"Vietnams" without Vietnam

Here's the idea -- take a TL without US Vietnam War; how likely, in this scenario, is the US getting involved in a counter-insurgency quagmire somewhere else (what OTL calls "another Vietnam"), and where could it plausibly happen?

Examples of TLs without Vietnam:

*Ho Chih Mihn becomes a US ally (maybe via Pres. Wallace, or something)

*Chiang Kai Shek wins the civil wars in China, and intervenes directly in Ho Chih Mihn's country

*JFK isn't shot, pulls out advisors following his re-election
 
People seem to bring up Algeria as an alternate "Vietnam". I'm not sure why. Yes, it was a French colony, but I don't think the US had put as much investment in it previous to an Americanization of war as it had Vietnam.
Some people seem to think a Vietnam was inevitable; that the mighty empire must be shamed at the hands of peasants due to its arrogance. I don't believe that.
 
What about if America intervened more in Serbia, Rwanda, Sudan?

Especially the first two, there are many cities that people could hide in. Geography is at play in the latter.

What a violent world this is...
 
People seem to bring up Algeria as an alternate "Vietnam". I'm not sure why. Yes, it was a French colony, but I don't think the US had put as much investment in it previous to an Americanization of war as it had Vietnam.
Some people seem to think a Vietnam was inevitable; that the mighty empire must be shamed at the hands of peasants due to its arrogance. I don't believe that.

A Cold War "Vietnam" would have to be in a place threatening to drop into the Communist camp. Not Algeria.

I don't think such an experience is inevitable, but it is very likely. A long string of victories (yes, Korea was a win, if not an overwhelming one) breeds overconfidence.
 
A Cold War "Vietnam" would have to be in a place threatening to drop into the Communist camp. Not Algeria.

I don't think such an experience is inevitable, but it is very likely. A long string of victories (yes, Korea was a win, if not an overwhelming one) breeds overconfidence.
Stalemate. And what people may not remember is, in it's day Korea was the "Vietnam". Unpopular, drawn out, not considered won (and -if so- barely), not considered necessarily needed, etc. So America had already had that experience, just not as extreme.
 
*Ho Chih Mihn becomes a US ally (maybe via Pres. Wallace, or something)

The French will be pissed off but US backing of Ho Chi Mihn is good for Vietnam in a long-run and ensures shorter war against the French colonists and Ho Chi Mihn may moderate his stance to appease the US and to gain US aid.

*Chiang Kai Shek wins the civil wars in China, and intervenes directly in Ho Chih Mihn's country

It may butterfly away the Vietnam War as we know it or totally butterfly the war itself, China may invade Vietnam for a while to overthow Ho Chih Mihn and install a non-communist leader in Vietnam who can able to unite into one nation.

*JFK isn't shot, pulls out advisors following his re-election

I expect that JFK will withdraw some combat troops in Vietnam and retain the US advisers to train the South Vietnamese troops in order to defeat the communists and JFK may encourage the South Vietnam president to have a land reform so that Southern Vietnamese will not join in the communist movement anymore.
 
If the Operation Ajax/Mossadeq era goes differently, say, with a botched and brutal re-imposition of Royal authority which permanently and totally nullifies the legitimacy of the Shah, the US could find itself propping up an increasingly unpopular and weak Shah against a leftist/nationalist insurgency in the late 1950's/early 60's. As leftists, Soviet-backed Azeri nationalists, Kurds, and any number of other groups begin to target oil infrastructure and foreign diplomats and military advisers, by 1965 Reza Shah Pahlavi asks president Kennedy for assistance; limited, of course, to only additional advisers.....
 

Thande

Donor
To be that similar to Vietnam it would have to be in a similar climate and terrain that makes conventional warfare difficult. Malaya or the Philippines, perhaps, if their communist insurgencies were more successful. Or somewhere in Africa. The problem is that all of these places would be harder for the USSR to resupply, meaning the USA would have a much better chance of being able to avoid a Vietnam-style quagmire.
 

Riain

Banned
I like the idea of Cuba getting it's 40 SS4s and SS5s and then the US having to fight insurgencies in Central and South America to avoid a touchy, nuke-armed Cuba.
 
Iran in 1979

If the U.S. doesn't fight in Vietnam for whatever reason, it will not be afraid of quagmires. Once the Iranian Revolution happens as OTL, I could see the president at the time (butterflies means Carter won't be president during the revolution) going in and restoring the shah.

The USSR would back the Islamists against the USA, and it would be easy to do because they are right next door. Even though the mullahs are anti-communist, it would be worth aiding them to make America bleed, who will likely be seen as much stronger in this ATL 1979. I wonder if this would buterfly the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, as the two superpowers would then be invading two adjacent countries. :p
 

Sachyriel

Banned
Remember when the USA didn't lose all those young men in Vietnam who might have agitated for social revolution among their own generation alongside them at home? But at the peak of its power and in peace time some people think it was the right time for America to "Iron out some kinks" of how things worked. It like, invaded itself into a Pyhrric War... again

Not sayin' a second civil war, but only because the resulting state of Egalitarian States of America would revise books to say the first American Civil War was the War of Slave Independence, so the USA's second Civil War embroils Mexico, Canada and some Caribbean nations as well, but only the Canadians and Americans form a Union while Mexico "Balkanizes" (right word in this situation?). Civil Strife then dies down as the violence quickly wears out, American people used to a high standard of living quickly re-establish it as norm with pockets of violence and democratic reform on the way. Nationalism goes down the drain as the USSR decides to play it by ear and slowly expands its influence over the world, coming to the conclusion that the Chinese are instead going to influence the globe more than they can prepare to do. Panicking at the negotiations table the two make nice for the public but the gears are grinding in two different directions. It's the smallest details holding up some negotiations as well, but soon enough there is a common "No Market" sphere of influence between the two, and what they have they struggle with the other to keep to themselves. Not exactly any communist invasions of the USA were planned to take advantage of the Civil Strife issue, since the populous would be unsurprised and ready to shoot back.

