AHC/Plausibility Check: JFK cuts a deal with Ho Chi Minh

Sorry about the wall of text. Didn’t think it would take up this much room!


This is something I’ve wanted to start a discussion on for a long time. A very popular topic on here that comes up regularly is whether Vietnam was avoidable if Kennedy had lived. Mixed in with that discussion are usually the surrounding questions of whether Vietnam was ‘winnable’, the definition of a win, the long-term stability of South Vietnam, and whether any administration had the foresight to see what a headache Vietnam could become. It’s interesting precisely because no-one really knows, and it seems exciting to play around with this what-if because a more upbeat resolution to the ‘Vietnam Question’ seems genuinely possible given JFK’s pragmatic nature (not to mention HCM being a nationalist first, communist second).

Consensus seems to be that Kennedy was a cold warrior and a man constrained by his times. A provocation like the GoTI, given the hawks in Congress and within his own party, would be difficult to ignore. In other words, once Vietnam starts appearing on the nightly TV news in 64-65, the conflict has escalated from a backwater brush war no-one cares about, to a much higher stakes game where a lot of US pride is at stake.

On the other hand, we know as early as 1961 Kennedy was perceptive enough to concede Laos was a lost cause. He seems like he was a pretty astute guy. Is it realistic that he could come to a similar, but slightly different, conclusion regarding Vietnam?
 
Last edited:
My idea is this: handwave Dallas and have Kennedy live. In early ‘64, Kennedy realises that 80% of all Vietnamese desire unification on socialist terms, and war in Vietnam is likely to be costly and ultimately unsuccessful unless he goes the whole nine yards (conscription, 500,000 men on active deployment, DoW and invasion of North Vietnam, carpet bombings, etc). He doesn’t want this kind of horrifically damaging ‘victory’, but he doesn’t want the ignominy of losing Vietnam either, it being a key strategic location in the Cold War.

Luckily for him, the North do not yet know of his uncertain resolve. This means he still possesses considerable leverage in the threat of war and conversely, in a settlement that seeks to avoid it i.e. “we might not be able to win, but we can sure as hell make you bleed for it...”

Since the North isn’t insane or stupid, they presumably would be amenable to a favourable modus vivendi that avoids a major conflict resulting in the deaths of millions of its people. Let’s say that JFK authorises high-level, unofficial dialogue with the North and outlines a manifesto along the lines I have indicated below. Acceptance by the North will result in the US carefully indicating in public to the South that a conference on unification needs to take place (in other words, the US is withdrawing its backing). The terms I was thinking of are as such:

• Purge the Communist party of hardliner socialists and promote pragmatist like HCM
• Rebrand the party something less confronting/unpalatable and more inclusive that can be sold to the American people (‘Social Democrats, the National Party, etc)
• Commit to a mixed economy, with some industries being nationalised and centrally planned, but in other sectors free markets and private capital are largely left alone, with the exception of reasonable pro-consumer & pro-employee regulations.
• Give a few tokenistic cabinet positions to South Vietnamese government officials (the ones who are unlikely to rock the boat)
• Promise an elected legislature that is at least partly democratic, in that different parties and different voices can be heard even if they are systematically impeded from taking office as in most other SE Asian democracies at the time.
• A constitution that promises freedom of speech, and which is generally upheld without too much authoritarian censorship.
• Allow key players in the junta to quietly slip away into exile abroad, with a bit of hand-wringing later on by the Vietnamese asking for extradition to face charges (I’m assuming America doesn’t want erstwhile allies in the dock of a kangaroo court, since it will be a bad look for their reliability to other allies)
• Expel all Soviet and Chinese military advisors and end any basing rights enjoyed by those countries.
• US foreign aid to be linked to Vietnam’s degree of compliance with these points. Generous aid and private-public investments to rebuild infrastructure and spur investment if compliance is satisfactory.

This seems like the best solution, in that both sides get to present a victory of sorts to their people, and chalk up a few runs. Everyone wins (except the South, of course) and war is de-escalated before it can spiral out of control. The saddest irony of the Vietnam War is only 10 years after communist takeover the country initiated free market reforms when the inefficacy of central planning became apparent. And with China on the rise, Vietnam is cozying up to America more and more. The US could have got a friendly social democracy in Vietnam without firing a single shot.

With any luck, by the mid 1980s the US will have in Vietnam a lukewarm friend with a part paternalistic/part democratic progressive tradition and which is rapidly liberalising and growing, in line with nations like South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines and Singapore. Basically, we get Vietnam in 2015 looking more comparable to South Korea rather than Cambodia.

Is it within his imagination to do something like this? How would Bobby and the rest of the cabinet/JCS react? Would the Northern Vietnamese play ball? What about Congress? The public at large? How would America in 1964 take this kind of agreement: will it be looked upon as inspired and effective statesmanship like Nixon’s visit to China, or an appeasement that sells allies and principles alike down the river for a cheap short-cut?
 
Last edited:
(not to mention HCM being a nationalist first, communist second).

