First Indochina War

[Arctic Daishi]

In this discussion, you are the United States and have complete and total control of the United States government and military forces. The year is 1945, World War II has just ended and France is struggling to retake it's colonies in French Indochina. The world has become a polarized battleground with right-wing democratic capitalist forces led by the United States on one side and left-wing communistic forces led by the Soviet Union on the other. During this time the United States faces a great challenge in a region that was then considered to be "insignificant."

What decisions would you have made as the United States during the First Indochina War? Would you have supported the French? Would you have supported the Việt Minh? Why would you make the choices you would and how would you deal with potential problems that may arise from undertaking such policies?


Background
France has been involved in Indochina (Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam) since the late 18th century. In 1858 France invaded Vietnam and after four years of fighting, established a colony in Cochinchina (southern Vietnam). France followed up the invasion of Cochinchina with an invasion of Tonkin and Annam (northern Vietnam) in 1883 and by 1886 had effective control over the whole of modern day Vietnam. In 1867 Cambodia became a French protectorate at the request of the Cambodian king. In 1893 France invaded Siam and forced Siam to cede a large portion of it's territory (modern day Laos) to France.

After World War I a charismatic young man from Vietnam, Nguyễn Sinh Cung, looked to the United States with great admiration. Nguyễn Sinh Cung was so swept away by Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and American ideas such as freedom and self-determination, that he bought a suit and traveled to Versailles in an attempt to meet his idol, Woodrow Wilson. Nguyễn Sinh Cung hoped to convince Woodrow Wilson to support Vietnamese independence and even cited the United States Declaration of Independence as an inspiration of his. Tragically for Nguyễn Sinh Cung, Woodrow Wilson was less than receptive to his pleas. Disheartened by his failure to convince his idol to support him, he lived in France for a few years and turned to communism. After turning to communism and helping found the French Communist Party, he changed his name to "Hồ Chí Minh," a name the world would not soon forget.

During World War II the French mainland quickly fell to the German war machine and it's colonial military forces were in poor condition. Taking advantage of France's weak colonial defenses, Japan invaded French Indochina. Hồ Chí Minh created the Việt Minh (League for the Independence of Vietnam) to combat both Japanese and French control over Vietnam. Throughout World War II, the Việt Minh provided intelligence information to the United States and rescued downed American and British pilots in Vietnam. The Việt Minh often worked alongside American OSS (Office of Strategic Services) operatives in their missions and the Vietnamese people had nothing but positive views of Americans based on this interaction.

After World War II, the Việt Minh declared Vietnam an independent state and had set up it's own government. Despite his negative experience with Woodrow Wilson, Hồ Chí Minh still had a very positive view of the United States; in contrast, he was distrustful of the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin, as they had many disagreements in the past. Hồ Chí Minh's Vietnamese Declaration of Independence echoed that of the United States Declaration of Independence (you can read it here). During this time of independence, the Vietnamese had celebrations across the country in honor of the United States, with The Star-Spangled Banner being played across the country. During this time Hồ Chí Minh pleaded with Harry Truman and the United States to support Vietnamese independence. The Việt Minh offered to ally themselves with the United States, allow the United States to build military bases in Vietnam and offered America special trading privileges (including free trade agreements) with Vietnam.

Intent on taking back their former colonies, France invaded the fledgling Vietnamese state. The Việt Minh were strongly in control of the northern regions of Vietnam, but were relatively weak in the south, resulting in the French seizing control over the southern region. France's position was tenuous however, with much of the countryside loyal to Hồ Chí Minh, resulting in France only having "real" control over major cities, such as Saigon, Hue and Hanoi. French and Việt Minh forces clashed and there seemed to be no end in sight. This is where you come in, as leader of the United States, you have to make a choice: What do you do?



