WI the US recognized Ho in Vietnam 1945

In otl Ho Chi Minh made a declaration of independence deliberately based on America's. Howevever the US recognized France as rulers and the rest we know.

If things had been different would Vietnam have been Stalinist Titoist or something else?

Just how much would it matter to US French relationships. In 1945 France could not have actually done much about it but how bitter would France have stayed?

Also does this fundamentally change America because the 60s being so different without that particular war
 

Markus

Banned
It could mean trouble in the late 40´s when the USA needs France against the USSR. Probably sooner when it comes to administering Germany.

No Vietman War -> no anti-war movement. Yes, that could change the USA a lot unless there is another war that also involves vast numbers of draftees send overseas.
 
It could mean trouble in the late 40´s when the USA needs France against the USSR. Probably sooner when it comes to administering Germany.

Er... why does the US need the French again? The Brits aren't enough help?

Actually, if the US recognizes Vietnam (and why shouldn't the US? Ho was on quite good terms with the OSS), I'd see them becoming a democracy at least on paper, and a better one than most of those the US backed in the Cold War.

In a turnaround, Vietnamese troops are deployed to Korea when N.Korea invades S.Korea. Probably a token force.
 
Er... why does the US need the French again? The Brits aren't enough help?

Didn't the French get kinda snooty and tried to make themselves a third figure in the Cold War anyway? I think I recall them withdrawing troop support from NATO or something like that.
 
Yeah, that's CDG for you. He also tried to screw around with Canadian national unity in '67... What de Gaulle did was withdraw France from the NATO military command and kick the Americans out of French (primarily air force) bases. Only under Sarko has France opened negotiations to rejoin NATO's integrated command structure.
 
Because of their powerful military? Why do you think Germany was asked to rearm?

They'd be crazy not to have at least unofficial links with NATO, though. Further, IIRC they did nearly recognize Ho et. al. and pull out of Vietnam around '45, but right-wingers scuttled that. WI they failed, instead, so both the US and France were saying "Okay Ho, here's your country, it's not beat up that bad..."?
 

Nietzsche

Banned
Hm. Hopefully this anti-French(or atleast, pragmatic policy) will lead to a few less needless wars. Vietnam, even if technically Communist, as an American ally only helps our standing in Asia. Makes us look like we genuinely care about ending Imperialism and thus, more likely to ask for American, rather than Soviet, help to secure it.
 
Butterflies aplenty

I'm perfectly cool with it. In hindsight, the American efforts to placate French sensibilities did them zero good anyway. Part of that was due to CDG, part of it was the American response to Suez, part of it was the American inability to see the French as anything but a vain drain on their resources.
So, America actually answers the Vietnamese DOI with recognition and say, mediates an agreement with France about repatriation of profits from French-owned businesses, etc. French don't have to worry about their people or property being seized, a much more cordial divorce preserving French access and support for the Indochinese economy.
American engagement with HCM sparks a much more concerted diplomatic effort to engage the Communist Chinese once it is clear that the Nationalists are losing.
Say Chou-en-Lai has more of a voice in the discussion, securing American aid to reconstruct China, not even allowing the Nationalists to escape to Taiwan. They didn't have to be our best buddies, just assured we don't want regime change and might be of some help in putting things back together. You've butterflied away the tensions of the last sixty years.
In this case, China's neutral at worst in whatever Korean War results from Soviet adventurism. They don't want a messed-up Korea on their border with refugees fleeing an endless civil war. They want a friendly vassal state at best or neutral state that poses no threat to them.
I heard of a much saner North Korean alternative to Kim Il Sung who could have gotten and maintained power and established a neutral, social-democratic regime. Result, united, democratic Korea that hasn't been sundered in two for 50+ years and counting.
Imagine if you will, the Asian Tigers getting in economic gear twenty, thirty years earlier? America and China in strategic and economic partnership much earlier? Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos not bombed into a moonscape and defoliated? No huge refugee population due to the disruptions of the Vietnam War?
Think of an America that didn't fight in Korea or Vietnam. Korea made us worry about a monolithic world Communist movement that existed only in our heads. Vietnam showed us the limits of what our technology and money could accomplish and still haven't learned.
This raises all kinds of questions as to what else we and the rest of the world did with our time and money from 1945-1990? More space exploration? Less military buildups? Much worse environmental damage from much more affluent people consuming much more resources?
 
A timeline for this sounds like a great idea including the rise of the Asian tigers, a saner North Korea leading to a quicker reunification, more space exploration, etc.
 
If I recall corectly Ho visited Paris to negotiate about indepedence (Independence but remaining part of the French community for a time).
For a time it looked like that might succed, as France itself had communists in the goverment back then.

But then the french goverment collapsed and negotiations failed.

Maybe that would make a better POD for an Titoist Vietnam?
 
Top