What if the U.S. had backed Ho Chi Minh instead of South Vietnam? Not sure when such a decision would have been made, 1950s?
What if the U.S. had backed Ho Chi Minh instead of South Vietnam? Not sure when such a decision would have been made, 1950s?
the issue wasn't Ho or RVN, it was Ho vs French colonialism. In 1919 post WWI talks, Ho led a group trying to get US support to free VN from Fr colonialism, but Wilson declined to meet with them, choosing not to anger his FR hosts in Paris. And later, US had another opportunity as Ho-led forces worked with OSS teams against the Japanese invaders in WWII, but again, Truman chose FR (De Gaulle) over their native VN allies.
I suppose I could make a comment about frogs right now, but it'd definitely be politically incorrect.
I suppose I could make a comment about frogs right now, but it'd definitely be politically incorrect.
If that was an attempt to introduce frogs' porn, I'd say that could be a tad polarising ;-)
AJ
frogs
Why is it offensive to call French people frogs?·
It is meant to be offensive, being about the fact some French people eat frogs legs as a delicacy. It is the same as calling Germans krauts, after sauerkraut, I presume. I have heard the Dutch referred to as 'tulip munchers' in NZ.
As an immigrant from the UK, I'm called a 'Pom'. Some folks say it means Prisoner of Mother England, I used to say it means 'Perfection of Mankind'. In actual fact it means immigrant, as in Immigrant - Jimmy Grant - Pomegranite - Pom'.
people eat frogs legs as a delicacy
Interesting but useless piece of trivia. I once bought a tin of frogs legs to try and they came in a tin not unlike that of sardines. Upon peeling back the metal, I was greeted not by a collection of legs, but by an entire frog. Which was a bit of a shocker, I can tell you. Anyway, once the squeamishness was overcome and the contents eaten, I can honestly admit that Kermit tasted just like chicken. A bloody expensive chicken, granted.
I believe a more interesting story would be:
What if the USA honored it's Treaty obligations to the RVN (Republic of Vietnam aka South Vietnam)?
"It's not the crime, it's the Coverup!" POTUS Nixon disavows the criminals involved in the Watergate break-in, and they are fired from any government jobs. POTUS Nixon also Pardons them, so they are not compelled to reveal anything to avoid or minimize jail sentences. No threat of impeachment, and no resignation. POTUS Nixon would have faced a minor scandal, but he can't feasibly (politically) be impeached for use of a Presidential Power.
Historically POTUS Nixon (and Henry Kissinger) facilitated the negotiation of the Paris Peace Accords by backroom deals with the USSR and Communist China in 1972. The USSR was angry about POTUS Nixon sending military arms and logistics to Israel in 1973 resulting in the defeat of Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, and the embarrassment of the USSR.
Seeking a location to get revenge, they discarded options in the Western Hemisphere, Europe was too dangerous, South Korea too strong. They considered some options in Africa, but re-arming Vietnam seemed to be more feasible. Historically the USSR provided armaments and backing to the DPRV (North Vietnam) leading to the 1975 invasion of the RVN with the North using more Tanks and AFVs than Germany used to invade France in 1940!
Historically POTUS Ford was severely weakened, and the Democrat majority Congress was seeking to enhance their power, and further discredit Ford before the 1976 election. The US Congress refused to honor treaty commitments to the RVN, and cut off any US Airpower, Naval Power, and shipments of arms and ammunition. They diplomatically cut off the RVN, and left them to hang. This collapsed the morale of the ARVN, that had been putting up decent resistance. {IMHO elements of the Democrat party were hostile to the idea that Military Power was a viable means of attaining international goals; so, sought to discredit what had been achieved in the RVN from 1965 to 1970.
Alt-History: POTUS Nixon, even if weakened (a bit) by the scandal of pardoning the Watergate criminals in 1973, would not be facing reelection. Nixon would have been much stronger and had proven to be able to stand up to the USSR in foreign policy matters.
The USSR would not want to risk further embarrassment by provoking a conflict and then their client state losing again. US Airpower and Naval Power had been decisive in the 1972 attack against the RVN after all USA ground formations had been withdrawn. Provided with armaments, Air Support and Naval support, it is likely that the RVN could have survived an attack by North Vietnam. Thus, the USSR would not have provided the armaments to them.
For good or ill, the Nixon/Kissinger machinations with the USSR and Communist China exacerbated their mutual animosity (including "Border Incidents" and rivalries for influence in (North) Vietnam, North Korea, Mongolia, and elsewhere.
The 1979 Communist Chinese invasion of (North) Vietnam is likely to have occurred; perhaps earlier. The (North) Vietnamese would have still likely defeated the Communist Chinese "incursion" into their northern provinces. Historically this pushed the Communist Vietnamese to more closely become a client state of the USSR. Possibly, North Vietnam might have sought an "accommodation" with the USA (and perhaps the RVN too) in return for support against Communist China.
Historically in 1976 Ronald Reagan almost defeated POTUS Ford to be the nominee for POTUS at the convention. In this alternate history, VPOTUS Ford would have less prestige, and Nixon, even though not impeached, would still have been diminished by the "Pardon Scandal" So, POTUS RR might well have considered an accommodation with North Vietnam vs. Communist China.