What did the United States do in real life?
The United States decided to back France's attempt to retake French Indochina. We publicly announced our "neutrality," but were secretly aiding the French and eventually ended up paying for 80% of France's war effort. Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower feared that if we didn't support France, then France would "fall" to communism and ally itself with the Soviet Union. In return for American support, the French promised they would join the European Defense Community. In addition, the United States feared that Hồ Chí Minh was a puppet of Joseph Stalin, though in reality Hồ Chí Minh held Joseph Stalin in contempt.

After nearly a decade of fighting, the French finally gave up and the Geneva Conference convened to discuss the fate of Vietnam. The Geneva Conference stated that Vietnam would be temporarily divided into two states, North Vietnam and South Vietnam, and that a nation-wide election would be held in two years to decide the future of a unified Vietnam. The United States fervently supported South Vietnam, sending a great deal of (primarily military) aid and protecting the South Vietnamese president, Ngô Đình Diệm. We also sent thousands of military advisers to South Vietnam to train the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. During this same time, Hồ Chí Minh turned to Communist China for support, feeling betrayed by the Americans. The two year election deadline went by, but no nationwide elections were held, because both the Americans and the Chinese were afraid of the possible outcome. Instead an election was held only in South Vietnam, in which there were allegations of electoral fraud.

Ngô Đình Diệm had several problems going for him, however. Ngô Đình Diệm was a socialist who wanted to nationalized South Vietnam's major industries, which went against America's free market ideals. Ngô Đình Diệm was also very authoritarian, violently suppressing civil liberties and allegedly rigging elections. Political opponents, both communist and non-communist alike, were rounded up into "reeducation camps" headed by his brother. Late into his presidency he began a campaign of genocide and oppression of Buddhists in South Vietnam. To make matters worse, Ngô Đình Diệm refused to be America's puppet and while more than happy to accept American help, he refused to give in to America's demands, especially American pressure to initiate democratic reforms and respect civil liberties. Ngô Đình Diệm wasn't a very popular figure in South Vietnam and the Viet Cong (National Liberation Front) was founded to overthrow his government. The United States eventually decided that Ngô Đình Diệm had to go, so they supported a coup d'état against him in 1963.

The coup d'état against Ngô Đình Diệm left Vietnam destabilized and a series of coup d'état, both successful and unsuccessful, occurred in the following months and years. Unable to keep a stable, let alone democratically elected, government in power, South Vietnam's government and military were severe having trouble staving off the Viet Cong. Meanwhile American presence in Vietnam continued to grow, with more and more American "advisers" being killed by Viet Cong forces. American "advisers" had begun to take on new roles beyond that of just advising; with many "advisers" being directly involved in combat.

In 1964 two American naval vessels, the USS Madox and the USS Turner Joy were reportedly attacked by the North Vietnamese. Congress and the American people were outraged by the Gulf of Tonkin incident and demanded retribution. This resulted in Congress passing the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, granting the president the ability to conduct military operations in Vietnam. Lyndon B. Johnson didn't commit American troops to directly fighting the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese right away, but as the Viet Cong gained more power, he began sending in American and allied troops to defend South Vietnam. And I'm sure you know what happened after that...

 

[Lord Baal]

The problem with this situation was that the US needed French support in Europe, and therefore had to offer to support the French in Indochina in exchange. Most in the US government and administration would have happily supported the Viet Minh instead - though they were wary of Ho's communism, it must be noted that Ho didn't purge the Viet Minh of non-communist elements until after the French had been kicked out - but felt that supporting France's colonial war was worth keeping France in the American orbit.

Most people would probably say that supporting France was a mistake, since it would be better to have a friendly - or at least neutral - independent, united Viet Nam - and presumably similar governments in the remaining two Indochinese states, Cambodia and Laos - than the antagonistic communist regimes in Indochina in OTL. They'll also point out the massive loss of life the Vietnam War caused. What these people forget, however, is that Europe was a far more important theatre in the Cold War than a bunch of Third World colonies in Southeast Asia.

