WI Ho Chi Minh makes a bigger impact on Woodrow Wilson at Versailles

I assume that decolonization would occur earlier, and obviously no communist Vietnam. I want to write an alt-hist about this concept and would like some input
 
Now wouldn't this require some change of the thought behind the Treaty of Versailles in regard to selfdetermination. I'm not sure this was thought to be extended out of Europe even if some consideration was to be given to the peoples of colonies that was to have a change of claims - which wasn't the case for French Indochina.
The case of the Ottoman Empire is clearly a way to dismember the Empire.

But have Wilson be more insisting on the priciple and somehow extend it to the Allies' colonies (but I don't find this a possible path in 1918)
The time was ripe for this in 1945 not in 1918.
It would also make for some ripples in the US colonial empire - Philippines?

It could of course make for some interesting TL - how about US support post 1935 when the Philippines had independence in sight? But this probably would have to have a less isolationist USA or a USA much more Asia-orientated??
 
Perhaps this means that the USA befriends Ho Chi Minh and he never looks to Moscow for help--a move which might mean that the USA might instead of having a bitter war in SE Asia instead has a bitter spat with France over trying to retake IndoChina--the USA would simply support Ho Chi Minh instead of Bao Lai or Diem, and if France doesn't like it they are going to pull out of NATO anyway.
 
Perhaps this means that the USA befriends Ho Chi Minh and he never looks to Moscow for help--a move which might mean that the USA might instead of having a bitter war in SE Asia instead has a bitter spat with France over trying to retake IndoChina--the USA would simply support Ho Chi Minh instead of Bao Lai or Diem, and if France doesn't like it they are going to pull out of NATO anyway.

I reckon this is the original idea. No matter what the US will be doing to support Ho it is going to enrage France. Interesting thing is it could also make ripples in the British overseas empire - early decolonization.

But why would the US champion that?
Doing so anytime post 1933 would only be a help to Hitler and before that as well as after would sour US-French/British relations.

I don't think such a move would be in the minds of peoples of those days! ;)
 
I reckon this is the original idea. No matter what the US will be doing to support Ho it is going to enrage France. Interesting thing is it could also make ripples in the British overseas empire - early decolonization.

But why would the US champion that?
Doing so anytime post 1933 would only be a help to Hitler and before that as well as after would sour US-French/British relations.

I don't think such a move would be in the minds of peoples of those days! ;)

Well, there is the Suez Crisis...
Post 1947, the UK is yielding its empire one way or another. France might disagree, but with foresight we know that France is going to screw over the USA with NATO anyhow. The UK and France aren't going to defect to the Warsaw Pact in any case. And the USA has a real case to act this way towards France--the Domino Theory--if France loses Vietnam and the place goes Red, eventually all of Eurasia will go Red. Therefore, France needs to be pressured to make a deal that it and the Vietnamese can accept.

One way this might have worked out is if the USA and UK didn't decide to include France on the UN security council and give them a smaller role over anger at the whole Vichy thing--then, relations with France would be less important the USA would probably let Ho and his followers police themselves.

Privately, I think a spat with France would have been well worth saving the tens of thousands who died in the conflict on the American Side. US-French Relations would get hit, but they'd recover when the Soviets start pointing more and more nukes across Germany. Besides, the French are going to learn that their empire isn't for keeps.
 
Well, there is the Suez Crisis...
Post 1947, the UK is yielding its empire one way or another. France might disagree, but with foresight we know that France is going to screw over the USA with NATO anyhow. The UK and France aren't going to defect to the Warsaw Pact in any case. And the USA has a real case to act this way towards France--the Domino Theory--if France loses Vietnam and the place goes Red, eventually all of Eurasia will go Red. Therefore, France needs to be pressured to make a deal that it and the Vietnamese can accept.

One way this might have worked out is if the USA and UK didn't decide to include France on the UN security council and give them a smaller role over anger at the whole Vichy thing--then, relations with France would be less important the USA would probably let Ho and his followers police themselves.

Privately, I think a spat with France would have been well worth saving the tens of thousands who died in the conflict on the American Side. US-French Relations would get hit, but they'd recover when the Soviets start pointing more and more nukes across Germany. Besides, the French are going to learn that their empire isn't for keeps.

Well, yes. But how about the time of 1918-1947??? If we are to help the thread starter!
 
Top