If the Democrats win the US Presidency in 1968, just how much sooner does South Vietnam fall?

[Futurist]

If the Democrats win the US Presidency in 1968 (with either Hubert Humphrey, Robert Kennedy if he survives the assassination attempt on his life, or someone else entirely), just how much sooner does South Vietnam fall? I am asking this because by the late 1960s the Democrats were perceived as being the more anti-war party in regards to Vietnam in spite of the incumbent US President Lyndon Johnson being both a Democrat and a hawk. Basically, by 1968, Democrats already appear to have in large part repudiated Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam policy and instead supported a US withdrawal from Vietnam. So, I'm wondering just how much faster the US pulls out of Vietnam--and also just how much faster South Vietnam falls in this scenario--if a Democrat is in the White House in and after 1969 as opposed to Republican Richard Nixon being in the White House during this time. As a side note, I'm also curious if any changes in regards to this have any additional effects elsewhere; for instance, does no US bombing of Cambodia mean no subsequent Khmer Rouge rise to power there? If so, what exactly happens to Cambodia instead in this scenario?

Thoughts on all of this?

[Linkagain]

It would Probably have ended up the same as it did...probably a few years shorter...however the olitical fallout would be this...the GOP would have appealed to the US Voters to vote them into Congress and the Presidency on the grounds the Democrat had failed to halt the wave of Communism In ASia starting with the "Fall: of CHina in 1949....forgetting to mention of course that the US Only got in involved in Vietnam in 1959 under a GOP Administration....WHY? Who knowns maybe it was thought that if the US could prop up Frances dying IndoChina Empire France in return would support NATO In Europe.....WHO KNOWNS?? :roll:
The Fact is the US like the French Had already lost the War...just as they would have lost a War In Mainland China...They did not have the Peoples hearts and Minds with Them....

[nota]

depends if we supply/support the south V army and how much air ect
and how corrupt their leadership was
seeing the results SV was a very poor ally

vs Nixon bribing them not to do any peace talks like he did do

if the later invasion in 75 had air strikes on it
it could have looked like the hi-way of death in Iraq

[Futurist]

depends if we supply/support the south V army and how much air ect
and how corrupt their leadership was
seeing the results SV was a very poor ally

vs Nixon bribing them not to do any peace talks like he did do

if the later invasion in 75 had air strikes on it
it could have looked like the hi-way of death in Iraq

Are you suggesting that the North Vietnamese offensive on South Vietnam in 1975 could have actually been stopped with US air strikes?

[nota]

we still had the b52 force plus the Thai based air fleet and offshore carriers just not the political will to use them

NV forces were on the coast roads not the hidden trails inland as tanks could not go on the trail and the citys were coastal

totally stopped maybe for sure slowed and give hope to the SV to actually defend and not just flee plus much limited resupply for the NV

[maltesefalcon]

Not sure why anyone would automatically assume the war's de-escalation would progress on a more rapid timeline, simply because of HHH in the White House.

Running on a platform and executing it are two different things. In his time in office, LBJ was forced to compromise on issues to get his Civil Rights agenda on the table. Humphrey may have had to do the same. In a more contemporary example Obama promised to close Guantanamo, but failed to do so in both terms of his presidency, because of resistance by Congressional opponents,

The Vietnam War actually escalated under JFK and LBJ, both fellow Democrats. It was Nixon the Republican, who started the troop reduction process and the eventual withdrawal of US forces in their entirety.