AHC - America on the "opposite side" of a Vietnam War

[Admiral Matt]

So I have been blowing through the Ken Burns series on the war to help deepen my grasp on Cold War history. I'm in the process of finishing up teaching the period (high school level, English (as in England) system to a small class.

I may have a novel idea.

The oddity of the US being implacably hostile against a popular anti-colonial independence movement is something that stood out back when I was in high school, and obviously it comes up in reading and learning more about the conflict. But the 4th episode "Doubt" was weird watching in early 2023 in particular, because it was easy to imagine Americans in different circumstances idealizing the sacrifice and determination of North Vietnam and the Viet Cong.

To a weird degree that happened even in OTL while they were the enemy and the US was seeing everything through the fogged lens of International Communist Conspiracy. But in a world without a Cold War? Or perhaps a world without a Soviet Union? In some timeline where the French or Chinese were dedicated still to deciding how Vietnam would be governed? Could a different US - or other post-US America - be the patron of a popular mass movement slash guerrilla war struggling for decades against outside powers?

So the alternate history challenge is this: Find a plausible path to a similar war being fought in Vietnam to OTL , but with America filling the role played in OTL by the USSR and PRC in supporting a cause they see as the plucky underdogs and identify with (and presumably whose excesses they prefer to excuse). The POD(s) must be no earlier than 1900, and the conflict should take place in the late 1950s, 1960s, and/or early 1970s.

Actual Marxist Communism need not necessarily be involved, but it's hard to imagine ideological conflict of the Powers not playing a role.

Thoughts?

 

[Sam R.]

 

[Gunnarnz]

Like @Sam R. says, Afghanistan seems to fit the bill. Understandably it has taken on a somewhat different complexion in the 21st century, but in the 1980s the Mujahideen were noble, suitably devout freedom fighters, struggling heroically against the evil empire, and thoroughly deserving all the support the US shunted in their direction.

 

[PhilKearny]

I've been wondering if it'd have been possible to have the US openly support for the Irish independence movement prior to WW I.

Perhaps if the UK's rule over Ireland had been more violent and oppressive in the pre-war era, US sympathy for Ireland would become great enough to overcome the WASP and Wall Street Anglophilia of our timeline. Other things that might make the US less Anglophilic than IOTL could be the UK becoming more aggressive in the Western hemisphere and/or perhaps a border dispute or some other dispute(s) with Canada.

ETA: US support for China against Japan prior to US involvement in WW ii also seems to fit the bill.

 

[Gillan1220]

The U.S. and allies supported the Viet Minh against Japan in 1944-45. After FDR died, the next U.S. foreign policy was containing the spread of communism. Had FDR survived longer, the Vietnam War would have been averted all throughout.

 

[Canuck Wingnut]

Indonesia pops into my head as an example of a country where the US supported an independence movement against a colonizer, albeit the OTL American support was diplomatic rather than military. If the Netherlands had chosen to be more stubborn and try to continue to hold the archipelago for a longer period, however, I could see the CIA (I do presume that the revolution would have to last long enough for the CIA to exist- this kind of support seems more of an intelligence than a military function, to me) arming their preferred faction of the Indonesian rebels, if only to keep the communists from securing control over the movement.

(and presumably whose excesses they prefer to excuse)

Certainly the later OTL history of CIA involvement in Indonesia saw plenty of excuses for the behavior of "our team". I imagine a longer, more violent independence process would be unlikely to make things better, though I shudder to imagine worse...

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

The U.S. and allies supported the Viet Minh against Japan in 1944-45.

*1945

The OSS only made contact with the Viet Minh after the Japanese coup'd the Vichy civil government (which had been packed to the gills with Free French eagerly passing notes to the OSS regarding Japanese troop and ship movements) in March 1945. They were a late substitute for the French.

After FDR died, the next U.S. foreign policy was containing the spread of communism.

Hard to say how FDR would handle the iron curtain and fall of the ROC.

Had FDR survived longer, the Vietnam War would have been averted all throughout.

Hard to say how FDR would react to the VWP purging or marginalizing the non-communist elements of the Viet Minh.

 

[Admiral Matt]

Oof. I really thought the title would be clear. Clearly a mistake not to beat a dead horse.

Let's try that again!

The title is: America on the "opposite side" of a Vietnam War

The challenge is: Find a plausible path to a similar war being fought in Vietnam to OTL, but with America filling the role... The POD(s) must be no earlier than 1900, and the conflict should take place in the late 1950s, 1960s, and/or early 1970s.

Not a war with the Americans backing underdogs somewhere at some point. Posters above are right that such things happened IOTL.

No, the AHC is a war backing Vietnamese underdogs in a radical anti-imperialist popular movement comparable to the Viet Minh and Viet Cong.

