Britain had already had their War in Vietnam in the form of The Boer War of 1899-1902. The Boer War was shockingly brutal and eventually concentration camps were used to achieve victory but lessons were learned. Britain was much better at counter insurgency than it was at field battles.

12th May 1945: General Tomoyuki Yamashita is fitted with a microphone, prior to his trial for war crimes commencing in Manila.Read more

Indeed, Britain allied with Japan to fight off the Vietnam insurgency, just months after having been fighting them.

Britain had always been a reluctant enemy of Japan, there was far more closeness between the countries in culture (Britain had taught Japan's Navy and had been allies with Japan ever since the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905), than there was between the USA and Japan.

Well, the English a few centuries of practice at counter-insurgency against the Irish.

Britain became skilled in counterinsurgency post ww2 during the decolonisation of Asia. Historically, for a time they were second to none in field battles eg Waterloo. Constant drilling meant they were well disciplined in battle; keeping formation, holding the line, reloading and firing weapons while under fire etc. It was this that led to problems in the Boer war, and also the American war of independence. When the enemy used guerrilla tactics instead of engaging in the pitched battles they were trained for, they were at a bit of a loss how to respond.

Most battles of the American War of Independence were field battles. The Patriot is historical fiction.

The Boer War talk Britain about how to counter insurgents by cutting off their supply lines and taking the war to them. The Boer leaders got the shock of their lives once Kitchener took over.

Truman insured the Vietnam war.

The CIA was working closely with Ho Chi Minh and the Vietminh in the fight against the Japanese invaders in Vietnam. The Roosevelt administration had adopted a postwar decolonization strategy. Neither the collaborator Vichy French, nor DeGaulle were in no position to demand the return of their Vietnam colony. For no good reason or consideration, the US violated our foreign policy goals, betrayed the Vietnamese and doomed Vietnam, the French and the US to decades of terrible warfare.

Never seen The Patriot tbh, but thanks for the info, it's something I shall have to research further.

[deleted]

It wasn't for no good reason. Right after WW2 the US government cared a lot about Europe, but didn't care much about the East/SE parts of Asia.

The Americans wanted French support in stopping the advance of Soviet Communist power in Europe. The French wanted to reestablish their empire.

So the Americans supported the French desire to reestablish their empire in Southeast Asia because that helped them to secure French support for stopping the Commies in Europe.

I’m aware of the postwar geopolitical concerns. Had Vietnam become independent after WWII, It was unlikely to cause any change in French politics. We were going to supply DeGaulle and DeGaulle was going to resist communism.

[deleted]

“Freedom struggle” is a pretty nice way of saying victory for a communist dictatorship.

vs French colonial control?

That part was good. It was what came after that ruined it.

It is slightly more nuanced than that.

That’s true.

The better known Vietnam War was a military success. The invaders were successfully repelled.

Success for?

Brits and their French allies. The Frogs only lost once Britain left.

DeGaulle wouldn't have turned France into a full-blown Communist one-party Soviet client state. But he could've definitely thrown a hissy fit and refused to fully cooperate with US military and economic plans in Europe for a while.

DeGaulle was infamously proned to hissy fits.

Most historians give Truman high marks for his foreign policy. In the main, I do too. His Vietnam policy- if you can call it that - was a major blunder.

[removed]