DBWI: The French aren't able hold on to Indochina?

Nowadays, the whole of Indochina is pretty independent. Besides some meaningless symbolic gestures they have pay to the French Republic, the whole federation of Indochina did gave way much autonomy that eventually led to independence. Perhaps this was a necessary evil to safeguard to protect these regions from communism. The French fought a brutal war that lasted nearly 20 years starting from 1946 to 1964 to suppress these communist guerrillas, this war was fierce, many French commanders at the time thought seriously the French would be defeated. It didn't help that France was a broke nation due to the aftermath of World War 2.
I am thinking of something that can shift the power balance towards the Communist guerrillas more, perhaps the Nationalist China losing its civil war to the Communists there. With the Mainland completely under the control of the Communists, the Communist guerrillas would have basically an unbroken supply lines to attack the French and even a sanctuary. The Soviets attempted to supplied the Communist guerrillas in Indochina but they didn't have really way to supply them with heavy weaponry like big artillery pieces. They couldn't supply them enough to affect the French war effort much and not to mention Soviet aid came in too late.
 
Yeah, as is the Communist insurgency was as logistically challenged as Chin Peng's force was during the Malay Emergency. That could have made it a lot worse.

What also could have made it a lot worse was if the Nazis had won the Battle of France. It was a near-run thing IOTL. If that had happened, it would have been hard to hold onto Indochina without a metropole to administer it. It also might have opened it up to Japanese aggression. Trying to hang on after the economic devastation caused by WWII (particularly as in World War One to the northeastern industrial regions), occupying Germany, and France's overspending on armaments after the scare that all gave them was hard enough.

OOC: I think this is the only way to do it. You need a POD of France not being conquered to allow this to happen. That wiped away France's control there and they were never able to reassert it.
 
All manner of butterflies. France not being able to hold onto Indochina could see similar effects on British colonies in the region. Granted, they did have to pull out of India, but they were able to hold onto Burma, Malaya, Sarawak and Brunei. OK, Malaya and Sarawak are pretty much independent, but Britain maintains a lot of military and economic influence. Particularly in Malaya, though the 1982 Jungle War played a major role there - Britain and the ANZACs saving Malaya from Thai aggression. And of course British-owned businesses are the major employers, especially in the oil sector.

Actually, that's an interesting thought. Without the SE Asian territories - especially Singapore Crown Colony - there's no way the Royal Navy and RAF could have maintained the kind of power projection they have today. And Britain's ethnic makeup would be quite different: I mean according to the 2011 census, Chinese and Malay immigrants make up 2.3% and 1.9% of the total British population respectively...
 
Yeah, as is the Communist insurgency was as logistically challenged as Chin Peng's force was during the Malay Emergency. That could have made it a lot worse.
OOC: That's an interesting point you bring with Chin Peng. I can see Ho Chi Minh's reputation being remembered like Chin Peng in a scenario like this. I can't see his anti-Japanese resistance being enough to sustain the legendary reputation he has in our history. He is killed in fighting, kills himself, flees to a friendly Communist country. Or he could be captured by the French who either put him on trial and executed him for ''war crimes''. It's possible French could just put him in house arrest because they don't want to be seen executing a ''fragile old man''.




OOC: I think this is the only way to do it. You need a POD of France not being conquered to allow this to happen. That wiped away France's control there and they were never able to reassert it.

OOC: Agreed. The Fall of Paris was a massive blow to French prestige. It created this false and warped myth that the French are weak willed cowards. The whole problem is the huge trauma left over from War 1. According to some numbers, due to World War 1 one in 20 in France was dead. That's pretty jarring for a nation that only had 40 million people. What's worse, it increased the divide between the left and right wing forces grew ever wider which already existed for decades as France's enemies
consolidated.
http://www.france-pub.com/world-war-1.php

Perhaps, going on the offensive in 1939 before Germany had the initiative to attack the French.
 
I wonder if this could curb the overwhelming dominance of the Vietnamese in the region, perhaps the khmer language can hold its ground in such a TL
 
I wonder if this could curb the overwhelming dominance of the Vietnamese in the region, perhaps the khmer language can hold its ground in such a TL

OOC: The Vietnamese dominance is probably largely due to the fact, the Vietnamese have a much large population. Even today, the Vietnamese population (90 million) is 6 times the amount in Cambodia(15 million).
 
OOC: Agreed. The Fall of Paris was a massive blow to French prestige. It created this false and warped myth that the French are weak willed cowards. The whole problem is the huge trauma left over from War 1. According to some numbers, due to World War 1 one in 20 in France was dead. That's pretty jarring for a nation that only had 40 million people. What's worse, it increased the divide between the left and right wing forces grew ever wider which already existed for decades as France's enemies
consolidated.
http://www.france-pub.com/world-war-1.php

Perhaps, going on the offensive in 1939 before Germany had the initiative to attack the French.

OOC: Agree about Chin Peng, but I wonder how much France's defeat in Asia was about casualty exhaustion. Most of the French Far East Expeditionary Corps were recruited from non-metropole areas of the French Union like Morocco, Madagascar, etc., and then the French Foreign Legion obviously weren't French.

I could be wrong, but I think the actual *French* casualties were comparable to Algeria.

I would say it wasn't casualty exhaustion like the U.S.'s war in Vietnam that lost France the war, but actual battlefield defeats. Ho Chi Minh built an extremely potent force during WWII with allied assistance that controlled large parts of the country, then inflicted major military defeats on the French throughout the war. This was not just at Dien Bien Phu but also at Mang Yang Pass, Cao Bang, Lai Khe, Dong Khe, and Route Colonial 4. Those were just the major ones. Ho Chi Minh won fair and square; the French had the country wrenched out of their grip.

A good POD might be that Stalin decides the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact isn't in their best interests because Hitler (aka the guy whose entire platform is based on defeating his ideology and country). That would lengthen the amount of time the Nazis took to conquer Poland by weeks and significantly raise their casualties. That would give the BEF time to fully deploy (might even save Norway) while taking the Reich down a peg. That's about what it would take to allow France's extremely decrepit military in 1940 to pull it out during the Battle of France.
 
Top