised the Cold War as it was becoming less manageable.
Click to expand...

That's basically how I feel about it.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Oh, they certainly would have tried to keep expanding, but the domino theory only goes so far. You would have seen Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and maybe Thailand go communist and a bigger expansion of guerilla movements throughout Southeast Asia but the idea of having to fight them one day in Hawaii was a fantasy. It would be interesting to see how Soviet Chinese relations would have been affected by additional communists to the south who were more likely to be friendly to Moscow than Beijing.
Click to expand...

The Cold War was about keeping it simple and stable at that time with the USA showing the will to support allies and the will to maintain the longterm effort. And It was important to keep the Soviet trading area unimportant and weak.
 
JC Callender said:
What do you mean by that?
Click to expand...

Every guerilla movement needs a base of supporters and sympathizers, both for troops and various support; hiding places, food, etc. That didn't exist in Hawaii.
 
I don't care. If the Vietnam War hadn't been fought by Americans, 57,000 American men who died for Lyndon B. Johnson would be not have died young.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Every guerilla movement needs a base of supporters and sympathizers, both for troops and various support; hiding places, food, etc. That didn't exist in Hawaii.
Click to expand...

Why do you consider Communism in the 60's to be a guerilla movement?
 
JC Callender said:
Why wouldn't they attempt to go into Australia or Hawaii?
Click to expand...

Because those societies are well developed and even poor people in Australia do "okay" versus poor in the third world. when it comes to violently taking power for a stalinist type regime there's only a limited type of person you can sell this to, and normally these are peasants with little education, a crappy life, and nothing to lose.

think about it, Amerians were horrified seeing our war dead on the news from 4000 miles away.

The Vietnamese were watching many times more of theirs die with their own eyes on their own soil, and they continued to throw themselves at US soldiers, losing a dozen for everyone of us they killed and they kept fighting.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Because those societies are well developed and even poor people in Australia do "okay" versus poor in the third world. when it comes to violently taking power for a stalinist type regime there's only a limited type of person you can sell this to, and normally these are peasants with little education, a crappy life, and nothing to lose.
Click to expand...

Why do you have to sell anything to anyone when you're attempting to violently take power?
 
JC Callender said:
Why do you have to sell anything to anyone when you're attempting to violently take power?
Click to expand...

Well violently taking power requires resources, personel, arms, and a base of support.

ten people in Australia are not just going to violently take power. you probably need AT LEAST a quarter of the population to support you enough on an ideological level before you can even entertain the notion of violently taking charge. otherwise you're target practice for the local police department.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Well violently taking power requires resources, personel, arms, and a base of support.

ten people in Australia are not just going to violently take power. you probably need AT LEAST a quarter of the population to support you enough on an ideological level before you can even entertain the notion of violently taking charge. otherwise you're target practice for the local police department.
Click to expand...

How many people in France and Poland supported the Nazi's? Even if the answer is zero, Hitler still would've defeated them.
 
JC Callender said:
The general consensus from everything I've heard about the Vietnam War is that it was a total failure for the U.S.. But how would things have turned out if we never fought there? Would Communism just fizzle out on it's own? Or would the Communist powers realize the lack of resistance and put all of their resources into conquering more countries?
Click to expand...

Thailand and Malaysia would have went the way of Cambodia. That is my opinion you can not qualify an unknown.
 
JC Callender said:
How many people in France and Poland supported the Nazi's? Even if the answer is zero, Hitler still would've defeated them.
Click to expand...

Ok well now you're changing the game, if Vietnam was attempting an Iwo Jima style invasion of Hawaii with conventional ground forces the US public would be 99% on the side of going to war with them. Theres' no way they had that kind of capability to credibly project an invasion either of us or a SEATO ally like Australia. Australia could repel a Vietnamese invasion all on their own.

you're comparing apples and oranges, Hitler used conventional military forces to invade countries with inferior militaries and subjected them to foreign occupation. in Vietnam there was guerilla wars by paramilitary groups operating inside the country.
 
joG said:
The Cold War was about keeping it simple and stable at that time with the USA showing the will to support allies and the will to maintain the longterm effort. And It was important to keep the Soviet trading area unimportant and weak.
Click to expand...

