Without Watergate, does North Vietnam _ever_ attack?

[fraa Jad]

Apparently:

Quoting http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/last-days-in-vietnam-2014

"[...] in 1973, when the Paris Peace Accords negotiated by the Nixon administration and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger brought the long and torturous Vietnam War to an apparent end. North and South Vietnam were supposed to remain separate states like the two Koreas, and Nixon was able to withdraw U.S. forces while proclaiming “peace with honor.” Yet the agreement was, as one interviewee notes, a “masterpiece of ambiguity.”"

"[...] peace was maintained for a while because the North Vietnamese considered Nixon insane enough to attack them again if they broke it. Once the President was deposed by the Watergate scandal in late 1974, they saw their opening and took it. By spring of 1975, their troops were pouring across the South (the use of red spreading across a map has seldom been more appropriate) and the new administration of Gerald Ford gave no sign of returning America to the war."

Is there a POD where we could still have a North and South Vietnam like with the Koreas?

 

[Realpolitik]

I believe that North Vietnam would attack eventually, and with a good but not definite chance of accomplishing their goal(ARVN was getting better, but that's contingent on US funding), but not in 1975 like they did. Furthermore, Nixon/Kissinger probably expected that they would attack eventually. A fully powerful Nixon is flat out not going to tolerate a fall of Saigon while he is in office after putting his political capital on the line during his first term defending them, and Hanoi isn't stupid or desperate enough to try. South Vietnam is still a state dealing with hyperinflation-assuming that the oil crisis still happens-and massive corruption. I'm guessing that Hanoi would figure that they could invade again in 1977.

That was actually the original plan before Nixon resigned, I believe. They don't want to wait too long before the South Vietnamese get somewhat stronger due to American aid(assuming that continues without Watergate), but after the failed Easter Offensive decimated PAVN, Linebacker I/II, and Nixon's successes with their allies(especially China), they didn't want to risk it with him in office. Especially after having a 49 state victory. Even during Watergate, they thought that Nixon might bomb them-although the cutting off of aid definitely accelerated the time table.

 

[Ultimate Paragon]

I read that the North Vietnamese thought Nixon was crazy. If that's true, I doubt they'd tempt him.

 

[Realpolitik]

Pre-Watergate, I suspect not so much crazy so much as utterly brutal, potentially vengeful, uncaring about Vietnamese lives, rather contemptuous about the opinions of the "useful idiots" in the West, and willing to play the game as rough as they play it. And also someone who had a lot of backing in the mainstream American populace, circa October 1972. Cold hearted SOB, but that's not the same thing.

During Watergate... maybe. I'll definitely believe that as plausible, especially after the Christmas bombing and also if Hanoi looked at how he "repressed dissent" (that's probably how they would think of it) at home in 1970, among other things-in their vantage point, Nixon didn't play by the same rules as most Western leaders. He clearly had ignored world (Europe) opinion as well as Congressional opinion time and time again. He was probably (and in reality, Hanoi was right in thinking this) being held back by his inner circle with all their effort, with them ignoring certain rants and orders. But in the end, he was the President... Kissinger might have implied this to Le Duc Tho over the years as he did to Dobrynin occasionally. Who knows what he might do now that he is in trouble and agitated? Not to mention Hanoi apparently thought that an invasion might, in his "unstable" mind, provide a welcome diversion from domestic troubles, damn the consequences at home.

Looks like the Madman Theory did eventually have a point to it.

 

[black angel]

Yes, to them it was almost religious, to liberate their country, they'd never ever stop, and if they attacked not much Nixon could do to stop them, in OTL when Ford wanted to inject 722 million into South Vietnam to hold the line 79% of the public was against that, 58% against ANY aid even the 250 million for humanitarian aid that passed, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee left the Senate offices and marched to the White House to DEMAND a meeting with Ford to tell him to his face that he'd get nothing and no bridge head for evacuations, the first time that a Senate committee had done something like that since Wilson was President, now some of that might be Watergate but most of it was organic fed up with Vietnam, no matter if Watergate (or something else) becomes public the Pentagon Papers were out and public trust in the government on this issue was 0% Nixon isn't going to lay down his life for Vietnam, he'd try to maybe get aid, but he's more cynical then Ford, maybe he says that "We won the peace, and South Vietnam couldn't stand up on its own"

