![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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: 263â286. doi: 10.1080/09592310600671596. ISSNÂ 1743-9558. Fences& Windows 16:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
Look at this: [1] -- MikrobĂžlgeovn ( talk) 22:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Should the infobox be as cluttered as this? It has a whole paragraph within. ChristiaandeWet ( talk) 23:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
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 ViĂȘt 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)
![]() |
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
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.
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) |
The information in the "casualties" section has no sources given. â Preceding unsigned comment added by BountyFlamor ( talk âą contribs) 17:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuF_D9vj3kw
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. â Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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: 263â286. doi: 10.1080/09592310600671596. ISSNÂ 1743-9558. Fences& Windows 16:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
Look at this: [1] -- MikrobĂžlgeovn ( talk) 22:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Should the infobox be as cluttered as this? It has a whole paragraph within. ChristiaandeWet ( talk) 23:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
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 ViĂȘt 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)
![]() |
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
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.
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) |
The information in the "casualties" section has no sources given. â Preceding unsigned comment added by BountyFlamor ( talk âą contribs) 17:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuF_D9vj3kw
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. â Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.