Russia doesn't want the USAs nukes going to Canada (losing to the land war to the not-states), but Canada was the port of choice for some of the loyal US navy in exile and in legal limbo in Canada. Soon enough China sees that it won't be able to have any chance of actually carving the USA into its own sphere of influence claims to be satisfied by having the Philippines, but only in their dreams as remnants of the US forces in Japan send a strike force to prevent it (Also they shouted MacArthur a lot, some ideas about his words plus re-using older anti-Asian WW2 Propaganda) and then China got the message. Alaska was not backing off on intercepting things coming to its airspace, Officially on the Fence, but trading pure gold for fuel (Save retreating Canadas 'commitment' to NORAD, which wasn't near enough).

Europe is trying to get Canada (who is still losing) to approve what they feel is a vital right of way support for intervention since it's being torn by the strife in itself too much to allow this; the line is too fluid and there are American Moles in the last of the Canadian Forces. It won't while Mexico doesn't want Spanish Fascists going into the USA and refuses the rest of the Europeans as well. Newfoundland is "taken back" by Britain but Labrador is not taken, the mainland being excluded from the Military Occupation, but Canada wouldn't have begrudged the British from taking Labrador too. Mexico falls before the Europeans can convince it either.

Europe was simply banging their head on asking Canada as it fell into the new state of the ESA, a compromised truce between constituent nations that was more shaky than building a Berlin Wall vertically. It's in no mood to waste men on interventions globally as it has to rebuild but will fight if provoked. Biggest nation in the world, Manifest Destiny...

...

But just as peace settles, a shot that rings out across the world sparks in South Africa. Nelson Mandela is shot, the South African government scared of him and his increased morale from seeing the USAs civil rights movement move forward so violently. He had not even done anything to make his mark, the operation was still planning while a mole identified people.

Though he is not the person we know today, or back then, but slightly different that incites violence faster; South Africa falls to communist-backed Guerrillas with only token remarks about the equality.

In the Australian continent some riots are had but the continent prepares for what it thinks will be a sunny future (they're always right). Trade suffers but the standard of living lowers slightly (while rising when cutting out certain historically privileged demographics, a sign of socialism?).

One of the main winners of the USA's Second Civil War (or the "War for Pan-American Rights" as the E.S.A. calls it) was Brazil; as the new inheritor of the Central American states as its own puppets, a few more fingers in the Caribbean. But only after it played its hand right (no one likes getting a hand shoved up their butt unexpectedly, finger, hand or national puppet). This is all before 1975.

Did I forget to mention anything?

Oh, right, by 1984 the world is divided into 3 Mega Nations of the Egalitarian Transoceanic Democratic Union (Oceania of 1984, plus India), the Euromed Union (which is pretty much Euraiba made of Convenience for Europe with no USA, not Muslim-dominated but extending to Turkey, Israel, Egypt and Morroco, etc), and the Asian Workers Union (Rump Eurasia/East Asia).

James Bond then has to save the day from nuclear annihilation...by becoming a quintuple-agent in the biggest 3 Intelligence agencies the world has ever seen and stopping a mad man from triggering a doomsday device of unimaginable horror...
 
So you want an OTL Afganistan in the Vietnam era?

Such a scenario is likely to be restricted to South East Asia as Europe is unlikely to become a flashpoint
 
To be that similar to Vietnam it would have to be in a similar climate and terrain that makes conventional warfare difficult. Malaya or the Philippines, perhaps, if their communist insurgencies were more successful. Or somewhere in Africa. The problem is that all of these places would be harder for the USSR to resupply, meaning the USA would have a much better chance of being able to avoid a Vietnam-style quagmire.
The big thing people are forgetting about Vietnam is that our main enemy was a well-trained, well-equipped, and very well-organized that tended to use conventional tactics (albeit on a small scale) rather than ragtag guerrillas. The ragtag guerrillas in Vietnam were from at least 1966 and onwards a secondary force to the NVA. After Tet (where it is likely that they were sent to their deaths on purpose by the North) they stopped functioning as even that much and were almost purely a support group that supplied guides, medics, intel, and terrorized the population to achieve the North's goals. But that was it. The force that defeated the ARVN and drove the Americans to the point where they couldn't take it anymore was a (mostly) conventional army.

So basically, if you want a closer Vietnam-analogue than what the modern public believes it to be, you have to have a place that the opponent would have a conventional army as well. In addition to the harsh terrain. And unclear purpose. Iran might actually work well, but it's a bit worryingly close to the USSR. Cuba not so likely because it is easy to invade, unless you fuck up as badly as the CIA in '61, which isn't likely with the might of the entire US military. With military leadership. Even if holding Cuba is trouble the Russians would not be able to supply communist rebels very much, and they would not be as much of a threat as even the Viet Cong or Mujahideen were.

I think the closest and most interesting "alternate Vietnam" would be to have the US intervene in Angola. It would mean the US would come into conflict with the MPLA and Cuba, and even more interestingly it would mean fighting alongside UNITA and South Africa. Probably see more protesting and social upheaval than Vietnam if America sends people to die helping Apartheid.
 
Last edited:
Top