| November 11 |  |
Editor says, what if there was a national debate on Vietnam long before the Gulf of Tonkin? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s).
| Share this Article on: |  Facebook |  Twitter |
In 1960, with the electoral recount process underway in the disputed States of Texas and Illinois, Lieutenant Colonel Vuong Van Dong and Colonel Nguyen Chanh Thi of the Airborne Division of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam effected a more dramatic change of government by assassinating President Ngo Dinh Diem.
Change of GovernmentAfter the plotters had trapped the ruling Ngo Family inside the Independence Palace, Diem tried to stall the coup by holding negotiations and promising reforms, such as the inclusion of military officers in the administration. Opposition politicians then joined the fray, exploiting his position, but Diem was simply playing for time, unaware that the 5th and 7th Divisions of the ARVN were unable to lift the siege because the plotters had closed the roads leading into the capital Saigon1.
Whilst this drama played out, lame duck President Eisenhower and his two successor candidates Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy were also in limbo. Both candidates decided to seize the initiative by putting forthrightly their views on both the situation in Indochina, and also the case for US intervention to save the region falling like a domino to Communism.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Dummies Guide to Vietnam (2003)Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Politicians Source: Wikipedia Labels: Ngo Dinh Diem, Vietnam, Kennedy, Nixon, Eisenhower. Editor says, 1) this was the critical flaw in the coup that we have reversed.
~ At last! Someone's done the arithmetic and noticed that, for all the whining by Nixon supporters over the years about the 1960 election having been "stolen" in Chicago, Kennedy would have had enough electoral votes without Illinois to put him over the top. Throw in Texas as well, of course, and it's a whole different ballgame.
In fact, Nixon's people challenged the vote in a number of states, but except in the case of Illinois it was done discreetly. Perhaps they prefeerred to minimize the risk that their own victories in other states (California comes to mind) might be challenged by the Democrats.
In this scenario, I expect there'd have been even more backbiting and scheming over the election than there actually was. However, if JFK emerged victorious, at least his enemies couldn't blame him for Diem's assassination, not that some wouldn't try.
Comment from Arlena Arteaga Kelly on Facebook: Like the debate Truman should of had with his Vietnam advisors but didn't?
~ Anything at all that spared us Camelot is OK with me.
~ I can't see either JFK or Nixon doing what Mr. Speer suggested.
~ Probably a decade too late to break the DRVN off from the Soviets (which would be an unavoidable condition). Backing the Viet Cong may have been the most viable alternative to the clowns already running things in Saigon.
~ The problem here is that South Vietnam rivals the balkans in its corruption and instabability. Regardless of who wins, it is still a mess. To make matters worse, our army was not in any real condition at the head level and structure to fight and win a war. As for what might happen with the coup effecting things here, your guess is as good as mine. Since we were really not committed to the place at this time, I dought it will effect politics here that much.
~ 1. Nixon actually won the popular vote - AP misreported the quite confused situation in Alabama.
2. Yes the reversal needs Tx and IL both - always did and both were stolen. MO and DE were also debatable but like the Gore NM steal in 2000 do not change the final result. Have not read CA was disputed. Source or cite please.
© Today in Alternate History, 2013-. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