Obviously slightly supporting France was, in hindsight, a terrible decision. Assuming that I, as the Civ leader of the US in this scenario, my powers like unto a god, still don't have the benefit of hindsight, that is less obvious. But it is still, in my opinion, obvious that in any military situation it is better to commit fully or not at all, rather than partially. As such, and in view of the need for French support in Europe, I would strongly support the French in Indochina. Sure, the Soviets would have a field day with propaganda bemoaning me and my US as imperialists, but they would do that anyway. Better to be a hypocrite with willing allies than an honest government with angry and bitter ones.

 

[Arctic Daishi]

The problem with this situation was that the US needed French support in Europe, and therefore had to offer to support the French in Indochina in exchange. Most in the US government and administration would have happily supported the Viet Minh instead - though they were wary of Ho's communism, it must be noted that Ho didn't purge the Viet Minh of non-communist elements until after the French had been kicked out - but felt that supporting France's colonial war was worth keeping France in the American orbit.

Most people would probably say that supporting France was a mistake, since it would be better to have a friendly - or at least neutral - independent, united Viet Nam - and presumably similar governments in the remaining two Indochinese states, Cambodia and Laos - than the antagonistic communist regimes in Indochina in OTL. They'll also point out the massive loss of life the Vietnam War caused. What these people forget, however, is that Europe was a far more important theatre in the Cold War than a bunch of Third World colonies in Southeast Asia.

Obviously slightly supporting France was, in hindsight, a terrible decision. Assuming that I, as the Civ leader of the US in this scenario, my powers like unto a god, still don't have the benefit of hindsight, that is less obvious. But it is still, in my opinion, obvious that in any military situation it is better to commit fully or not at all, rather than partially. As such, and in view of the need for French support in Europe, I would strongly support the French in Indochina. Sure, the Soviets would have a field day with propaganda bemoaning me and my US as imperialists, but they would do that anyway. Better to be a hypocrite with willing allies than an honest government with angry and bitter ones.

I'm not sure France's role in Europe was all that important. France was barely a US ally throughout the Cold War, though we only know that in hindsight. France withdrew their military commitment from NATO and prepared to make peace with the Soviet bloc in the 1950s.

In addition, France's post-war government and economy were in shambles, and de Gaulle took his sweet time concentrating power. Rather than supporting de Gaulle, of whom the Americans and British were skeptical of, we could have recognized the Vichy Regime and reigned them in as a puppet until things could be stabilized. Of course, this would have to have been done during World War II and would quite possibly be very unpopular with the French. I would not have advocated such a policy, as it would have carried with it too much risk.

Rather, I'd have mobilized American naval flotillas around Indochina and France proper and held talks with de Gaulle and Ho Chi Minh, forcing France into a settlement. This could have been done behind closed doors, so that the French public wouldn't find out that the United States convinced them to do so. However, doing it in private means that the Vietnamese people, as well as the entire Third World in general, wouldn't look to the United States as a benevolent anti-imperialist force. With that being said, I think publicly opposing de Gaulle may have been a better choice, since we would have won the hearts and minds of the entire Third World.

 

[Tee Kay]

With that being said, I think publicly opposing de Gaulle may have been a better choice, since we would have won the hearts and minds of the entire Third World.

What did the Third World had to offer the United States, compared to France. As Lord Baal said, France was a better deal, even if the entire Third World would be touched by America's anti-imperialist gesture, which is highly doubtful (take the Suez Crisis; Ike forced Britain to back down, Nasser went and buddied up to Khrushchev)

 

[tonberry]

There is a history channel documentary on Ho Chi Minh that explain what the OP is talking about quite well :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w0Mtv5i4d4

Basically, at the end of WW2, Ho Chi Minh went out of his way to please the USA and make them understand that what he was doing was no different that what they did in 1776. Unfortunatly, France was deemed crucial for the defense of Europe and they agree to cooperate with the Americans only if they stay out of France colonial affair.

