Wi america wins vietnam by 1970 alternate history discussion grade 9 electricity review

##########

Well assuming that the method of victory was a ‘genocidal bombing campaign’ I think Vietnam will still be pretty controversial even with a ‘victory’ at the end. Still, I could definitely see the US being somewhat more willing to get involved in larger scale foreign wars in the seventies and eighties, rather than being put off that idea for a generation until Gulf War I. Not sure where we might be tempted to intervene that we didn’t OTL.

Nixon will obviously be better thought of without ending his Presidency in disgrace, with more of a politically divided view of his legacy with liberals hating him and conservatives loving him, rather than the current pretty universal dislike. After he finishes out his second term I would guess Reagan gets the Republican nomination in 1976, since electricity diagram flow he was only prevented from doing so OTL by the fact that he was electricity office near me running against an incumbent President. I’d actually predict a Democratic victory in 1976 though, since Reagan’s brand of ‘morning in America’ revitalized conservatism doesn’t work quite as well when he’s running on the back of 8 years of incumbency, and even with a Vietnam victory and no Watergate I could see a lot of people having some Nixon fatigue by ’76. One interesting scenario is that Chappaquiddick gets butterflied away, leaving Ted Kennedy in a strong position to run and win in 1976.

Click to expand…But Laos and Cambodia are still allies and if it didn’t work against North Vietnam in ’73 I can’t see the bombing doing much better in ’69 after the American public has already turned against the war. Doing the bombings so early might make the public even angrier, not to mention carpet-bombing AMERICAN ALLIES. Seriously, that’s some crazy shit. And by his use of the word genocidal I took it as assuming the bombings would concentrate on population centers. If he didn’t mean that he shouldn’t have used that word. There’s a difference between hyperbole and simply using words wrong.

Besides, gigantic bombing campaigns had been going on for a while without success. If anything the bombings in ’73 were on a smaller scale than Operation Rolling Thunder which takes place before the POD. Rolling Thunder succeeded in killing tens of thousands of North Vietnamese civilians for the loss of almost a thousand American aircraft. Didn’t win the war, and electricity quiz ks2 wasn’t any reasonable individual’s example of a stellar military success.

But Laos and Cambodia are still allies and if it didn’t work against North Vietnam in ’73 I can’t see the bombing doing much better in ’69 after the American public has already turned against the war. Doing the bombings so early might make the public even angrier, not to mention carpet-bombing AMERICAN ALLIES. Seriously, that’s some crazy shit. And by his use of the word genocidal I took it as assuming the bombings would concentrate on population centers. If he didn’t mean that he shouldn’t have used that word. There’s a difference between hyperbole and simply using words wrong.

Besides, gigantic bombing campaigns had been going static electricity zapper on for a while without success. If anything the bombings in ’73 were on a smaller scale than Operation Rolling Thunder which takes place before the POD. Rolling Thunder succeeded in killing tens of thousands of North Vietnamese civilians for the loss of almost a thousand American aircraft. Didn’t win the war, and wasn’t any reasonable individual’s example of a stellar 76 gas station credit card login military success.

Click to expand…The Americans wanted an armistice to get their troops out of the country, the bombing didn’t miraculously halt the war. Also I see you haven’t addressed the point about Cambodia and Laos being US allies, or the fact that you clearly don’t know what the word genocidal means. Everyone says they know somebody who’s ethnicity/nationality means they must know everything about the issue but that’s not how real life works. Besides, WW2 style ruthless is indiscriminately bombing population centers on a scale larger than what was done to Vietnamese cities. Which means you are advocating leveling the cities wiping out the population of one country fighting the US but not officially at war, and the populations of two countries allied to the US and trying to help fight against the first country mentioned.

And upon further inquiry, Operation Linebacker II was not the sole or even greatest factor into the signing of the Paris Peace Accords, nor were said Accords very meaningful at all. As I mentioned, it was a short ceasefire the Americans wanted to pull all their troops out of country and both North and South Vietnam routinely ignored the conditions of the agreement, not that there were nearly enough conditions in the agreement to call it an actual peace settlement. Nor do I see how wiping out k gas constant Laos and Cambodia would mean much for that. I’m sure the North Vietnamese would be encouraged by the Americans going insane and wiping out the governments’ control of Laos and Cambodia.