 

[Realpolitik]

Yes, to them it was almost religious, to liberate their country, they'd never ever stop, and if they attacked not much Nixon could do to stop them, in OTL when Ford wanted to inject 722 million into South Vietnam to hold the line 79% of the public was against that, 58% against ANY aid even the 250 million for humanitarian aid that passed, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee left the Senate offices and marched to the White House to DEMAND a meeting with Ford to tell him to his face that he'd get nothing and no bridge head for evacuations, the first time that a Senate committee had done something like that since Wilson was President, now some of that might be Watergate but most of it was organic fed up with Vietnam, no matter if Watergate (or something else) becomes public the Pentagon Papers were out and public trust in the government on this issue was 0% Nixon isn't going to lay down his life for Vietnam, he'd try to maybe get aid, but he's more cynical then Ford, maybe he says that "We won the peace, and South Vietnam couldn't stand up on its own"

You are really underestimating the impact of Watergate, and how much ammunition that gave the doves in Congress. And how much power that gave Congress over the President. People were sick of Vietnam when it was body bags coming home and domestic chaos. Bombing the crap out of them is a different matter-the papers and the politicians are a different thing than the American people as a whole. The antiwar movement not coincidentally lost a lot of its bite when the draft ended and American body bags largely weren't coming home anymore, by 1972. Linebacker-far more destructive than Rolling Thunder was, and Rolling Thunder started when Vietnam was a popular idea-got token resistance in Congress and was approved of by much of the population. Don't confuse the antiwar movement with the American people as a whole-these people elected Reagan later on. So long as it isn't mostly American lives at risk...

Not much? Linebacker worked pretty nicely with the Easter Offensive. By this stage of the Vietnam War, things were more conventional as opposed to the guerrilla tactics of 1965. This is a lot more up the USA's alley. This, combined with North Vietnam's increasing isolation from the Communist giants, was what prompted the talks to get going again.

As I stated, North Vietnam is hardcore. They WILL attempt to reunify the country. And Saigon circa 1975 ALONE won't be able to stop them, even with more competence-the hyperinflation and the oil embargo hurt them bad. Saigon a few years later unless they get their crap together-and I've stated this elsewhere, I have my doubts that would happen especially in that short a period-won't be able to stop them. American aid only can help, it cannot create. Why would Hanoi risk things when they know they have a far greater chance if they just wait?

They are smart enough to know when to try it. Hanoi has been fighting for decades-what is a few more years? The North Vietnamese are fanatical, but smart, unlike other fanatics in history. Nixon had a 49 state victory over George McGovern, the "peace" candidate. Unless Watergate or something equally impactful comes along, Nixon has a mandate and will use it. Why waste men and material if the "madman" might intervene-and he sets back everything when he does, because you then have to recover-when you can wait a few years when the madman isn't around anymore, and is helplessly shaking his fist in California? This is the case especially if Saigon's funding is still getting cut. If not, then you don't want to wait too long, because you don't want to run the risk of the South Vietnamese have the chance of becoming semi-stable, but that risk will take time to come true. The logic still holds. The best time period would be 1976-1977, especially if a Democrat gets elected(which is more likely than people think).

 

[black angel]

They are smart enough to know when to try it. Hanoi has been fighting for decades-what is a few more years? The North Vietnamese are fanatical, but smart, unlike other fanatics in history. Nixon had a 49 state victory over George McGovern, the "peace" candidate. Unless Watergate or something equally impactful comes along, Nixon has a mandate and will use it. Why waste lives men if the "madman" might intervene-and he sets back everything when he does, because you then have to recover-when you can wait a few years when the madman isn't around anymore, and is helplessly shaking his fist in California? This is the case especially if Saigon's funding is still getting cut. If not, then you don't want to wait too long, because you don't want to run the risk of the South Vietnamese have the chance of becoming semi-stable, but that risk will take time to come true. The logic still holds. The best time period would be 1976-1977, especially if a Democrat gets elected(which is more likely than people think).

they were both the "peace" candidate Nixon played the peace card claiming (falsely) major break throughs on peace talks and that "Peace with honor" was 40 minutes away, Nixon couldn't have won running on "war till its over!"