It is typically for the USSR to challenge a new President of the USA, so I could see the USSR invading Afghanistan in 1979, as they did historically... Similarly, the USA would have provided clandestine support, and the USSR would have been humiliated as they were historically. This might further influence North Vietnam to seek an accommodation.
Historically Vietnam has been two or three kingdoms, with significant cultural differences; but unified in opposition to the Chinese. Neither the RVN (South Vietnam) nor DPRV (North Vietnam) would have been interested in a negotiated "unification" however, both could live with being part of an Anti-Chinese SATO with South Korea, Malasia, the Philippines, Australia, Indonesia, etc. {Japan could not have been a member, however the ROC Republic of China aka Taiwan might be a candidate).
It gets almost no notice in the USA, but another consequence of the resignation of POTUS Nixon, and the political weakness of POTUS Ford opposed by a rampant Democrat US Congress was the collapse of Ethiopia. One of the Allies of the USA in WWII and the 1950-53 Korean Conflict.
POTUS Carter pontificated about the "evils of the USA and US Allies in Iran, South Korea, ROC/Taiwan, Panama, etc. Meanwhile the "Red Terror" in Ethiopia March 1975 to 1978 resulted in the political murders of at least a half a Million people in Ethiopia by Communists, and establishment of a presence of the USSR in the region.
In the scenario I described above, the USA with POTUS Nixon (and then either POTUS Ford or Reagan) might well have come to the aid of Haile Selassie when he requested military support from the Western Powers.
IMHO POTUS Carter sowed the seeds of Chaos in Iran, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Panama (nearly toppled South Korea) and elsewhere.
POTUS Carter pontificated about the "evils of the USA and US Allies in Iran, South Korea, ROC/Taiwan, Panama, etc. Meanwhile the "Red Terror" in Ethiopia March 1975 to 1978 resulted in the political murders of at least a half a Million people in Ethiopia by Communists, and establishment of a presence of the USSR in the region.
As much as I like Jimmy Carter as a person, I think he was one of the worst Presidents we ever had. And his blunders were many.
My mom worked with a gentleman from Rhodesia, and he came to the US for school in the early 1970s, then stayed after getting a job as a programmer for a major construction company. And a few years later he saw his country torn apart by civil was and applied for and got refugee status and remained. And even a decade later he was still bitter that his country was overrun by two Communist armies and the world ignored it.
And ultimately, the biggest blunder was striking the "Two China Policy", and ending official ties with Taiwan. I keep hoping that someday a US president has the cojones to fix that injustice and officially recognize Taiwan as an independent and sovereign nation.
I even remember my Social Studies teacher in 1976. He had just returned to the US the year before after almost 6 years with his wife and kids in Ethiopia. One of thousands of US Aid workers living there, trying to improve the nation. And it was obvious how much what had happened bothered him and he would often show us movies and photos he had taken when they lived there.
Then of course there was his decision to try and starve the Soviet Union after they invaded Afghanistan, and refusing to send our athletes there in 1980.
President Carter is one I am honestly split over. I do see him as a good and honest man, but who made some really stupid decisions we are still having to live with to this day.
I keep hoping that someday a US president has the cojones to fix that injustice and officially recognize Taiwan as an independent and sovereign nation.
There's a problem with this.
Their official name is not Taiwan (that's just the name of the island, the official name of the nation is the Republic of China (as opposed to the People's Republic of China).
The RC does not seek independence from mainland China. What they seek is a unified China under their rule rather than the rule of the PRC(communist China).
the official name of the nation is the Republic of China
I just saw a news story that they are concerned about excess drinking, too. And for some reason, the government has decided the program for alcoholism the Appalachian Health Network has is the perfect treatment. So, now their citizen that drink can go to Taiwan AHN ...
Rimshot!
The RC does not seek independence from mainland China. What they seek is a unified China under their rule rather than the rule of the PRC(communist China).
The actually abandoned that decades ago. However, when that was still their official policy under the KMT, the PRC also made a similar policy that it still holds. That they want peaceful unification, but will use force if they decide they need to.
So unless they have some strong allies if they officially declare independence, they know the PRC will quickly invade them. And Taiwan is pulling away even more in the last few decades, as they have seen what little the promises of autonomy in Hong Kong meant once the PRC got their hands on it.
And yes, I am aware of the "Official Name", as well as the other ones they are often referred as. Republic of China, Taiwan, Taipei, Formosa, even Takasago. But I often use Taiwan as that is the name it is most well known as (and helps avoid confusion by those that do not understand the difference between PRC and ROC).
What if the U.S. had backed Ho Chi Minh instead of South Vietnam? Not sure when such a decision would have been made, 1950s?
That was at the 1954 Geneva Conference, when France backed out and left their former colony.
Cambodia and Laos were a UN protectorate, and Vietnam was split into North Vietnam with the Soviet Union to assist in their transition to a nation, and South Vietnam being assisted by the United States.
Just as Korea was split a decade earlier. It was largely partitioned the same way, with the Communists not willing to just sit back and accept it. As for Uncle Ho, he would have remained in the Soviet zone regardless.
The US had largely been his ally during WWII, but turning their back on him and giving assistance to the French in trying to regain their colony forever soured him on the US.