US Supported Ho Chi Minh
- Thread starter Kaiser K
- Start date
d32123
Banned
It's probably ASB. France was our ally. However, the world would be a much better place if we supported the man and his cause. He'd be remembered as the Vietnamese Gandhi, and revered in the Western world as a hero. The needless deaths of many Vietnamese and Americans would be prevented, though the Vietnamese community in the United States would be nowhere near as large.
It depends exactly how much support they give Ho Chi Minh, if they offer to broker an agreement between HCM and France then you see a much more stable SEA with only a bit more chilliness in the Franco-American relations. If they give Ho Chi Minh actual concrete support you end up with a pro-American SEA, but and chance for NATO is shot for at least a decade or two.
Ho Tschi Minh would takeover Vietnam and propably Laos and Cambodcha. And sometimes 1947/48, when the Cold War was on, he would declare his full loyality to Stalin and the USSR. Vietnam would offer support for communist guerillas in Thailand and Malaysia(which propably lead to an U.S.-intervention in the sixties). And any U.S.-politian who supported him, would be seen as 1. incredibly stupid and 2. a potential traitor (at least by Joe McCarthy).
Okay, Ho Tschi Minh was a Vietnam-nationalist first, but he was also a confinced communist.
Okay, Ho Tschi Minh was a Vietnam-nationalist first, but he was also a confinced communist.
He only became a Communist because we didn't support him, he turned to the USSR when no else would help him.
If we help him, then he wouldn't turn to Communisim.
Spengler
Banned
Not true, he was always a communist, but he really wasn't a international communist, mostly he wanted what was best for Vietnam, and could have made an excellent ally in SE Asia. We have to remember that we were also allied with Tito at the same time.
False. Tito fought in the Russian Civil War, and it wasn't for the Whites. Also, one of his wives was a Soviet citizen. He disliked Stalin, but he didn't HATE the USSR. Definitely not as much as the US did.
And anyway, the US wasn't "allied" with Titoist Yugoslavia. They gave some aid, reassured Yugoslavia (verbally though, highly doubt they'd risk war with the USSR for the sake of Yugoslavia, only Italy would want that, maybe Austria). Mutual opposition =/= Alliance.
Flocculencio
Donor
Actually this is interesting- if the US does this it gives it an opening to be seen as a genuine supporter of progress in the colonial world. If the US throws support to Ho in the 40s, it may well find support of India equally palatable. This could be played as a strategy of containing revolutionary communism by supporting moderate nationalist leaders.
Britain and France may protest but in the late 1940s if the US wants to be firm with them they have no choice but to back down.
Britain and France may protest but in the late 1940s if the US wants to be firm with them they have no choice but to back down.
The West had an de-facto alliance with Tito since 1948. Till then Tito was actually very aggressive against the West. Conflicts over Triest, support for the communist in Greece and as far as I know even an US-plane was shoot down by the Jugoslave. The reason which lead to Titos break with Stalin were very specific and wouldn´t repeat automaticly in Vietnam. There are even indications, that the break original was started by Stalin, who wanted to cast Tito as the new Trotsky and Tito had to make his moves to stay alive.
Like you said, Ho wanted the best for Vietnam, but for an convinced communist the best would be the full communist system for all of Vietnam and freindship with the Fatherland of all Workers. If the stupid Yankee-capitalist helb him on this way and sell him the ropes on which he would hang them later, it would be even better.
Imaginign a wholly anti racist US President in 1919 probably requires a change gong back to the 19th century. However would he have any influence if he asked France (or the UK) to treat colonies diffently anyway
Incorrect, he became a Communist because he socialised with the radical left in Paris and went on to live in the Soviet Union. The only way the US is going to support him is if they don't have a coherent Cold War strategy at all. Say, like if Wallace was president.
Also as early as 1945 the Japanese caught a Russian adviser working with the Viet minh. They handed him over to the French and he 'disappeared'.
I'm sorry but that is not going to happen. Whatever influence the US might have had post WWI, it is not capable of pushing the decolonization line (or willing, as America had its own defacto empire)
There is no way that either Britain or France will be willing to surrender their colonial empires post WWI, especially when they considered themselves to be the victors. Whats more, said colonies played an important role in their plans for post-war recovery. Both Britain and France desired the captive markets, and strategic resources contained within.
It might be better if Mao's Communist Mainland China had wanted to foster its political & cultural hegemony over their borders in Indochina and maybe the Vietnamese Minh Gov't will appeal to America for economic and military aid against such covert & overt attempts to subjugate Vietnam back under Sino Control, both Culturally, Economically and Militarily ...