 

[Realpolitik]

America, or at least large swathes of it, wanted "peace with honor", not "crawl on my knees to Hanoi to beg for peace", to quote McGovern. McGovern was offering worse terms than Hanoi was. The American people knew this.

And as far as the populace was concerned, all that remained was to get the POWs back. The boys were home and the protests had largely stopped. Now, Nixon does have Congress to worry about, and thus needs to get an agreement sometime soon to get things de jure done. But at that time, no one could have predicted Watergate and the drastic aid-slashing that came with it.

Kissinger claimed it. Nixon didn't. He was very angry with Kissinger when he said so. And in October 1972, to be fair, it did seem like peace was at hand. Again, the POWs needed to be gotten home. That was it, as far the direct American role in the war. Thieu was fudging though, which led to the Christmas bombing.

Which one was the peace candidate is beside the point, anyway. McGovern didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and Hanoi knew this. Without Watergate, North Vietnam-always an apt observer of American politics and internal dynamics-would be dealing with a different situation, as far as American internal affairs and foreign policy(with their allies as well as with the South Vietnamese) as well as the internal situation in South Vietnam were concerned.

 

[black angel]

America, or at least large swathes of it, wanted "peace with honor", not "crawl on my knees to Hanoi to beg for peace", to quote McGovern. McGovern was offering worse terms than Hanoi was. The American people knew this.

And as far as the populace was concerned, all that remained was to get the POWs back. The boys were home and the protests had largely stopped. Now, Nixon does have Congress to worry about, and thus needs to get an agreement sometime soon to get things de jure done. But at that time, no one could have predicted Watergate and the drastic aid-slashing that came with it.

Kissinger claimed it. Nixon didn't. He was very angry with Kissinger when he said so. And in October 1972, to be fair, it did seem like peace was at hand. Again, the POWs needed to be gotten home. That was it, as far the direct American role in the war. Thieu was fudging though, which led to the Christmas bombing.

Which one was the peace candidate is beside the point, anyway. McGovern didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and Hanoi knew this. Without Watergate, North Vietnam-always an apt observer of American politics and internal dynamics-would be dealing with a different situation, as far as American internal affairs and foreign policy(with their allies as well as with the South Vietnamese) as well as the internal situation in South Vietnam were concerned.

its the big lie, Nixon and Kissinger got just what Hanoi had been offering for YEARS the deal was no better, and a bit worse then what LBJ was offered in 1968

 

[Realpolitik]

its the big lie, Nixon and Kissinger got just what Hanoi had been offering for YEARS the deal was no better, and a bit worse then what LBJ was offered in 1968

You mean other than the fact that Thieu's government was not forced out of power (a central demand in 68) with a replacement (a coalition government including the VC) that was more acceptable to Hanoi taking over in Saigon, that US POWs were to be unconditionally and immediately released, that we avoided setting off a right wing backlash in the USA, that we were allowed to continue funding the South Vietnamese, and we basically gave the South Vietnamese a chance at survival that they wouldn't have had in 1968? A bit worse, indeed.

Granted, not that either side intended to obey the accords, no matter when they were signed.

 

[Realpolitik]

Also, I should mention something I forgot. The Viet Cong-the Southern Communists-were pretty much wiped out in the Tet Offensive and were basically puppets for the North from that point on. You'd be surprised to see the conflicts between the VC and the North Vietnamese, pre Tet. Sort of like the little known conflicts between the German and Austrian branches of the SS that I read about somewhere. It's even been suggested that Tet was also a convenient way of purging their ranks and asserting Northern control. Of course, it took us until the late 60s to exploit the Sino-Soviet split-and the State Department and national bureaucracy never figured that one out on their own-so obviously the USA completely missed this.

So the first condition getting changed is HIGHLY nontrivial. After Tet, that is pretty much tantamount to putting Northern proxies in the government. Which is part of why the North Vietnamese were so insistent on it until 1971-1972, when it became clear that a military victory wasn't possible at that time, and why Thieu kept rejecting VC "participation".

Ultimately, the two states didn't recognize the other as legitimate in the slightest, and didn't even make a pretense about it. That was the biggest reason the Paris Peace Talks took so long.