Uhhh. Let's put it this way: Ho survived the 1930s. There's pretty much one way you did that, and it is by being solidly bound to the security apparatus of the Soviet Party. Were Togliatti or Nagy nationalists first? I'd argue yes, but from a left critique, not from the plain and simple meaning of "nationalist."

A provocation like the GoTI, given the hawks in Congress and within his own party, would be difficult to ignore.

There were multiple prior provocations in real life, which actually happened. But the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was the one chosen. The flimsiness and transparency of US policy in this era is considerable.

On the other hand, we know as early as 1961 Kennedy was perceptive enough to concede Laos was a lost cause. He seems like he was a pretty astute guy. Is it realistic that he could come to a similar, but slightly different, conclusion regarding Vietnam?

Kennedy was also amateurish, he surrounded himself with buffoons, he locked LBJ out of his circle, and he was given to war-mongering adventures. Perceptive and astute are some of his real qualities. So are boyishness, dilettantism and an inability to control large bureaucratic structures through their secretaries.

What's the deal with Ho though? Because the Vietnamese Worker's Party did operate as a cabinet government, not as a dictatorial government, and a deal not involving reunification under VWP control will be rejected, probably by saying that the NFL is an independent political movement etc. In the end it doesn't matter whether Ho is more conventionally nationalist than he is a Soviet nomenklatura: the VWP are nomenklatura and they're quite happy to put a nationalist and electoralist fig leaf over a negotiation to reunify.

The third dimension here is, as always, the real revolution in the South. Land redistribution under primitive socialist communes was producing a developing class consciousness amongst rural workers. The capacity for this group to voice its opinions was burnt on a bonfire in 1968 with the destruction of much of the People's Liberation Armed Forces (the "Vietcong" mainline, provincial and local forces).

* * *

In 1964 Kennedy sees that the RVN is failing. He briefly considers executing its president, but the idea of killing foreign heads of state—one of the few widely acknowledged crimes in international law—is deeply distasteful to him, probably because Robert was pissing him off last night. Kennedy has a brainwave and tries to set up some shuttle diplomacy.

The Democratic Republic of Vietnam are happy to talk, and talk, and talk. The first year relates to the presence of negotiators, specifically the RVN and NFL themselves. Then the RVN negotiators apply similar tactics. In 1966 progress is made, particularly under the threat that the limited US advisors will be withdrawn. Kennedy calls Diem's bluff and starts removing helicopter pilots. This returns the RVN to the table.

Kennedy expanded the advisor system in 1964, increasing the number of "special" forces engaged in Vietnam. The majority of advisors are helicopter pilots and crew or APC advisors and crew. The "special" forces are seen as a low cost COIN solution, as they involve the volunteer sections of the US armed forces. The job is seen as highly desirable amongst this new light infantry as a chance to get their war on. Many of them become entrapped by ARVN methods of operation, and in particular RVN / CIA civil programmes of questionable worth. Kennedy is fully briefed on these.

The problem is, however, that in 1966 the NFL declared a provisional government, based on its expanding power and control of regional capitals. This is the same year Diem tries the same ultimatum threat on Kennedy to demand further forces. While there is a strong push from below in the US government and military industrial complex to expand the war, particularly in light of numerous provocations in the Gulf of Tonkin by DRVN water craft (some only radar reported), Kennedy decides to back down (cf: Cuba).

It doesn't matter, because the PLAF is defeating the ARVN in the field in 1967 consistently, and the Provisional Revolutionary Government controlled by the National Liberation Front (itself a coalition) enters into a coalition government with the newly formed for the purpose *Buddhist Reform Party in late 1967.

Kennedy uses this as a direct threat to Thailand and the Philippines that bad puppets who do not tow the line will not be defended at excess cost. Both Thai and the Philippine elites start tending to the garden both of limited land reform to placate rather than satisfy, but more importantly to the repressive capacity of their armies. Plenty of US trained special forces soldiers get large and happy consultancies where they can replay the terrors of the ARVN's domestic policing policy out again, with the same CIA as before.

Meanwhile, since 1959 in some areas Vietnamese rural workers have been organising for a great revolution of national self-determination (freedom from Catholic landlord), of land distribution (freedom from landlords), and in most areas of socialisation (abolition of the possibility of landlords through voluntary or involuntary collectivisation). While the VWP controlled the military through the NFL, they didn't control the vibe or the narrative in the same way. There is a central block of resistance to policy in the villages, but this block is disorganised. Demobbed PLAF men want to marry and settle, but stresses and strains, including the changing politics of the NFL are confusing.

In 1968 the election to reunify is a 99% type election. The real result would have been in the high 80s to 90s anyway. There is a wave of Catholic flight from Vietnam, but it is small from our perspective.

The wave of Chinese flight is, from ATL Vietnamese perspective, huge. From OTL perspective it isn't as great. The "war economy" expanded these resentments greatly.

The VWP never manages to control the relatively independence of the revolutionary southern villages. The chief line of the VWP moves over into industrial development, and the new urban proletariat is never as noisesome as the older rural working class in the South.

* * *

Kennedy is mostly remembered from a military / political perspective for his brutal role in the Indonesian Civil War.

yours,
Sam R.
 
