Talk:Japanese coup d'état in French Indochina

role of the French C.L.I. paratrooper commandos

General Paul Huard & the CLI (english translation) Cliché Online (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

japanese presence in indochina

infos are available here. Cliché Online (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Results?

A bit confused about the results. I don't think the Japanese surrendered to the Viet Minh. Officially they surrendered when British and French troops under Douglas Gracey arrived in September but that is altogether in a different article War in Vietnam (1945–1946). The Viet Minh took over the political vacuum when Japanese handed power to Bảo Đại and this was in August. Anyone else concur with this?Pfifer11 (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The Japanese violated the allied surrender agreements and allowed nationalists to take over buildings. The infobox needs more clarification. Essentially the March Coup was a Japanese victory94.116.80.53 (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The picture is in the wrong area this was taken in September after the events of March and August. This should be in the infobox at least for War in Vietnam (1945–1946)ChristiaandeWet (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Title

To be clear about the recent move: there is no such thing as the "Second French Indochina Campaign". It's something somebody made up on Wikipedia one day. There was indeed a lot of low-scale fighting in Indochina following the coup, but no scholar that I can find ever treats it as a "second campaign" of any sort—just the fallout of the Japanese coup. Srnec (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Good idea ; I was always a bit bothered about the title. I called the French article "1945 Fighting in Indochina", but I guess this is an acceptable alternative, even though I'd prefer a title covering the whole March-August period : there is actually no established historical name covering the 9th March coup and the small-scale fighting from March to August (Unfortunately this period is a bit neglected, including in French historiography). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Japanese coup d'état in French Indochina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061201210023/http://www.anapi.asso.fr/en_Prisoners-of-the-Japanese_17.htm to http://www.anapi.asso.fr/en_Prisoners-of-the-Japanese_17.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Third belligerent

I'm proposing that a third belligerent be included in the combat infobox, that being the nationalistic Vietnamese partisans that resisted the Japanese but also opposed the French. Indy beetle (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

But the coup d'état specifically had little to do with them. Srnec (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't they should, the operation was against the colonial system & the nationalists had little if any part. In any case they played it out to see what would happen, & subsequently would take advantage. Shire Lord (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Japanese coup d'état in French Indochina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071107033252/http://www.net4war.com/e-revue/dossiers/indochine/contexte/contexte01.htm to http://www.net4war.com/e-revue/dossiers/indochine/contexte/contexte01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Title of "liberation" section

I propose changing the title of the "Liberation" section to "French reassert control in Saigon", like in War in Vietnam (1945–46). The term "liberation" seems a bit one-sided here (after all it was still the colonial power taking back control from a native government) and a more NPOV wording would fit better. - Toothswung (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. That sounds a sensible and balanced approach. Buistr (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair point about "Liberation" being one sided, as NPOV I suggest "Allied takeover" or "Allied occupation" in the time frame and relavance of article. The proposal to change "French reassert control in Saigon" is dubious since it was Gracey & 20th Indian division that took surrender of Japanese as part of Operation Masterdom and also does not reflect the Indochina region as a whole (Chinese troops took the North of Vietnam). Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I have changed sub section to Allied Takeover as it is more apt. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the change, however I think "Takeover" should should be lowercase. Fortunatestars (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Carte de Lang Son Thomazi.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Baodai.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

"Wrong article"

@Eastfarthingan:, regarding this edit, I would say that these additions are in place here, namely this article is about the Japanese coup d'état in French Indochina and what the Japanese immediately did following their coup d'état, I would assume that this would include a number of topics including their policies of governing. Furthermore, I think that the Japanese war crimes listed are related to the coup d'état as the Japanese were only able to do them after they took full control of French Indochina and the list only covers war crimes done after March 9th (ninth), 1945.

As for the Japanese soldiers that stayed after 1945, I don't see how this is less relevant to the "Aftermath" section than the other sections. For this reason I've restored the edits you removed as they seem relevant. This article isn't only about the coup d'état itself but also the direct consequences as it already mentions the Japanese establishing puppet states in the region and the lasting effect that the Japanese occupation had (namely the Việt Minh takeover), these other subjects which mention the Japanese more directly are more related to the primary topic of the article. --Donald Trung (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I can see that the "War crimes" section is too long and could be condensed, it could also be moved to "Aftermath", but I don't see how the rest of the changes are irrelevant to the coup. --Donald Trung (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Bumbubookworm:, could you actually address the arguments made above. Also note that in earlier discussions on this page this article was originally about the March to August period, how is all of this "indiscriminate" and "undue", what part of this lends "undue weight", is all of it undue? You lump all additions in with the earlier edits, this also includes left behind Japanese soldiers until 1951 and the Saigon tribunal, the latter specifically addresses this coup, how is this "undue"? --Donald Trung (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with your logic- there is much that is relevant, and it's written in the specific context of the coup and its consequences. The least these editors can do is to discus their reasoning here. SuperTah (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  Why not create an article on the war crimes to lessen the weight on this article? Srnec (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Srnec:, I am actually planning on writing a separate article on the Japanese occupation of Vietnam, akin to "Japanese occupation of Cambodia" so feel free to cut from the Japanese war crimes what you want, I will copy-and-paste it to a sandbox as I can see that in the current form the text on the war crimes is a bit excessive. Again, I thought that this article was about the Japanese rule in French Indochina from March to August and its aftermath, but if it's only about the coup you are free to cut the war crimes section as you wish, but I do think that the separate sections for Japanese soldiers and the war crimes tribunal makes sense as they are directly about the coup d'état and its affect effects.

My issue with the undoing is not that it removed some or specific sections, it removed all changes I made yesterday. --Donald Trung (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

It does not belong in the article as this is with regards to the March Coup. The aftermath section is now too long due to the information that has been added although some would be a welcome addition. In fact it is soo long it's bigger than the main article itself, which is a joke! The content would a good addition to the 'Japanese occupation of French IndoChina' if that article existed as suggested by 'Srnec'. Therefore I suggest its removal. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan:, I will spin it off into its own article then, as I had the mistaken belief that this article was about not only the March 1945 coup but also the subsequent occupation until the Surrender of Japan in August 1945. Though I think that it might be better to reduce the current text to passing mentions rather than outright remove it, the Saigon trails also specifically address Japanese actions during this coup against the French. Feel free to trim it, but I don't think that it should all be outright removed, I am already drafting a "Japanese occupation of Vietnam" article in the fashion of the "Japanese occupation of Cambodia" article, so you're free to trim parts here, but I don't think that all changes should be outright reverted as you did. --Donald Trung (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll have a look through the content to see what can be useful to the article. Then once done I'll make a proposal as to what should not be here. It will be most of it that will go. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I've already copied it, so you can "condens" the current information, though I would say that the Japanese soldiers left behind are probably relevant to the coup as they assumed their positions during the coup, the war tribunal is also specifically about the actions taken during the coup d'état and it would make more sense for it to have its own section then to be under "Allied takeover" as I would argue that it's more directly relevant to it. --Donald Trung (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I have completed the condensing and left what is relevant, ie Japanese soldiers post war. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I saw ("Mobile view"). --Donald Trung (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)