One of the historian of the documentary say that the American could have say "Ok so he’s a communist, but he’s our communist". It should be noted that Ho really become a communist out of necessity more than conviction. In the 30’s, there was only one country that was willing to offer real help to those wishing to liberate their country from their colonial master and that was the Soviet Union (in order to weaken the European powers of course but still). But the cold war was a war of ideologies so supporting a communist regime was out of the question for the Americans so, yeah, we all know how that turn out.

Also, I may be wrong but I think that, in 1945, people from Asia were still viewed as inferior and they shouldn’t be allowed to break free of their European masters.

 

[Lord Baal]

I'm not sure France's role in Europe was all that important. France was barely a US ally throughout the Cold War, though we only know that in hindsight. France withdrew their military commitment from NATO and prepared to make peace with the Soviet bloc in the 1950s.

Which was largely in reaction to repeated slights, boh perceived and actual, the French received from the US. Not the least of which was not backing De Gaulle during the French Civil War. That tends to piss a head-of-state off.

In addition, France's post-war government and economy were in shambles, and de Gaulle took his sweet time concentrating power. Rather than supporting de Gaulle, of whom the Americans and British were skeptical of, we could have recognized the Vichy Regime and reigned them in as a puppet until things could be stabilized. Of course, this would have to have been done during World War II and would quite possibly be very unpopular with the French. I would not have advocated such a policy, as it would have carried with it too much risk.

FDR did recognise and support Vichy. De Gaulle came out on top anyway. Supporting Vichy to the hilt, instead of the grudging support offered by Churchill at FDR's insistence, which the troops on the ground did as little as possible to uphold - Eisenhower threatened to resign over FDR's interference with operations in North Africa, for example - would simply have resulted in a communist France. They managed to dominate much of the decade following the liberation anyway, how much worse would it have been if De Gaulle had been forcibly sidelined and the US and UK had been shown to support scum like Petain? The French Resistance nearly broke with the US and UK over the Darlan issue. It's a good thing he got assassinated.

Rather, I'd have mobilized American naval flotillas around Indochina and France proper and held talks with de Gaulle and Ho Chi Minh, forcing France into a settlement. This could have been done behind closed doors, so that the French public wouldn't find out that the United States convinced them to do so. However, doing it in private means that the Vietnamese people, as well as the entire Third World in general, wouldn't look to the United States as a benevolent anti-imperialist force. With that being said, I think publicly opposing de Gaulle may have been a better choice, since we would have won the hearts and minds of the entire Third World.

De Gaulle was not in control of France during this period. Also, the idea that any French government would accept American arbitration on colonial issues without immediately leaking every conversation to an angry French public is laughable. Not to mention that any active attempt to break up the French Empire using US naval resources would have driven the UK from the US alliance out of fear for their own empire. The French, Dutch, British, Spanish and Portuguese would have immediately formed their own European bloc, and while they would have interacted with the US they would certainly not have subordinated themselves to it when it had shown such an active desire to interfere in their own interests.

Also, what does winning the hearts and minds of the Third World matter? The Third World had absolutely nothing to offer the US. France did. Not to mention the fact that the Third World would have played the US and USSR off against each other anyway. Tk provides one example with Nasser. There are countless others in both Africa and Asia, and even Latin America.

The Congo, Biafra, the Horn of Africa, the Algerian-Moroccan conflicts, Gaddafi and Idi Amin, the Tamil Tigers, the various republican, imperial and monarchist forces in Southeast Asia, the PKI in Indonesia, the Indo-Pakistan Wars, the Arab-Israeli Wars, Iraq's attempted invasion of Kuwait in the 1960s, the Iranian ombroglio under Mossadegh, all of these things will provide plenty of opportunities for the Third World to play the superpowers off against one another, and that's not even counting the number of Third World leaders for whom the Cold War actually mattered on an ideological level, like Raul Castro and Pol Pot. You really see them playing nice with the US just because it kissed Ho Chi Minh's arse? Especially those, like Pol Pot and the Pathet Lao, who weren't exactly enamoured of Viet Nam to begin with?