Why didn't the U.S. intelligence agencies/State dept. ever try to neutralize communism by creating their own "Americanized" equivalent? Basically promulgate a version that has Marx at the surface but actually suggests policies that are not inimical to American economic interests. Approach revolutionary movements, secretly give them those ideas, and then warm up to them after they take control of the country.

Even beyond this idea, who cares what government runs Vietnam (or Havana for that matter), so long as the looked to Washington, and not Moscow? I don't get why the U.S. didn't attempt to court communist states. Better a Yugoslavia than a Red China.
 
Why didn't the U.S. intelligence agencies/State dept. ever try to neutralize communism by creating their own "Americanized" equivalent?

To a certain extent they did. Frankfurt School adherents in the US got funding. The CIA comissioned Marcuse' _Soviet Marxism_. Nice young people interviewed Hungarian Refugees and the data was analysed by the CIA, etc. What the US state wouldn't do though were two things:

  • Mix their politics with the Soviet-style societies
  • Actual communism

Even the friendliest the US were towards a Soviet-style society, in the form of Tito's Yugoslavia, the US never promulgated Titoism. I think this is because, on the whole and especially after 1953, everyone knew that Soviet-style parties had a revolutionary interest in seizing power for further soviet-style parties, and that these parties had each other's backs. Even Tito didn't align to the US as such, and there was great rapprochement after Stalin died.

Basically promulgate a version that has Marx at the surface but actually suggests policies that are not inimical to American economic interests.

Like the legal West German SPD? Or the Italian PSI? Even in democracies where "social democratic" parties were fundamentally aligned to capitalism, the US preferred right parties. For a number of reasons:

  • Actual communism is inimical to American economic interests.
  • Soviet-style nomenklatura capitalism is inimical to American economic interests.
  • Social democracy in Western aligned capitalism is inimical to American economic interests.

All three were viewed by the US policy elite as capable of spreading.

Approach revolutionary movements, secretly give them those ideas, and then warm up to them after they take control of the country.

While I agree that the US elite theorised social change at the time in terms of ideas creating reality, I'm not sure that the reality that the ideas of a neutered communism would appeal to others, or if they did that they'd stay neutered.

Even beyond this idea, who cares what government runs Vietnam (or Havana for that matter), so long as the looked to Washington, and not Moscow? I don't get why the U.S. didn't attempt to court communist states. Better a Yugoslavia than a Red China.

But you can't sell Ford to relatively powerless individual consumers when a nomenklatura runs Hanoi, the nomenklatura act as a collective purchaser and might buy Citroen.

yours,
Sam R.
 
@ Stategos' Risk

The US has moments of realpolitik, but there's always this strain of exasperation (and befuddlement) with any foreign govt that doesn't immediately snap to attention whenever the US or its various interests want something.

Trying to explain US foreign policy from 1945-1992 looks like a funhouse mirror b/c supposedly, the US wanted democracy an end to colonialism, etc but has too many economic interests in the status quo to really bear the cost of being "realistic" accepting socialist countries and movements.

You had isolated cases- Yugoslavia and Tanzania, where the US was just fine with socialist countries- because Josip Broz Tito and Julius Nyerere were trying to tend their garden at home, not liberate or convert their neighbors.
Both flirted with it, but when confronted with Soviet power, Tito backed down and British power in Nyerere's case, he quit mucking about in Kenya.

Oddly enough, why the US and India never got on under that rubric is a bit puzzling to me, but onward.

To butterfly the US seeing every socialist movement as a tentacle of the Soviet state, you need home grown socialists to be examples of good, patriotic Americans that had little truck with the Comintern or bucked the Soviet line in it at home and abroad so America and Americans had some skin in the game and knew folks personally instead of bleating "Socialism bad!".

After the Palmer Raids, the American socialist movement fragmented into anarchists under the IWW, Norman Thomas' moderate Socialists whose thunder was stolen by progressive democrats, and pro-Soviet Communists.
There was no good place for American socialists to stand and be socialists w/o being lumped in with bomb-throwers and revolutionaries.

It also took several years for news of the horrors of the Holodomor, purges, and gulag system to percolate out. Everyone became bitterly cynical about such stories due to so much yellow press about the horrors of the Germans during WWI that atrocities in the USSR and Nazi Germany weren't given the focus they deserved in hindsight.
 

Realpolitik

Banned
Lost in the discussion is the North Vietnamese POV: something to remember is that Ho Chi Minh was losing more and more power as the 60s went. In 1964, Ho's health took a turn for the worse and Le Duan, a hardliner who prioritized the struggle in South above everything, got more and more power. This is part of what led to the escalation of the conflict. Ho didn't want that, but by '65, it didn't matter. No Dallas does not butterfly this.

I don't see Le Duan and JFK reaching a deal that would be acceptable to both. Don't forget, Diem just took a bullet, and the North was very aware of how stupid that move was, unlike the Kennedy administration sans Lyndon Johnson.

EDIT:

In other words, they know that they now have the whip hand as South Vietnam goes through its umpteen governments...
 
Last edited:
Top