WI: Vietnam Becomes An American Protectorate

In communist Vietnam, many saw the war as a fight for national liberation to prevent their country from being subverted by an imperialist power. Ironically enough, Vietnam itself could've had its independence completely subverted by America if things had gone a little differently in OTL. Now, before you start writing how such a scenario wouldn't be possible outside of the LSD-addled fantasies of Alan Moore, remember that there were not one, but two proposals for Vietnam to become a protectorate owned by the United States of America.

The first proposal was made none other by Ho Chi Minh after the end of the Second World War. It was no secret that Ho held a high opinion of America, having played the Star Spangled Banner during Vietnam's Declaration of Independence. In a telegram to Harry Truman, he suggested that Vietnam could join the United States as a protectorate, similar to how Puerto Rico became a territory of America. Ho figured that American rule would've been better than French Imperialism (not that that's saying much) and believed that cooperation with America would allow the young nation to grow and develop.

However, there's no evidence that Truman considered or even read this curious proposal. After all, Vietnam was a nation halfway across the world, in a region where America had few strategic interests. Even if it was accepted, it would be quite awkward for America to allow its territory to be led by a thoroughly communist government, especially during the Cold War. In all likeliness, this proposal was simply a gesture of goodwill from Ho, as a way of showing his country's willingness to cooperate with America.

A more serious second proposal came from the U.S Ambassador to South Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge. Lodge didn't have a great relationship with the Vietnamese President, Ngo Dinh Diem, due to Diem's flagrantly corrupt and authoritarian policies. Lodge later encouraged America to support a coup against Diem, but this only caused even more instability as each corrupt leader was overthrown by another in a series of military coups. Upset at this apparent lack of stability, Lodge warned the State Department that it had two options to save South Vietnam.

It could either have Vietnam relinquish its independence and become a protectorate of the United States (which it didn't) or America could increase its military involvement (which it did). But in a scenario where the government of South Vietnam completely collapses into a series of squabbling warlords, the State Department could be forced to consider Lodge's proposal. Looking at our timeline, it's not hard to imagine that the leadership of South Vietnam could become even worse for American interests. After all, the South Vietnamese government was almost overthrown by a communist spy. If something on that scale was successful, cutting out the middleman wouldn't seem like that bad of an option for the U.S of A.
 
Last edited:
So, does anyone have ideas on how this affects the war against the Viet Cong? Without the Vietnamese leadership embezzling aid money and a more committed America, it's safe to say that the war would be way more successful. On the topic of foreign policy, how would the rest of the world react to America taking away another country's independence? Also, would South Vietnam gain it's freedom after the war ends, or would it remain an American protectorate?
 
The first proposal was made none other by Ho Chi Minh after the end of the Second World War. It was no secret that Ho held a high opinion of America, having played the Star Spangled Banner during Vietnam's Declaration of Independence. In a telegram to Harry Truman, he suggested that Vietnam could join the United States as a protectorate, similar to how Puerto Rico became a territory of America. Ho figured that American rule would've been better than French Imperialism (not that that's saying much) and believed that cooperation with America would allow the young nation to grow and develop.

However, there's no evidence that Truman considered or even read this curious proposal. After all, Vietnam was a nation halfway across the world, in a region where America had few strategic interests. Even if it was accepted, it would be quite awkward for America to allow its territory to be led by a thoroughly communist government, especially during the Cold War. In all likeliness, this proposal was simply a gesture of goodwill from Ho, as a way of showing his country's willingness to cooperate with America.
Could I have a source for this? I'd like to be able to know more.

Anyways, I know that you want this discussion to be mainly about the later proposal, but the above just really tickles my fancy (another wacky PoD-worthy trivia fact from the August Revolution, is that Ho offered Ngo Dinh Diem the position of Interior Minister).

Given the US did stick around too long in the Philippines following WWII it seems unlikely that a Vietnamese protectorate would last all that long. However, a brief period of peaceful American oversight may have dramatic effects on Vietnam, particularly as Ho's hands would be somewhat tied with regards to the other factions in the Viet Minh (OTL the communists absorbed, wiped out, or drove to the south [where they were absorbed or wiped out by Diem] their former coalition partners as the WWII era Viet Minh coalition began to break down) and opposition by other Vietnamese factions. So a multiparty democracy could emerge in Vietnam.
 
Could I have a source for this? I'd like to be able to know more.
According to George Katsiaficas, Ho asked Truman to make Vietnam a protectorate around 1945. Apparently, the telegram was mainly a reaction to the European powers cracking down on indegeious resistance movements across former Japanese colonies. However, I couldn't find anymore sources regarding the content of these telegrams, so I'm not sure if Ho's proposal was to be taken seriously.

https://books.google.co.id/books?id=9H7Hgbcsr8cC&pg=PA64&dq=&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
 
I can't imagine either proposal would gain much traction. America in the early Cold War tried to market itself as different from the old colonial powers, and establishing suzerainity over a newly independent territory in Southeast Asia would have undercut that and handed the Soviets a propaganda victory. It would also have sparked earlier domestic opposition to the war, since establishing a protectorate creates a permanent military commitment.
 

Deleted member 1487

The problem was France. America needed France to be onside in the new alliance system in Europe to stop the spread of Soviet influence and France wanted to maintain their empire to help fuel it's recovery from WW2, so to satisfy the broader US strategic interest at the time they had to satisfy the desires of France, which meant assisting their return to imperial control over Indochina. I don't see how they could square that circle unless France fell to Communism right after WW2. Then the US would be highly interested in supporting independence of the French colonies. I'm just not sure who that could happen given US investments in France to make sure that didn't happen. Despite the Communist parties being the most popular of all in France and Italy US clandestine work ensured they were beaten in elections and they were not shy about resorting to assassination to make sure the wrong groups didn't organize effectively to win.
 

Deleted member 109224

If the US declared South Vietnam an outright protectorate, the War in Vietnam has gone from protecting the country from Communism to an outright colonial conflict. There'd be domestic opposition in the US to that, considering it's a bonkers proposal.

Looking at the original Ho model...

In PR there was a popularly elected lower house, a US-appointed upper house, and a governor appointed by the President until 1952. Puerto Ricans, however, were US citizens since 1917.
In the Philippines after 1935, the US provided military protection and handled the country's Foreign Policy but was otherwise independent internally. Filipinos were not US citizens.

I can't see the US making the Vietnamese US Citizens and I can't see Ho assenting to the US appointing a governor or selecting members of the legislature. So I'm going to infer that the Philippines post-1935 is the model that'd come into play.




The big problem is going to be the French. The US wants (needs?) the French in order to contain the Soviets and fight communism, and thus isn't going to want to provoke them. The French will be very very angry about the US taking their colonies from them. Either the US needs to not care about what France thinks or the US will have to back up the French someplace else to compensate.

FDR didn't really care about pissing off the French - he offered to give Indochina to Chiang.
Maybe the US gets France to abandon French Indochina in exchange for promises of Greater Marshall Plan Aid or more territory in Europe.

Alternatively, the East-West line in Europe is further east, resulting in the US not having to rely on France as much. Germany divided along the Elbe, Hungary and Czechoslovakia avoiding Soviet domination, etc.




I can't see Ho being allowed to explicitly call himself a Communist while running an American Protectorate - that's bad optics. Maybe he'd rename his party the Progressive Party or the Nationalist Party. I'm also going to guess that the US is gonna demand some kind of Democracy in a country formally under its aegis.
 
Top