 

[Tee Kay]

It should be noted that Ho really become a communist out of necessity more than conviction

That's not really supported by his activities, whether early on while he was a student or as leader of Communist Vietnam. We're talking about a founding member of the French Communist Party here, at a time when the communist movement didn't give much of a thought to liberating colonised peoples.

 

[Lord Baal]

That's not really supported by his activities, whether early on while he was a student or as leader of Communist Vietnam. We're talking about a founding member of the French Communist Party here, at a time when the communist movement didn't give much of a thought to liberating colonised peoples.

If anything, Ho became less ideological as time went by. In his youth he would never have considered cutting deals with monarchists, social democrats and the like, but he did all that and more during his wars against Japan, France and the US. He even attempted co-operation with the Emperor at one point.

 

[tonberry]

That's not really supported by his activities, whether early on while he was a student or as leader of Communist Vietnam. We're talking about a founding member of the French Communist Party here, at a time when the communist movement didn't give much of a thought to liberating colonised peoples.

I don't think so. It was a time where if you were interested in decolonisation you were very likely to meet communists. It was a time where if were looking for tangible help (guerrilla trainning, weapons, money, etc) the only place you could turn to was the Soviet Union.

If anything, Ho became less ideological as time went by. In his youth he would never have considered cutting deals with monarchists, social democrats and the like, but he did all that and more during his wars against Japan, France and the US. He even attempted co-operation with the Emperor at one point.

The other way around. At first, Ho was much more interested by Lenin's methods of organization than his marxist ideology. The OSS operative that meet him described him more as an organizer than a revolutionnary. It was only after the Geneva Accords when the country was divided and South Vietnam was backed by the US that Ho Chi Minh had to turn to China for help and created what was essentially a copy of Mao's China in North Vietnam.

 

[Tee Kay]

I don't think so. It was a time where if you were interested in decolonisation you were very likely to meet communists. It was a time where if were looking for tangible help (guerrilla trainning, weapons, money, etc) the only place you could turn to was the Soviet Union.

So did Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek. For a long time Stalin backed the KMT over the Chinese Communists despite Chiang being very clearly anti-communist. Uncle Ho might have modelled his organisation after the KMT; and there were other Vietnamese independence movements that did. He quickly found out in the interwar years that European communists - even Soviet - despite their anti-colonial rhetoric really did not care about funding anti-colonial movements that are likely to fail. This wasn't the 1970s or 1980s when the Soviets were injecting cash and weapons into any movement that claims Marxist-Leninist ideology; this was the era of Stalin's Socialism In One Country.

The other way around. At first, Ho was much more interested by Lenin's methods of organization than his marxist ideology. The OSS operative that meet him described him more as an organizer than a revolutionnary. It was only after the Geneva Accords when the country was divided and South Vietnam was backed by the US that Ho Chi Minh had to turn to China for help and created what was essentially a copy of Mao's China in North Vietnam.

Ho had an interest in downplaying his communist ideology if he wanted aid from the United States. I believe Mao had been described in a similar manner. And Castro.

Ultimately Ho and other "Third World" leaders took on whatever ideological cloak it seemed most advantageous. In the case of Ho though, he was in fact a communist in his student years; his subsequent activities show little indication that he was anything but a communist. Hence the claim that he was drawn to communism only out of necessity is doubtful.

 

[tonberry]

Ultimately Ho and other "Third World" leaders took on whatever ideological cloak it seemed most advantageous. In the case of Ho though, he was in fact a communist in his student years; his subsequent activities show little indication that he was anything but a communist. Hence the claim that he was drawn to communism only out of necessity is doubtful.

What do you mean in his student years? He was only a student during his youth in French's Indochina. That was years before he came into contact with communists in Europe.

