New Villages and Strategic Hamlets

New Villages were the population transfers the British used to successfully combat the Malayan Emergency. IOTL, they inspired the Strategic Hamlet program of Vietnam, where they were an abject failure.

Why was there such a contrast between the results of the two programs? Did the British get historically lucky, that is, could New Villages have backfired? Were the main problems of the Strategic Hamlets their administration, or was there something fundamentally different between them and New Villages?
 
In Malaya, it was easy to cut off food from the NVs, forcing the relocated communists to relent or die. In 'Nam, basically every part of land was fertile, so it was rather impossible to cut off the commies' food, meaning they could just keep going.
 
process

Nice to see my favorite topic.
This is in fact my doctoral thesis issue. The sucess of the british, vs the us on again off again in vietnam.
Here is the readers digest version.
The briitsh and their Australian and New Zealander understudies, truly made the new villages, more attractive physically and ecomincally.
Being mostly muslim, and or Christain the Malay people, didn't feel the same sort of ancestral attachment to the land the vietnamese did.
American forces had to face, a people who largely in rural distircts were very much linked to the land.
Having run half the world for nearly a century as the UK had, they understood, the need to provide incentives beyond the material.
The United States igorned the battle within the villages during the massive surge period between 1965-1968. Counterinsurgency was placed on the back burner untill the Nixion presidency.
Also most gurrlieas in Malaysia, were malay and chinese.
Vietnamese gurrlieas were literly the person down the block.
The best books on the subject are Noel Barbor's war of the running dogs,
and Sir robert Thompson, an advisor to both, Peace is Not at Hand.
Im sorry about my spelling, but I am a quaderpleic.
I would enjoy discussing it more
Professor Sean Dineen From NJ
 

NothingNow

Banned
New Villages were the population transfers the British used to successfully combat the Malayan Emergency. IOTL, they inspired the Strategic Hamlet program of Vietnam, where they were an abject failure.

Why was there such a contrast between the results of the two programs? Did the British get historically lucky, that is, could New Villages have backfired? Were the main problems of the Strategic Hamlets their administration, or was there something fundamentally different between them and New Villages?

The Strategic Hamlet program was poorly run and suffered from Idiotic and often Corrupt leadership. If the USMC (and maybe the Australians) had complete control over the program, it would have worked much, much better.
 
Simple answer in Malaya the CTs were ethnic Chinese who were culturaly and economicaly seperate to the majority Malays. Thus not many Malays identified with the CT cause and were happy to be protected from them.

In Vietnam the VC were Vietnamese who were fighting for political power, and were identified with the forces which threw off the French, it was easy to get popular support for this. People didn't particularly need or want protection for the VC since the VC were one legitimate side of the conflict.
 
Top