 

[marathag]

The U.S. and allies supported the Viet Minh against Japan in 1944-45. After FDR died, the next U.S. foreign policy was containing the spread of communism. Had FDR survived longer, the Vietnam War would have been averted all throughout.

FDR liked de Gaulle far less than Truman ever did, but for the same reason, would back the postwar integrity of France, as a friendly France was far more important than an independent Vietnam, once relations with Uncle Joe soured, as they would, no matter if FDR lived longer

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Oof. I really thought the title would be clear. Clearly a mistake not to beat a dead horse.

Let's try that again!

The title is: America on the "opposite side" of a Vietnam War

The challenge is: Find a plausible path to a similar war being fought in Vietnam to OTL, but with America filling the role... The POD(s) must be no earlier than 1900, and the conflict should take place in the late 1950s, 1960s, and/or early 1970s.

Not a war with the Americans backing underdogs somewhere at some point. Posters above are right that such things happened IOTL.

No, the AHC is a war backing Vietnamese underdogs in a radical anti-imperialist popular movement comparable to the Viet Minh and Viet Cong.

They did back Diem against French interests after France left. A more astute US might conclude that the French colonial project is a lost cause and funnel their support to non-communist nationalists far sooner.

 

[athgtq16129]

The US supported Angolan independence from Portugal, although it supported the anti-Communist, pro-Western faction, the UNITA, instead of the pro-Soviet faction, the MPLA.

Also I recall reading somewhere that in 1962, JFK (or someone else) directly told Salazar to give independence to Portugal's African colonies, which Salazar obviously said no, so the US thought of funding a coup in Portugal with the goal of giving independence to its colonies, 12 years before the actual coup took place, Sazalar somehow became aware of this plan, and either arrested or exiled the people behind the coup.

If this text is not a fever dream but real, then Salazar probably did not kill the alleged coup masterminds out of fear of them having CIA ties.

 

[Admiral Matt]

View attachment 812861

Like @Sam R. says, Afghanistan seems to fit the bill. Understandably it has taken on a somewhat different complexion in the 21st century, but in the 1980s the Mujahideen were noble, suitably devout freedom fighters, struggling heroically against the evil empire, and thoroughly deserving all the support the US shunted in their direction.

Yeah, and that's a good test case for explaining what I have in mind.

The Mujaheddin were not in Vietnam and were in the wrong decade, obviously, but the differences are more than that. They were resisting an invasion/coup after a long history of independence; the Vietnamese communists were continuing an anti-colonial struggle after a century captured by empire. They were disparate and heterodox; the Vietnamese had a comparatively centralized movement. They were bands of armed conservatives if not reactionaries; the Vietnamese were big on education, initially idealized the American and other revolutions, and had tens of thousands of teenage girls volunteering to carry disassembled artillery over roadless mountain ranges or fighting as guerillas.

That and the Soviet war was brief compared with Indochina's epic 1945-1975 (or 1979?) contests.

 

[Admiral Matt]

I've been wondering if it'd have been possible to have the US openly support for the Irish independence movement prior to WW I.

Perhaps if the UK's rule over Ireland had been more violent and oppressive in the pre-war era, US sympathy for Ireland would become great enough to overcome the WASP and Wall Street Anglophilia of our timeline. Other things that might make the US less Anglophilic than IOTL could be the UK becoming more aggressive in the Western hemisphere and/or perhaps a border dispute or some other dispute(s) with Canada.

ETA: US support for China against Japan prior to US involvement in WW ii also seems to fit the bill.

Ireland would be a TL I might read, but a bit off topic. I did have the US support for China firmly in mind. It'd be an extension of that sort of policy, but in Vietnam.

...Unless the POD is earlier, in which case a Sino-Japanese war in the '30s is not inevitable as of 1900.

Indonesia pops into my head as an example of a country where the US supported an independence movement against a colonizer, albeit the OTL American support was diplomatic rather than military. If the Netherlands had chosen to be more stubborn and try to continue to hold the archipelago for a longer period, however, I could see the CIA (I do presume that the revolution would have to last long enough for the CIA to exist- this kind of support seems more of an intelligence than a military function, to me) arming their preferred faction of the Indonesian rebels, if only to keep the communists from securing control over the movement.



Certainly the later OTL history of CIA involvement in Indonesia saw plenty of excuses for the behavior of "our team". I imagine a longer, more violent independence process would be unlikely to make things better, though I shudder to imagine worse...

An interesting question in its own right. Personally I doubt the US would bother unless the Dutch had very strong patronage. Without (for example) a dominant German-Italian-Austro-Hungarian bloc as a US adversary, it would be easier for the US to coerce the Netherlands to abandon a major conflict.

 

[lerk]

America being a communist country is an easy one to where it's a bit cheating to raise this scenario.

