WI: Woodrow Wilson pushed for indochinese independence

Apparently, Ho Chi Minh urged Woodrow Wilson to push for independence of Indochina from france. Of course, that was rejected, but wi he listened?
 
Apparently, Ho Chi Minh urged Woodrow Wilson to push for independence of Indochina from france. Of course, that was rejected, but wi he listened?

Clemancu tells him to get stuffed at which point there is a minor diplomatic crisis between the US and France. Britain probably attempts to patch up the dispute while the Germans attempt to exploit the whole spat to get a slightly more lenient peace treaty. In short any chance of Indiochinese independence would probably require ASBs
 

Japhy

Banned
Listening would require meeting, Ho Chi Mihn wanted to meet the American President but being as he was an absolute no one and wasn't white, Wilson never bothered meeting him. And I hate to say it but the idea of Any American President meeting Ho Chi Mihn on purpose in 1919 would be out there.
 
Well, he could have pushed for Indochina to have autonomy within a French Union. Basically the situation of a Dominion within the British Commonwealth.
 
If Wilson had said anything about Indochinese independence I would think that the British or French, who's colonially holds would be weakened by even considering such a move, would point out to the US that American has its own imperial possessions it should rid itself of first. Namely, the Philippines, Hawaii, Guam and Samoa.
 
Well, besides all the diplomatic issues already addressed, Wilson would have to not be a racist. Yes, he believed in nationalism and self-determination, but only in white, Christian nations. And Ho Chi Minh already had Communist sympathies. No matter how pro-American he was, with respect to his Constitution and so forth, any tie with Commies will kill America's support for him.
 
Leaving aside Ho's Communism, I don't think the American Verwoerd is going to be embracing Asian nationalism anytime soon.
 

NothingNow

Banned
Well, besides all the diplomatic issues already addressed, Wilson would have to not be a racist. Yes, he believed in nationalism and self-determination, but only in white, Christian nations. And Ho Chi Minh already had Communist sympathies. No matter how pro-American he was, with respect to his Constitution and so forth, any tie with Commies will kill America's support for him.
Actually, he didn't really turn to communism until the US told him where to shove it after WW2. And it would have been ridiculously easy to support him, since we'd just need to "Loose" some Tanks and other equipment that was officially supposed to go to the RoC, if that happens a couple of times with some shipments no big deal. Hell, It'd give the US Plausible Deniablity, if the French get suspicious, and the US would just have to stay out of Indo-china otherwise.
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
Actually, he didn't really turn to communism until the US told him where to shove it after WW2. And it would have been ridiculously easy to support him, since we'd just need to "Loose" some Tanks and other equipment that was officially supposed to go to the RoC, if that happens a couple of times with some shipments no big deal. Hell, It'd give the US Plausible Deniablity, if the French get suspicious, and the US would just have to stay out of Indo-china otherwise.

And that's the end of NATO :rolleyes:
 
Not bloody likely. France decided to leave NATO in the 50s, but didn't fully detatch itself until the 60s, and NATO still held together. I don't see it being any different even if the US supports Minh.

Whether or not they'd re-join like they did just last year is another question entirely.

And look. I didn't make a joke about France. I'm growing as a person, I am. Though I guess that loses me some credibility as an American. A vicious cycle, I say.
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
Not bloody likely. France decided to leave NATO in the 50s, but didn't fully detatch itself until the 60s, and NATO still held together. I don't see it being any different even if the US supports Minh.

Whether or not they'd re-join like they did just last year is another question entirely.

And look. I didn't make a joke about France. I'm growing as a person, I am. Though I guess that loses me some credibility as an American. A vicious cycle, I say.

The French withdrawal from the military part of NATO started in 1958 indeed but mostly out of typical French reasons. Now they'll be leaving much sooner and because the US ACTIVELY supports their enemies. You'll have the whole of Europe in uproar wondering if the US is supporting insurgents in their colonies as well.
 
I read that before the Korean War, the US was actually getting tired of the French attempts to keep indochina.
 
Listening would require meeting, Ho Chi Mihn wanted to meet the American President but being as he was an absolute no one and wasn't white, Wilson never bothered meeting him. And I hate to say it but the idea of Any American President meeting Ho Chi Mihn on purpose in 1919 would be out there.


I have to support that first sentence: Wilson was no (great?) friend of racial equality whatsoever, having been raised in formative years in the Confederacy (the only president to do so, by the way). Indeed, the Japanese wanted a sentence included in (I think) the preamble to the charter for the League of Nations that spoke to equality of all races; Wilson sent that idea to oblivion rather efficiently.
 
If Wilson had said anything about Indochinese independence I would think that the British or French, who's colonially holds would be weakened by even considering such a move, would point out to the US that American has its own imperial possessions it should rid itself of first. Namely, the Philippines, Hawaii, Guam and Samoa.

Three out of four, anyhow: at the time, Hawaii was already a territory and was on the way toward statehood. On the other hand, I'm willing to believe that the US could have given up Guam and American Samoa and they wouldn't be missed by the civilian population. The armed services, however, are another story altogether.
 
First off, the letters were sent to Harry Truman. You can read them here http://rationalrevolution.net/war/collection_of_letters_by_ho_chi_.htm

Secondly I doubt Truman would have ever supported a nationalist insurgency against one of the USA's chief allies, imperialist as they may be. This would be a disastrous move for the future of US foreign policy and in the aftermath of WWII the Allies had no intentions of turning on one another, as they had the Soviets to worry about.

Nationalist movements post-1945 have dealt with quite an interesting dynamic. Wanting to rid ones people of imperialist oppressors across one, sometimes two oceans does not exactly lend itself to communism. Indeed just as many nationalist movements are far-right as they are far-left. Africa and Central America present countless examples of this dynamic at work--if your movement was rebelling against the European powers, your only support came from the USSR; if your movement was rebelling against Communist insurgents, your only support came from the NATO powers.
 
Top