Talk:War in Vietnam (1945–1946)

Source

I've not got access, but this looks like a good source: Hughes, Geraint (September 2006). "A 'Post-war' War: The British Occupation of French-Indochina, September 1945-March 1946". Small Wars & Insurgencies. 17 (3). Taylor & Francis: 263–286. doi:10.1080/09592310600671596. ISSN 1743-9558. Fences&Windows 16:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Title

Would Operation Masterdom be a better title? I don't think that the British occupation and this conflict is generally known as a "War in Vietnam"; this is a little misleading to the reader. Fences&Windows 16:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of sources (like the one that you gave) refers to this as "War", so there should have no problem with the title. Moreover, France and Japan also fought in this conflict. Did the French and Japanese call this "Operation Masterdom"? You never learn (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Copy-paste?

Look at this: [1] --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Cluttered infobox

Should the infobox be as cluttered as this? It has a whole paragraph within. ChristiaandeWet (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Vietnam?

The title says War in Vietnam surely this should say War in Indochina (1945-46) as Vietnam did not exist as a nation.ChristiaandeWet (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Viêt Minh declared their rebel state to be Vietnam, and the word had long been used for that country within French Indochina, which had a very old history. It had been Vietnam before. This would be like saying that the Netherlands "did not exist" during WW2 because they were not politically independent at the time. Harsimaja (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Japanese Surrender, Saigon 1945.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Japanese Surrender, Saigon 1945.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Japanese Surrender, Saigon 1945.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Why should this be deleted? There is no purpose for deletion since there is no reason for it being nominated ChristiaandeWet (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No sources for casualties subsection

The information in the "casualties" section has no sources given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BountyFlamor (talk • contribs) 17:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

British Pathé film of British soldiers in Saigon 1945

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuF_D9vj3kw

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Binh Xuyen Army.svg
• Flag of VNQDD.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Japan from enemy to ally

The article does not indicate when and how the Japanese soldiers sided with Great-Britain against the Viet-Minh rebels after the capitulation of Japan. --AliceBzh (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anglo-Vietnamese conflict

The article Anglo-Vietnamese conflict has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A single entry disambiguation page that cannot be redirected to that entry because the subject is not mentioned there.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The Viet Minh will fail if British troops stay?

In reality, the British army only chased the Viet Minh out of the cities and some suburbs such as Saigon or Bien Hoa, but the jungles and swamps in the Mekong Delta still did not. We need to know that they were attacked. Losing cities was not a big problem for the Viet Minh

In Malaysia insurgency,

-Most communists are chinese so did not popular.

-In terms of military numbers, the Viet Minh has about a few hundred thousand troops but Malaysian communist just has 8000 troops.Ways to fight against guerrillas using special forces are almost ineffective when considering the number of troops and the sophisticated organization of the Viet Minh.(http://indochine54.free.fr/vm/early.html#top)

-The British succeeded with strategic hamlets, but the French and Americans both failed to apply strategic hamlets

-The British used Malay troops and police to confront the guerrillas.The French have the Vietnamese National Army and the Americans have ARVN

-The British army has one thing in common with the American army and the French army.There were massacres

-There is an important factor that is that the Malaysian guerrillas did not have support like the Viet Minh even though the Viet Minh only received support at the end of 1949.

123.18.19.96 (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)