"Britain's Vietnam War" Topic

"Long before America was involved in Vietnam, Britain took on and almost defeated Ho Chi Minh's communists. Find out how Britain fought the first Vietnam War with the help of defeated Japanese troops, and how history could have been so different…"

YouTube link

Amicalement
Armand

Yep, another "woulda, shoulda, coulda"…

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Yep the Brits and Indian Armies were in Vietnam after the IJF's surrender. Before the French got there. And yes some of the IJFs fought along side the the Brits/Indians against the local guerillas. link

Many thanks for this Tango and legion 4. I had never realised how nasty things were in the aftermath of WW2, thinking that things'kicked off' during the French re-occupancy of 'Indochina'.
What a weird situation to be in for troops of any nationality, just wanting to 'get home'.

Could be interesting for those who might wish to fight it in miniature? But not me.

Since I like studying that area, I'd think it might be interesting playing that time frame.

A votre service mon ami! (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Britain and France were committed to restoring colonial rule. FDR was committed to stopping it. Truman was neutral at first. another what if, if FDR hadn't died the US might have recognized Ho Chi Mien.
fascinating history

Very true … FDR much to some European countries' dismay. Did not want those colonies reoccupied. He felt we just fought a war against imperialism. We didn't want it to start over again.

As far as Ho Chi Minh … the US felt he had too many ties the Russian and Chinese Communists. But … who knows …

Bit like Cuba. There was that hope there also, very early on, but "vested interests" in Florida made sure that there was no chance for recognition and instead…………

History does have that habit of repeating itself.

Given the Cold War mindset that was already nascent in 1945 it's a big stretch to imagine the US backing Ho Chi Minh rather than the French.

I wish they had. But I know why they didn't.

Would FDR have played things differently? We can never know but I doubt it would have been much different. FDR's opposition to Empire was very much about paving the way for US hegemony, not freeing the colonised!

I think it's analogous to how many view JFK as being against the war in South East Asia. There's no evidence he would not have gone the same way LBJ did. JFK was fonder of using special forces and advisers rather than conventional forces, but the same factors would have driven his decision making had he lived.

sharper
you are right regarding fdr we will never know but I think he would not have backed the french. he didnt trust the french particularly de Gaulle. " us hemogeny" was based on democracy. if countries were allowed to be democratic they would be good partners with the US.
he may or may not backed ho chi Minh but I dont think he would have backed the french again as you said we will never know. thanks for the discussion

FDR's opposition to Empire was very much about paving the way for US hegemony, not freeing the colonised!

Damned Americans! No wonder some call them the Great Satan!

Put down the pitch forks and torches because the USA is really the Wests only hope … then and now.

The US's geopolitics is a sideshow. Compared to what now long dead European politicians did after WWI. To the Middle East and the region now known as the former Yugoslavia. Setting up for the next world war. And what many of the decisions of those long dead Euros did to much of the Middle East. That still reverberates today.

So please don't put FDR and the USA in the same category when it comes to using the word hegemony …

Just because others are worse does not make the US ‘good'. This is basic logic.

This applies equally to other powers. The British Empire may not have been as bad as the Belgian Empire….does it mean it's crimes can be written off?

It just so happens….I have Japanese and my wife has Indians for Burma which will do nicely for this.

Just because others are worse does not make the US ‘good'. This is basic logic.

This applies equally to other powers. The British Empire may not have been as bad as the Belgian Empire….does it mean it's crimes can be written off?

Did I say anything about it being "good"? My point was people in glass house should remember before that start to throw stones. A lot of finger pointing in many directions … Welcome to the human condition … 🙈🙉🙊 No one in all human gov'ts will be put up for Sainthood. 😈

uglyfatbloke … you'll blend right in then !

@Legion

Maybe not 'said' but implied. This kind of 'Whataboutism' serves only as a distraction.

There's a lot of debate about what FDR's motivations were for his anti-imperialism. Since he died before he was able to put into place actual policies we can't know for sure.

I don't denigrate the US for wanting to reshape the world to its benefit after WW2. When you enter a war and expend resources/sacrifice lives it's only natural to want something in return.

The Empires of the UK, France et al had to go. I'm reminded of the admittedly glib statement that 'Evil Empire' is a tautology.

I don't think without some US prodding the UK would have withdrawn from Empire without a lot of bloodshed [it was not as bloodless as some might like to make out but it could have been more like the French experience.]

And as they say … the rest is history. But don't worry I'm sure the USA is and will do more things Europeans and others won't approve of. Regardless we know the US[and hopefully with some of our NATO Allies, etc.(?)], is really the only nation that could possibly stand up to many that would want to do the US/the West[what's left of it] harm.

But it looks like somethings will go back to they way they were before 2016. With many in the US Gov't getting rich, Iran getting nukes, and our European and other "friends" will be all hearts & smiles … 💗 & 😁

"And once again the world will revolve in greased grooves". … 🌎