 

[innonimatu]

Which was largely in reaction to repeated slights, boh perceived and actual, the French received from the US. Not the least of which was not backing De Gaulle during the French Civil War. That tends to piss a head-of-state off.

Calling it the French Civil war may be a bit excessive

how much worse would it have been if De Gaulle had been forcibly sidelined and the US and UK had been shown to support scum like Petain?

Or how much better... In any case France was, and is, the key to holding Western Europe. If it went communist and/or aligned with the USSR, so would Italy and soon after all the continent west of the Pyrenees. The french might even give it a try to cross them and kick Franco and Salazar from power. And it wouldn't take much. The US government couldn't justify, to its own internal public, involvement in a war to prop up those two dictators, much less the Vichy remnants, after all the WW2 propaganda about liberating Europe in alliance with the USSR. Not in 1945-46.

 

[Lord Baal]

Calling it the French Civil war may be a bit excessive



Or how much better... In any case France was, and is, the key to holding Western Europe. If it went communist and/or aligned with the USSR, so would Italy and soon after all the continent west of the Pyrenees. The french might even give it a try to cross them and kick Franco and Salazar from power. And it wouldn't take much. The US government couldn't justify, to its own internal public, involvement in a war to prop up those two dictators, much less the Vichy remnants, after all the WW2 propaganda about liberating Europe in alliance with the USSR. Not in 1945-46.

I'd call it the French Civil War more often if it was actually recognised as such. But few people even know of the OAS-Gaullist War, let alone its ramifications.

I don't think supporting Vichy would have made things better. It would have just led to an extremely violent revolt against the Vichyites. If De Gaulle had been sidelined and wasn't in a position to lead the movement himself, the communists, as the largest resistance force in the country, would have taken it over. That is most definitely not a good thing from a Western standpoint. Regardless of one's views on the desirability or lack thereof of communism, few would argue that Stalin's view of it was a good idea.

 

[Tee Kay]

What do you mean in his student years? He was only a student during his youth in French's Indochina. That was years before he came into contact with communists in Europe.

My mistake, I was under the impression that he was in formal study in France. Really he was just drifting around Europe.

 

[innonimatu]

Regardless of one's views on the desirability or lack thereof of communism, few would argue that Stalin's view of it was a good idea.

Meh, Stalin wouldn't last for long.

 

[dutchfire]

Interesting to see the difference in American reaction to Vietnam and the French vs. the Dutch war in Indonesia.

 

[innonimatu]

Interesting to see the difference in American reaction to Vietnam and the French vs. the Dutch war in Indonesia.

The dutch weren't important. They didn't get their share of Germany either.

Might have been a good deal to try in 45: hey americans, take the East Indies, do with it what you will, just let us grab a portion of the Ruhr...

 

[Tee Kay]

Well, as they used to say Indie verloren, rampspoed geboren.

 

[Ajidica]

Unless I'm completely fouling the timeline up, didn't the issue with the Dutch East Indies occur earlier than the Vietnam kerfuffle? IIRC, Indonesia had two things going for it. 1) America and the Third World had pretty decent relations as we were viewed as the anti-colonial, modernist victors of WWII and 2) the Indonesian regime, despite having leftist leanings, was mainly a nativist government with some very conservative elements? Easier to support that than the openly pro-Communist North Vietnamese.

 

[Tee Kay]

Indonesia and Vietnam declared their independence and went to war at about the same time. It's just that the Netherlands, being smaller, poorer with less political clout than France, found it harder to hold on to its colony.

You're right that the creation of Indonesia was very much a diplomatic victory. It wasn't easy though. Western public opinion was often very much on the side of the Dutch (justified by the usual "natives aren't ready to rule themselves" line). The Indonesian Republic was cast as an illegitimate Japanese-collaborationist government (which was true). At least the Viet Minh were fighting on the Allied side.