That's true; hence why we supported the French in Indochina.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Ok well now you're changing the game, if Vietnam was attempting an Iwo Jima style invasion of Hawaii with conventional ground forces the US public would be 99% on the side of going to war with them. Theres' no way they had that kind of capability to credibly project an invasion either of us or a SEATO ally like Australia. Australia could repel a Vietnamese invasion all on their own.

you're comparing apples and oranges, Hitler used conventional military forces to invade countries with inferior militaries and subjected them to foreign occupation. in Vietnam there was guerilla wars by paramilitary groups operating inside the country.
Click to expand...

The OP poses the question of how Communism would've impacted the world if there were no Vietnam war, not how Vietnam would impact the world. I don't think anyone was worried that Vietnam would take over the world, but most were worried about Communism in general. North Vietnam didn't fight alone, they had support from two mega powers in China and the U.S.S.R.. Sure, the Communists took advantage of guerillas when they could, but they also expanded by other means, like directly after WW2.

Even if Vietnam couldn't invade Hawaii on their own, the Soviet Union could, and they were part of the ever growing Communist's. They were ally's who could support one another.
 
JC Callender said:
The OP poses the question of how Communism would've impacted the world if there were no Vietnam war, not how Vietnam would impact the world. I don't think anyone was worried that Vietnam would take over the world, but most were worried about Communism in general. North Vietnam didn't fight alone, they had support from two mega powers in China and the U.S.S.R.. Sure, the Communists took advantage of guerillas when they could, but they also expanded by other means, like directly after WW2.

Even if Vietnam couldn't invade Hawaii on their own, the Soviet Union could, and they were part of the ever growing Communist's. They were ally's who could support one another.
Click to expand...

You think the Soviet Union had the resources to conduct an amphibious invasion of Hawaii? not a chance.
 
JC Callender said:
The general consensus from everything I've heard about the Vietnam War is that it was a total failure for the U.S.. But how would things have turned out if we never fought there? Would Communism just fizzle out on it's own? Or would the Communist powers realize the lack of resistance and put all of their resources into conquering more countries?
Click to expand...
I believe the system would have eventually collapsed on its own...or there would be about a dozen countries as poor as Cuba and NK. Either way, there was no real need for all our boys to have died in that jungle.
 
JC Callender said:
The general consensus from everything I've heard about the Vietnam War is that it was a total failure for the U.S.. But how would things have turned out if we never fought there? Would Communism just fizzle out on it's own? Or would the Communist powers realize the lack of resistance and put all of their resources into conquering more countries?
Click to expand...

Vietnam was a failure on one front. but a victory in other areas on the world platform.

The world viewed the USA as being serious about democracy and having the will to defend it.

On the other hand, the communists also saw the USA with it's hands tied moved in on other fronts.

The biggest enemy of the the American Vietnam forces was their own government.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Because that's how it tried to spread.
Click to expand...

That's true for the most part, but I don't think it's fair to describe Communism in general in the 60's that way. The Soviets didn't use guerilla warfare against the Czechs in 1968. I'm sure the Chinese wouldn't either, had they decided to go to war. Communism in general wasn't a ragtag guerilla army. The NVA were supported by the USSR and Chinese.
 
JC Callender said:
That's true for the most part, but I don't think it's fair to describe Communism in general in the 60's that way. The Soviets didn't use guerilla warfare against the Czechs in 1968. I'm sure the Chinese wouldn't either, had they decided to go to war. Communism in general wasn't a ragtag guerilla army. The NVA were supported by the USSR and Chinese.
Click to expand...

But any communism in Hawaii or Australia wouldn't be Soviet tanks and troops--- it'd be a guerilla movement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom