U.S. Gives Ho Chi Minh an Audience

Considering what happened with both Tito and Mao, I'd say unlikely. Truman would want Ho to be at least firm in his commitments to the U.S, which had frustrated to no end with Tito. Or might go the Mao route and possibly throw that opportunity down the toilet because he might be an agent of Moscow, even after Mao himself engaged in posturing with the Americans.
 
Are you all seriously thinking that the US will allow the west to become communist?

I don't see France or Germany or Italy falling to communism. Why? Because the Marshall Plan will still carry out, keeping the democratic capitalist nations alive.

Minh pretty much turned communist to receive support from the Chinese and Soviets. I can see him turning Vietnam into a semi-socialist state, but I don't see a quasi-communist or full on communist Vietnam.
 
I think the only way this could happen is if Nationalist China occupies all of Indochina as opposed to only the north half. IOTL, the British occupied the southern half until the French could come in.

It's one thing for the US to support what is essentially a fait accompli of the Vietnamese nationalists. The US demanding the French give independence when they have half of the country is just not realistic.

Second, the challenge of the scenario is the ongoing murder of non-Communist Vietnamese nationalists by the Viet Minh. At some point, the US is going to tell Ho is that unless it stops and allows the non-Communists real power it is just going to support the VNQDD or other groups.

The major problem is that while Ho is a real leader and not some figurehead, he is not some absolute autocrat with the Vietnamese Communist party. The other members of the Politburo do have a say and are committed Communists. IOTL, there are lots of instances when the Politburo overruled Ho or ignored his wishes. Rather than fight and insist on his way, Ho generally acceded to their wishes.

The most likely scenario that I see is:

1) China occupies all of Indochina, allowing the Vietminh to set up a countrywide government.

2) The US encourages France to recognize the independence in some kind of face saving framework.

3) France agrees to do so, and Ho's Vietnam is included in some kind of modified French Union with various agreements with France.

4) Vietnamese Communist depredation on non-Communist elements gets out of hand, and the West realizes Ho is not just some nationalist, but a committed Communist.

5) Civil war begins in Vietnam as France and US support the survivors of the Communist purges provided this is before Chiang falls in Mainland China. If this happens after Mao takes over, the West likely does not do anything in Vietnam. Chalks it up to a loss, and moves to support the other nations in SE Asia. The complete failure of US foreign policy in Indochina likely leads to electoral consequences in the US.

The exact timing of events is important because the critical time period is 1947-1949. The outcome could be anything from a united Communist Vietnam to a united Non-Communist Vietnam to a civil war cock up and partition like IOTL. The only advantage I see is that there won't be any (or at least little) spectre of French collaboration by the non-Communists in Vietnam since France never resumed its colonial rule in any part of Vietnam.

There is a chance Ho will head a truly broad front and establishes a democratic Vietnam where the Communists play a role, but are not dictators. I think this chance is very small though.
 
but sweetheart trade deals with the U.S. kind of increases the odds. or, almost sweetheart deals. Let the Vietnamese save face in this regard.
 
Are you all seriously thinking that the US will allow the west to become communist?

I don't see France or Germany or Italy falling to communism. Why? Because the Marshall Plan will still carry out, keeping the democratic capitalist nations alive.
.

I highlighted the operative word. I think you underestimate how high the votes for the Communists party would be ITTL. IOTL, in the 1946 elections, the PCF had the highest score of all parties at 30%. It didn't get into power because other parties formed a coalition against it. ITTL, the PCF score will be higher and other left-leaning (SFIO, UDSR...) parties will be willing to form a coalition with it. SO the only way to stop the communist taking power would be a coup d'etat. With no local support, as extreme right was disqualified by Vichy.... That is called an invasion.
 
Too Little, Too Late

As many have already commented, post WW2 is probably too late for Uncle Ho and the US making nice-nice. Best possible POD would be at the Versailles conference, where Ho and others petitioned for redress, using the language of the USA Declaration of Independence. Postulating a different Wilson (less of a white supremacist and all-round arrogant prick), or another US President (like TR?) who would be sympathetic to the Vietnamese, even if nothing came of it, it is possible Ho would not have turned to the Marxist-Leninists quite so thoroughly. OTOH, with being, "Our Man in Hanoi", his effectiveness against the French could have been much less.
 
. . . in the 1946 elections, the PCF had the highest score of all parties at 30%. It didn't get into power because other parties formed a coalition against it. ITTL, the PCF score will be higher and other left-leaning (SFIO, UDSR...) parties will be willing to form a coalition with it. . .
I think that would be for pretty loosey-goosey communism.

And PCF is Parti Communiste Français, right?
 
As many have already commented, post WW2 is probably too late for Uncle Ho and the US making nice-nice. Best possible POD would be at the Versailles conference, where Ho and others petitioned for redress, using the language of the USA Declaration of Independence. Postulating a different Wilson (less of a white supremacist and all-round arrogant prick), or another US President (like TR?) who would be sympathetic to the Vietnamese, even if nothing came of it, it is possible Ho would not have turned to the Marxist-Leninists quite so thoroughly. OTOH, with being, "Our Man in Hanoi", his effectiveness against the French could have been much less.

Ho Chi Minh in 1919 was some random guy who asked for a meeting with Wilson. It doesn't matter who was the President, if you're some random guy off the street who had been working as a waiter, a chef, a steward, etc. etc. until very recently and was now at most an inconsequential nobody publishing newspaper articles, you don't get an audience with the president at the most important negotiating event in the world when they're busy with a host of other stuff. Especially if you're a non-entity who is trying to forment rebellion against a war-time ally, even under the rhetoric of self-determination. Self-determination only goes so far after all, and it wasn't like Wilson was anti-colonial - he just wanted colonialism put under the League of Nations, instead of the Empires. His original idea with it was to have Scandinavian powers administrative the colonies in the League of Nation's name, eventually it changed to "promoting the best practices of the British Empire" through the mandate system. Ironically, the British dominion's colonies of Namibia, Palestine, Samoa (well, actually, I must say that New Zealand's administration there was in accord with mandate principles until 1935 when they started liberalizing, but managing to kill off 30%?… of the population through administrative incompetence is a pretty dismal track record), and New Guinea were some of the ones which ran mostly directly contrary to said "principles", and it wasn't like Iraq was a wonderful place either, but such is imperialism. If some random white person asked the same thing, a conference with Wilson,, they'd get turned down too.

Also, good luck with Teddy Roosevelt. I don't know what Teddy Roosevelt's opinions were on the French Empire, but he was actually more imperialistic in his attitudes than a lot of British colonial administrators. When he toured in Sudan, he made a speech that the British would have to stay there permanently to provide proper guidance and elevate them to civilization, and called the British work there some of the greatest work of civilization ever done. The natives were convinced that it was the British putting him up to it, but the British were actually irritated at him over it because he was far more expansive in his stated views. Now, its fully possible that he has a less positive view of the French Empire, but he isn't anti-colonial material who is going to be cheering on an anti-European rebellion. He did speak of uplifting the Filipinos, and the Indochinese would I presume be considered n the same level, so therefor my assumption is that he would have supported the French mission there unless if he was against the French colonial empire for its practices. In which case, he wouldn't be against colonialism in Vietnam, he'd be against the way the French were running it.

From Reluctant Liberator: Theodore Roosevelt's Philosophy of Self-Government and Preparation for Philippine Independence:

Most studies of Roosevelt's imperialist thought focus on race and Social Darwinism (Burton 1965; Dyer 1980). David Burton's 1968 study arguably remains the best. In Burton's telling, Roosevelt had a "hesitant and temporary commitment to empire . . . typical of his America" (1968, 4-5) that peaked with the Spanish- American War of 1898. To the contrary, Roosevelt's commitment to empire did not waver. That his presi- dency seems to indicate otherwise may indicate not flagging commitment by Roosevelt but the atypicality of Roosevelt's commitment among Americans. Moreover, in narrating the African tour, Burton omits that Roosevelt pressed the native Sudanese to make British imperial rule "perpetual" and presents Roosevelt as moderate toward Egypt. Burton's Roosevelt, while advocating strong-fisted British rule in the short run, encouraged "nationalistic ambitions" among delighted Egyptians (1968, 183). In truth, Roosevelt condemned any movement toward Egyptian independence, inspiring nationalists' ire.

He instructed the Sudanese to obey British authority forever, and Egyptians for genera- tions at the least. Then he scolded the British for thinking Egyptians might have been ready for self-government. "The dominion of modern civilized nations over the dark places of the earth has been fraught with widespread good for mankind," Roosevelt proclaimed in London (1910, 161). Roosevelt the civilizing imperialist was back - suggesting he had never left.

As nationalists debated the justice of the murder, the new consul, Sir Eldon Gorst, urged Roosevelt to stay silent on the assassination. But Roosevelt was not about to shrink from defending Britain's civilizing mission. Soon after arriving in Khartoum on March 14, 1910, Roosevelt delivered three speeches, two in Sudan andEgypt in March and one in Britain in May, that reiterated his previous convictions but presented them more starkly (Burton 1968, 178-79).
Forget preparing the Sudanese or East Africans for self-government, Roosevelt said. Spreading civilization was the highest priority for mankind. In Sudan, that meant making British rule "perpetual" (1910, 3). East Africa, for its part, needed the continued promotion of permanent British settlement. The land "can be made a true white man's country," Roosevelt enthused. Now, as in his pre-presidential years, he proudly alluded to brutality. "No alien race should be permitted to come into competition with the settlers," he said, leaving the means - forced resettlement or extermination - to Londoners' imagi- nation (19Ю, 161-62).12 Nonsettler colonies, for their part, were "totally different." In Sudan, Egypt, and Uganda, as in the Philippines, civilized Westerners had to uplift native savages. However civilization was best spread, that was how to rule.
In governing Egypt, "it is the thing, not the form, which is vital," said Roosevelt (1910, 163, 171).

Now then, Roosevelt did support ultimate independence, but this would only be when the natives were judged "ready", which might never arrive. He did support independence in the Philippines in the end, but this was because he had become convinced that Americans were lacking in the appropriate imperialistic spirit to be worthy of the task. In Vietnam, if he did dislike French methods (and I have no way of knowing, but a lot of American intellectuals had a preference for the British empire), he'd push to reform French administration, not for independence.
 
Last edited:
I think that would be for pretty loosey-goosey communism.

And PCF is Parti Communiste Français, right?

Yes to the second and I do not understand the first, sorry.

If you mean it will be a form of communism rather far from Moscow, then the answer is maybe. It depends on who wins the internal fight in the PCF. If it is Thorez, they will toe the Moscow line. If it is the resistants, then it may be more influance by Proudhon than by Marx, let alone Lenin (forget about Stalin).
 
Yes, I mean a form of communism rather far from Moscow. And it sounds like an eminently reasonable answer, that it depends on which personalities emerge from a power structure. That's France.

With the situation in Vietnam, what I'd love to see is a coalition government. For example, the communists want to do land reform, but the traditionalists are worried that it's going to be done in a majorly abusive fashion. Okay, so almost the solution that whoever cuts a slice of pie, the other person gets to pick. So, the traditionalists themselves do land reform so it won't be done in abusive fashion, and communists get to judge whether it's successful in bringing enough land to persons formerly poor. The communists want to really ramp up education. The traditionalists say, fine, but we get to financially audit to see that the money actually go to school teachers and facilities and not just a big slush fund where administrators live high off the hog. Etc., Etc., Etc. I think this kind of coalition approach has a lot of potential.
 
Top