35.4.2 Nixon’S Policies Vietnam & Victory North Vietnam Fall Saigon

OCR Specification focus:
‘Nixon’s policies in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, his relations with China, Paris peace talks (1967–1973); victory of North Vietnam and the fall of Saigon (1975) and the reasons why the.’

The later years of the Vietnam War saw Richard Nixon attempt to balance military necessity, diplomacy, and public pressure. His policies reshaped America’s role and determined Vietnam’s final outcome.

Nixon’s Aims and Strategy

When Nixon assumed the presidency in 1969, he inherited a deeply unpopular war. His strategy was guided by three broad aims:

To achieve “peace with honour”, preserving American credibility while reducing domestic opposition.
To prevent further Communist expansion in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.
To strengthen diplomatic leverage through wider Cold War diplomacy, particularly with China and the USSR.

Definition of Vietnamisation

Vietnamisation: Nixon’s policy of gradually withdrawing US troops while transferring combat responsibility to South Vietnamese forces, supported by continued American financial and military aid.

Vietnamisation was central to Nixon’s early years, but its success depended heavily on the capacity of the South Vietnamese army (ARVN), which remained weak and dependent on US support.

Nixon’s Policies in Vietnam

Vietnamisation in Practice

Between 1969 and 1972, US ground troops were steadily reduced.
ARVN expansion was funded and equipped by the US, but morale and training remained inconsistent.
Despite improvements, ARVN forces proved unable to match the North Vietnamese in sustained combat without direct US backing.

Continued US Military Engagement

While troop withdrawals were publicised, Nixon authorised continued heavy use of air power:

Operation Menu (1969–1970): secret bombing of Cambodian sanctuaries used by the Vietcong.
Operation Linebacker (1972): aerial campaign designed to halt the Easter Offensive.
The reliance on bombing reflected Nixon’s desire to maintain pressure while limiting ground commitments.

Nixon’s Expansion into Cambodia and Laos

Cambodia

In 1970, Nixon supported a coup that replaced Prince Sihanouk with the pro-US General Lon Nol. Nixon escalated bombing and sent US and South Vietnamese troops into Cambodia.

Short-term aim: disrupt Ho Chi Minh Trail supply routes.

A U.S. Marine Corps history map of the Ho Chi Minh Trail network used by North Vietnam to move troops and materiel. It clarifies why Cambodian and Laotian sanctuaries were targeted while U.S. ground withdrawals proceeded. Source

Laos

US bombing also extended into Laos, aimed at interdicting Communist supply lines.

Though tactically disruptive, these campaigns did not decisively end North Vietnamese logistical operations.
The Laotian conflict deepened regional instability and broadened criticism of US actions.

Nixon’s Relations with China and the USSR

Opening to China

In 1972, Nixon’s historic visit to Beijing marked a major Cold War shift.

By exploiting Sino-Soviet rivalry, he sought to:

Improve US diplomatic leverage in Vietnam peace negotiations.
Encourage China to restrain North Vietnam.

Relations with the USSR

Simultaneously, Nixon pursued détente with the Soviet Union. Arms control discussions and improved trade were partly linked to Soviet influence over Hanoi.

However, while both China and the USSR counselled restraint, they continued to provide substantial aid to North Vietnam.

The Paris Peace Talks (1967–1973)

Early Difficulties

Talks began in 1967 under Lyndon Johnson but made little progress.
Disagreements over the political future of South Vietnam and the recognition of the National Liberation Front (NLF) stalled negotiations.

Nixon’s Tactics

Nixon used a combination of negotiation and escalation, including:

Threats of intensified bombing to force concessions.
Private diplomacy with both the USSR and China to pressure North Vietnam.

The 1973 Settlement

The Paris Peace Accords were signed in January 1973. Key terms included:

A ceasefire and US troop withdrawal.
Prisoner of war exchanges.
Recognition of the Thieu government, but also acceptance of North Vietnamese forces remaining in the South.

Despite Nixon’s claims of victory, the agreement left South Vietnam militarily vulnerable.

The Fall of Saigon and Victory of North Vietnam (1975)

Weaknesses of South Vietnam

After US withdrawal:

ARVN forces struggled with poor morale, corruption, and inadequate leadership.
South Vietnam’s economy, heavily reliant on US aid, collapsed under reduced American financial support.

North Vietnamese Strategy

The North Vietnamese, with continued Soviet and Chinese backing, launched a coordinated Ho Chi Minh Campaign in 1975.
Their conventional military assault quickly overwhelmed South Vietnamese defences.

Fall of Saigon

On 30 April 1975, Saigon fell to Communist forces.

Images of desperate evacuations symbolised both the end of the war and US humiliation.

Fall of Saigon: The capture of the South Vietnamese capital by North Vietnamese forces in April 1975, marking the formal unification of Vietnam under Communist rule.

Reasons for North Vietnam’s Victory

Several key factors explain the Communist triumph:

Sustained North Vietnamese determination: despite losses, Hanoi pursued total victory.
US limitations: domestic opposition, war fatigue, and economic costs restricted American engagement after 1973.
South Vietnamese weaknesses: dependence on the US, corruption, and lack of popular legitimacy undermined resilience.
International support for the North: both China and the USSR supplied weapons, finance, and political backing throughout the conflict.

The convergence of these factors ensured that Nixon’s policies could not prevent the ultimate fall of South Vietnam, despite temporary appearances of success.

FAQ

Nixon’s “Madman Theory” was the idea that if adversaries believed he was unpredictable and willing to use extreme force, they would be more likely to compromise.

In Vietnam, this meant escalating bombing campaigns and signalling possible nuclear threats to intimidate North Vietnam into peace concessions. Although dramatic, the policy failed to achieve decisive leverage at the negotiating table.

Mounting anti-war protests, particularly after events such as the Kent State shootings in 1970, pressured Nixon to accelerate troop withdrawals.

Television coverage of casualties and bombings increased public disillusionment.

This eroded congressional support for further funding
It also limited Nixon’s capacity to sustain large-scale ground operations in Vietnam.

Kissinger, Nixon’s National Security Adviser, engaged in secret negotiations with North Vietnamese officials, bypassing public sessions.

He helped craft the framework for the 1973 accords by combining private diplomacy with threats of intensified bombing.
Kissinger later shared the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts, though the award was controversial given the ongoing conflict.

The ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam) suffered from:

Corruption and desertion in its ranks.
Reliance on U.S. air power and equipment.
Low morale compared to the ideological commitment of North Vietnamese forces.

When U.S. aid was cut back in 1974, ARVN units lacked both supplies and the will to fight sustained campaigns.

Nixon’s bombing campaigns destabilised Cambodia by devastating rural areas and displacing civilians.

The 1970 coup against Prince Sihanouk, backed by the U.S., created political turmoil.
This chaos was exploited by the Khmer Rouge, who gained popular support by presenting themselves as nationalists resisting foreign interference.

Thus, Nixon’s Cambodian policy indirectly paved the way for Pol Pot’s seizure of power in 1975.

Practice Questions

Question 1 (2 marks)
In which year did Saigon fall to Communist forces, bringing about the end of the Vietnam War?

Mark scheme

1 mark for correctly identifying the year as 1975.
No marks for incorrect years.
Maximum: 2 marks (full credit requires exact year).

Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain two reasons why North Vietnam achieved victory over South Vietnam in 1975.