What if KMT China tried to establish Vietnam & Laos as its "independent" client states instead of its OTL transactional, play all sides policy?
1st lets review what China did. The Chinese, after VJ Day, were assigned to take surrender of Japanese forces in occupied Indochina, north of the 16th parallel only, so to just a bit south of Da Nang. Britain was responsible for disarming and repatriating Japanese forces in Indochina to the south.
The Chinese forces, commanded by Chinese Yunnan provincial warlord General Lu Han, generally acquiesced in the local Viet Minh movement's assertion of governmental power over the Vietnamese (this was a contrast with the British, who did not in their zone). The Viet Minh was controlled by Ho Chi Minh and others who were members of a "Marxist Study Group". They had formally abolished the Indochinese Communist Party. The Chinese made further requests from time to time for the Viet Minh to broaden their front further to add more Vietnamese exile politicians with Chinese contacts.
Chinese forces "lived off the land" and looted from the populace. In one pragmatic arrangement, the Viet Minh arranged a collection of citizens' gold and silver to exchange with the occupation commanders' in return for possession of the surrendered Japanese arms and ammunition stocks.
While most Japanese repatriated, some chose to serve with the Viet Minh.
At the same the Chinese occupation force coexisted and bartered with the Viet Minh, Chinese Nationalist diplomats were negotiating with France about permitting the return of French troops and administrators to northern Indochina (the Viet Minh, including Ho Chi Minh, were having their own parallel track negotiations with the French on the same subject at the time). The French and Chinese reached an agreement where the Chinese welcomed incoming returning French forces as they departed, in return for French liquidation of their territorial concessions in China itself, especially including the Guangzhouwan/Ft. Bayard enclave.
It all made a certain amount of sense given each actor's priorities, including the Chinese, which was their own sovereignty and their own civil war.
However, what if the Chinese had a more assertive, activist, positive policy in Indochina, probably shaped by directives from Chiang Kai-shek? Possibly Chiang is emboldened to try a more positive policy because the postwar truce before the outbreak of full civil war in China lasts longer.
In any case, the more positive Chinese agenda is shaped by the twin goals of anticommunism and anti-colonialism. Chinese occupation forces in Vietnam are ordered to undermine the Viet Minh, known to be controlled at roots by Communists, and replace it with a non-Communist alternative. In pursuing this the Chinese use whatever combination of force and trickery needed, including disingenuous negotiations and parleys, to arrange assassination of Ho Chi Minh and top colleagues, In his place they support alternative Vietnamese Nationalist leadership. Possibly from the VNQDD, the Vietnamese ideological equivalent of the KMT, but I confess I have never seen the actual names of the party leaders from this time identified. Possibly someone from other parties, the Dong Minh Hoi, or the Dai Viet, or possibly even a prominent non-partisan individual like Ngo Dinh Diem. In Laos, they support the monarch and civilian politicians. Having voiced support for a political regime, they support this regime's announcement of its independence from France, and opposition to France's return to either Vietnam or Laos.
France will be livid at this. Angry at China. Indirectly angry at the USA. But what will it do about it directly, and what will expect the USA to do about it. Note that France can still wedge itself back into the region via the British occupied south. Note also that Chinese forces can afford to remain in Vietnam and Laos in strength into 1947, as the demands of the Chinese Civil War grow.
What happens from here?
1st lets review what China did. The Chinese, after VJ Day, were assigned to take surrender of Japanese forces in occupied Indochina, north of the 16th parallel only, so to just a bit south of Da Nang. Britain was responsible for disarming and repatriating Japanese forces in Indochina to the south.
The Chinese forces, commanded by Chinese Yunnan provincial warlord General Lu Han, generally acquiesced in the local Viet Minh movement's assertion of governmental power over the Vietnamese (this was a contrast with the British, who did not in their zone). The Viet Minh was controlled by Ho Chi Minh and others who were members of a "Marxist Study Group". They had formally abolished the Indochinese Communist Party. The Chinese made further requests from time to time for the Viet Minh to broaden their front further to add more Vietnamese exile politicians with Chinese contacts.
Chinese forces "lived off the land" and looted from the populace. In one pragmatic arrangement, the Viet Minh arranged a collection of citizens' gold and silver to exchange with the occupation commanders' in return for possession of the surrendered Japanese arms and ammunition stocks.
While most Japanese repatriated, some chose to serve with the Viet Minh.
At the same the Chinese occupation force coexisted and bartered with the Viet Minh, Chinese Nationalist diplomats were negotiating with France about permitting the return of French troops and administrators to northern Indochina (the Viet Minh, including Ho Chi Minh, were having their own parallel track negotiations with the French on the same subject at the time). The French and Chinese reached an agreement where the Chinese welcomed incoming returning French forces as they departed, in return for French liquidation of their territorial concessions in China itself, especially including the Guangzhouwan/Ft. Bayard enclave.
It all made a certain amount of sense given each actor's priorities, including the Chinese, which was their own sovereignty and their own civil war.
However, what if the Chinese had a more assertive, activist, positive policy in Indochina, probably shaped by directives from Chiang Kai-shek? Possibly Chiang is emboldened to try a more positive policy because the postwar truce before the outbreak of full civil war in China lasts longer.
In any case, the more positive Chinese agenda is shaped by the twin goals of anticommunism and anti-colonialism. Chinese occupation forces in Vietnam are ordered to undermine the Viet Minh, known to be controlled at roots by Communists, and replace it with a non-Communist alternative. In pursuing this the Chinese use whatever combination of force and trickery needed, including disingenuous negotiations and parleys, to arrange assassination of Ho Chi Minh and top colleagues, In his place they support alternative Vietnamese Nationalist leadership. Possibly from the VNQDD, the Vietnamese ideological equivalent of the KMT, but I confess I have never seen the actual names of the party leaders from this time identified. Possibly someone from other parties, the Dong Minh Hoi, or the Dai Viet, or possibly even a prominent non-partisan individual like Ngo Dinh Diem. In Laos, they support the monarch and civilian politicians. Having voiced support for a political regime, they support this regime's announcement of its independence from France, and opposition to France's return to either Vietnam or Laos.
France will be livid at this. Angry at China. Indirectly angry at the USA. But what will it do about it directly, and what will expect the USA to do about it. Note that France can still wedge itself back into the region via the British occupied south. Note also that Chinese forces can afford to remain in Vietnam and Laos in strength into 1947, as the demands of the Chinese Civil War grow.
What happens from here?
