French Indochina (A.D. 1887-1954) saw direct French involvement in the governance of Vietnam.
(Source)
The region as a whole was ruled by a Governor-General, with various sub-administrations. The French exercised direct control over Cochinchina, while the Nguyễn Dynasty in theory controlled the Tonkin and Annam regions (but under the "beneficial" eye of the French). The Imperial capital was in Hue; the French administered from Hanoi and Saigon.
The region was designated a "Colony of Exploitation" with local taxes and monopolies (salt, opium, rice alcohol). Over time, the colony diversified into different raw materials (tea, rice, coffee, zinc, pepper coal and rubber) and industries. The rubber industry in particular became important in the 20th Century A.D. with the advent of the motorized car.
Independence movements started as soon as 1885 with the Cần Vương movement (through A.D. 1895). A series of movements continued after that, fueled partially by World War I and the over 100,000 were conscripted from the overall colony, where they became exposed to Western thought and political discussion. One of these movements included a man, Nguyễn Ái Quốc, who history later knows as Hồ Chí Minh.
In A.D. 1940, the Vichy Regime granted Imperial Japan's request for access for the region. From A.D. 1940-1945 Japan access to the region and its raw materials. In March A.D. 1945 the Japanese overthrew the French colonial administration and created the very short lived Empire of Vietnam (March - August A.D. 1945). On 02 September A.D. 1945 the last Emperor Bảo Đại abdicated.
Vietnam Post 1954
I feel woefully inadequate to comment on post WW II Vietnam in any detail, partially because events that happened in my lifetime have indirectly impacted me and directly impacted others. My commentary be purely based on events.
A.D. 1945: French return and take direct control of French Indochina. Forces of the Viet Minh (Communits organization under Hồ Chí Minh) begin the First Indochina war.
A.D. 1954: Battle of Dien Bien Phu. The Democratic Republic Vietnam (Northern Vietnam) and the Republic of Vietnam are established.
A.D. Late 1950's -1975: Vietnam War. Southern Capital of Saigon falls on 30 April 1975.
A.D. 1976: Socialist Republic of Vietnam declared.
A.D. 1986: At the 6th National Congress of the Communist Party, the economic policy of Đổi Mới ("Innovation") is declared. The intention is to create "a socialist-oriented market economy". Additionally, the "Old Guard" of Communist Party is replaced by reformers.
A.D. 2025: TB and The Ravishing Mrs. TB arrive in Vietnam.
Interesting how many "Republics" the Communists have created in the last hundred and twenty years using words like "Democratic"...."Socialist" or even "Peoples".....Thanks for the history lesson TB.
ReplyDeleteNylon12 - I am nothing more than a passing student of Marx (I took a semester on Communism a very long time ago), but that naming convention is - I think - in line with that world view.
DeleteThe fact that such things are seldom democratic or truly for the people is often conveniently forgotten.
They seem to have a complicated history. And I have to agree with Nylon12, the use of labels is interesting. We're seeing that here as well. Too bad they don't disclose how they are defining the terms when they uses them as part of their label.
ReplyDeleteLeigh, it is a very complicated history, something which I certainly knew nothing about before I went.
DeleteIf political science teaches anything, it teaches that words used for the theory of government can scarcely reflect the actual government and its philosophy. And people tend to pour the best of possible outcomes into new government ideas and words, missing the fact that historically those seldom work out.
I remember learning all about the reasons the U.S. got involved in Vietnam in school but not a single lesson every talked about the French or Japanese involvements or what led to them not being involved anymore. I'm guessing our leaders at the time also never knew those lessons or perhaps we would never have gotten involved there.
ReplyDeleteEd, history is a valuable tool. If you do not understand where we (or anyone) have come from, we cannot understand why things are the way we are now or possible future outcomes.
DeleteI suspect very few modern leaders (post WW I anyway) were real students of history. Which, to be fair, is a study of its own right. And when one constantly has to respond to the here and now, historical paradigms may not always seem applicable.