The U.S. and France in Viet Nam

Reel Whirled Peas

The Viet Nam experiences of the United States differ from those of France due in part to each country’s motivation for getting involved there in the first place.
France had a long history with Indochina, going back to the 1880s, and despite the poor light cast upon all European colonialism there were some benefits to both sides of the relationship. Like most colonizing ventures, French businessmen saw great commercial opportunities in Southeast Asia. Natives benefited from improvements to the infrastructure and the modernization of the economy. The Catholic Church saw great opportunities for proselytizing and education. Colonizers were not a homogeneous group, as explained in Hasian/Shugart paper. Some were benevolent, others cruel, some inclined to support local custom, others bent on Europe-izing. But in nearly every case they viewed their place in Indochina with no end date. They set about with an expectation of permanence.
The U.S., on the other hand, saw the region as rich in opportunity to carry out the Truman doctrine. Southeast Asia was the newest front for the Cold War, and the U.S. was not going to let communism spread in the region. The U.S. also had an expectation of permanence, but one that was ideological rather than physical. Ho Chi Minh was supported by China and the Soviet Union, but in a real sense Viet Nam’s battle for independence was between the people of Viet Nam and the French. The Viet Nam War with the United States transcended an indigenous people wanting self-determination. It was an ideological conflict for the soul of Southeast Asia. In this case, the U.S. lost the battle. It remains to be seen who wins the war.