 

[PhilKearny]

Oof. I really thought the title would be clear. Clearly a mistake not to beat a dead horse.

Let's try that again!

The title is: America on the "opposite side" of a Vietnam War

The challenge is: Find a plausible path to a similar war being fought in Vietnam to OTL, but with America filling the role... The POD(s) must be no earlier than 1900, and the conflict should take place in the late 1950s, 1960s, and/or early 1970s.

Not a war with the Americans backing underdogs somewhere at some point. Posters above are right that such things happened IOTL.

No, the AHC is a war backing Vietnamese underdogs in a radical anti-imperialist popular movement comparable to the Viet Minh and Viet Cong.

Some ideas.

1. Ho Chi Minh spends more time in the US and develops a love for it. He becomes a fan of, I dunno, Frederick Douglas rather Marcus Garvey. Woodrow Wilson receives Ho Chi Minh in 1919 when Ho Chi Minh writes Wilson seeking a seat Versailles for VietNam. Wilson's act leads to Ho Chi Minh developing stronger contacts in the US and further strengthens his affection for the US. During WW II Viet Minh actively fight the Japanese with weapons the US supplies. Ho Chi Minh negotiates this.

2. Franco-American worsen greatly for reasons such as:
a) France and the US have conflicts in the Caribbean.
b) France supports French-speaking freedom fighters in Quebec, who then cross the border into the US and then do something dumb, such as commit atrocities in Maine such a murderous rampage in Coburn Gore or interfere with togue fishing on Penobscot Lake.

 

[Admiral Matt]

The U.S. and allies supported the Viet Minh against Japan in 1944-45. After FDR died, the next U.S. foreign policy was containing the spread of communism. Had FDR survived longer, the Vietnam War would have been averted all throughout.

Yeah. Truman made the mess as much as anyone, and more than the big three of VW presidents, IMHO.

I read a long time back FDR asked Chiang if he'd like Vietnam, and Chiang was having none of that. Whether or not that's apocryphal, the Chinese are an obvious candidate if the Vietnamese are spending decades seeking independence in this scenario.

*1945

The OSS only made contact with the Viet Minh after the Japanese coup'd the Vichy civil government (which had been packed to the gills with Free French eagerly passing notes to the OSS regarding Japanese troop and ship movements) in March 1945. They were a late substitute for the French.


Hard to say how FDR would handle the iron curtain and fall of the ROC.


Hard to say how FDR would react to the VWP purging or marginalizing the non-communist elements of the Viet Minh.

I suspect the late 1940s would diverge even down to Viet Minh actions, if the scenario is as divergent as the French not returning because the US is opposed to the matter.

 

[marathag]

Yeah, and that's a good test case for explaining what I have in mind.

The Mujaheddin were not in Vietnam and were in the wrong decade, obviously, but the differences are more than that. They were resisting an invasion/coup after a long history of independence; the Vietnamese communists were continuing an anti-colonial struggle after a century captured by empire. They were disparate and heterodox; the Vietnamese had a comparatively centralized movement. They were bands of armed conservatives if not reactionaries; the Vietnamese were big on education, initially idealized the American and other revolutions, and had tens of thousands of teenage girls volunteering to carry disassembled artillery over roadless mountain ranges or fighting as guerillas.

But there had been a difference in that even when not under Chinese domination, North and South Vietnam were not unified for long before the French 'helped' them in the 19th Century to a full takeover.
Vietnam really had only been 'unified' in the way that Wales and England had been unified in the way that Edward had done it. By Force. Think of the Hmong and Cham like they were Scots, for my English comparison above

When not occupied by the Chinese,there was a split between the two nations near Annam, between Tonkin and Hue, with the Nguyen and Trihn Clans separated by that mountain pass, not far from the DMZ was later drawn

This is why the French had the southernmost area as Cochinchina, that was not under full Viet control till after 1830, Annam in the Center and Tonkin in the North.

The people in the South had very little in common with those in the North

 

[Admiral Matt]

FDR liked de Gaulle far less than Truman ever did, but for the same reason, would back the postwar integrity of France, as a friendly France was far more important than an independent Vietnam, once relations with Uncle Joe soured, as they would, no matter if FDR lived longer

I have seen popular and academic historians - plus real authorities like AH dot com posters - assert the opposite in explicit terms.

Do you know he planned on backing French imperial aspirations? As in are there sources we can look up? Or is it more you "know" he could not have continued that line of thought because historical forces?

I should see if I can dig up what I read. Only remember Tuchman by name.

I will note that the manner and extent of relations souring had a lot to do with Truman stepping up at the stage he did.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

isnt this just the soviet-afghan war in otl?

 

[the Imperium of Canada]

Perhaps if we go for a Euro-American Split Cold War scenario ala the Red Order mod for HOI4?