Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T23:26:10.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The British and the First Japanese Move into Indo-China

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Nicholas Tarling
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The French move into what they came to call Indo-China began, as the Hong Kong Register was to put it, with motives hostile to British power. Pre-revolutionary France had indeed seen such a move as a means of contesting Britain's supremacy in Asia: placing themselves between the growing empire in India and the growing trade with China, the French could embarrass their European rivals. But establishing themselves in Vietnam was easier said than done. The limited help they were able to afford Gia-long reaped them no great reward, and his successor, Minh-mang, even turned against the Catholic missionaries whom he saw as sources of subversion of his Confucian-style reunification. Continued anti-Catholic activity on the part of his successor was to give Napoleon III an excuse to intervene in the 1850s. But by then, as the Register noted, the old rivalry with the British had died out. The British had sought to open up trade with Vietnam, but, both before and after their victory over neighbouring China, the Vietnamese had refused to accept a commercial treaty. The British thus did not oppose the more forceful attempt the French made to open up Vietnam. Their only concern was lest the French should trench upon the territory of Laos and Cambodia, and thus undermine the independence of Siam, which the British saw as an outwork of their empire in Burma and Malaya. There was indeed a crisis over Laos, and thus over Siam, in 1893, but the French and the British came to terms in 1896. Their agreement in Southeast Asia was consolidated by their agreement in Europe, which the apprehension of Germany promoted.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 1990 , pp. 35 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hong Kong Register, 31 08 1858Google Scholar.

2 Woodside, A.B., Vietnam and the Chinese Model (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), pp. 284ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Cf. Appendix to the minutes of the Seventh meeting of the Cochinchina Commission, Paris, 18 May 1857, quoted in Tuck, P.J.N., French Catholic Missionaries and the Politics of Imperialism in Vietnam, 1857–1914 (Liverpool, 1987), pp. 47ffGoogle Scholar.

4 van Mook, H.J., The Netherlands Indies and Japan: Their Relations, 1940–1941 (London, 1944), p. 17Google Scholar.

5 Khoi, Le Thanh, Le Viet-Nam (Paris, 1955), p. 388Google Scholar.

6 Tarling, N., “‘When the Old Lady dies’: Britain and the Security of Netherlands India, 1939–1941”, Part One, The Southeast Asian Review II, no. 1 (08 1977): 59–62Google Scholar.

7 Telegram, 23 May 1940, 829, F.O. 371/24716[F3320/2739/61], Public Record Office, London.

8 Tarling, p. 63.

9 Ibid., pp. 65, 72.

10 COS (39) 941, 11 July 1939, CAB 53/52, Public Record Office, London.

11 Morley, J.W., ed., The Fateful Choice (New York, 1980), pp. 155–56Google Scholar.

12 Cf. the remark of the Francophile Hoang Trong Phu, quoted in Dreifort, John E., “Japan's advance into Indochina, 1940: the French Response”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies XIII, no. 2 (09 1982): 281Google Scholar.

13 Baudouin, Paul, The Private Diaries (March 1940 to January 1941), trans. Petrie, C. (London, 1948), p. 169Google Scholar.

14 Catroux, Général G., Deux Actes du Drame Indochinois (Paris, 1959), p. 68Google Scholar.

15 Ibid., p. 88.

16 Decoux, Jean, À la barre de l'Indochine (Paris, 1949), p. 93Google Scholar. Cf. Morley, pp. 159–60, 164.

17 Baudouin, p. 173.

18 Cypher telegram, 17 June 1940, 18, circular, F.O. 371/24719[F3474/3429/61].

19 Telegram, 20 June 1940, 9, ibid. Cf. Catroux, p. 46.

20 FCP (40) 2nd, 21 June 1940, F.O. 371/24719[F3474/3429/61].

21 Catroux, p. 57; Decoux, pp. 48–49.

22 Telegrams, 30 June 1940, 103, 164, F.O. 371/24719[F3526/3429/61].

23 Memorandum by B.E.F. Gage, 19 July 1940, ibid.

24 Telegram, 17 July 1940, ibid.

25 Telegram, 27 June 1940, 1100, F.O. 371/24719[F3429/3429/61].

26 Telegram, 19 June 1940, 1033, ibid.

27 Telegram, 29 June 1940, 1115, F.O. 371/24719[F3526/3429/61].

28 Telegram, 17 June 1940, 1015, F.O. 37l/24719[F3429/3429/61].

29 Telegram, 19 June 1940, 1039, ibid.

30 Telegram, 21 June 1940, 1058, ibid.

31 Telegram, 28 June 1940, 1109, F.O. 371/24719[F3526/3429/61].

32 Haas, E., Frans Indo-China en de Japanse Expansiepolitiek 1939–1945 (Leiden, 1956), pp. 56–57Google Scholar; Morley, pp. 172–73.

33 Baudouin, pp. 187–89.

34 Ibid., p. 193.

35 Telegram, 5 August 1940, 1620, F.O. 371/24719[F3710/3429/61].

36 Memorandum, 6 August 1940, Foreign Relations of the United States 1940, IV (Washington, 1955), p. 65Google Scholar.

37 Murphy, Robert, Diplomat Among Warriors (London, 1964), p. 79Google Scholar.

38 Baudouin, pp. 193–94.

39 Telegram, 6 August 1940, 54, F.O. 371/24719[F3710/3429/61].

40 Minutes, 6, 8 August 1940, ibid.

41 Memorandum, 8 August 1940, F.O. 371/24719[F3526/3429/61]. On the Thai mission, see Flood, E.T., “The 1940 Franco-Thai Border Dispute and Phibuun Sonkhraam's Commitment to Japan”, Journal of Southeast Asian History X, no. 2 (09 1969): 313 ffGoogle Scholar.

42 WM (40) 222nd, 8 August 1940, CAB 65/8.

43 Minute, 12 August 1940, F.O. 371/24719[F3474/3429/61].

44 Telegram, 9 August 1940, 819, F.O. 371/24719[F3710/3429/61].

45 Telegram, 9 August 1940, 46, ibid.

46 Baudouin, p. 196.

47 Conversation, 13 August 1940, F.O. 371/24719[F3822/3429/61].

48 Telegram, 10 August 1940, 1674, and minutes thereon, F.O. 371/24719[F3795/3429/61].

49 Telegram, 14 August 1940, 706, F.O. 371/24719[F3831/3429/61].

50 Telegram, 16 August 1940, 1592, and minutes thereon, F.O. 371/24719[F3865/3429/61].

51 Haas, pp. 51–52, 65.

52 Cf. ibid., p. 91.

53 Minutes, 13, 17 August 1940, F.O. 371/24719[F3474/3429/61].

54 Decoux, pp. 49–51.

55 Telegram, 10 August 1940, 58, F.O. 371/24719[F3767/3429/61].

56 Telegram, 13 August 1940, 49, ibid.

57 Telegram, 18 August 1940, 62, ibid.

58 Telegram, 18 August 1940, 728, and minutes thereon, ibid.

59 Telegram, 21 August 1940, 865, ibid.

60 Telegram, 20 August 1940, 1624, and minutes, ibid.

61 Telegram, 21 August 1940, 874, ibid.

62 Minute, 12 August 1940. F.O.371/24719[F3789/3429/61].

63 Minutes, 23 July, 26 July, 17 August 1940, F.O.371/24719[F3651/3429/61].

64 Minute by Clarke, 14 August 1940, ibid.

65 GOC Malaya to War Office, 20 August 1940, 11725, F.O.371/24719[F3831/3429/61].

66 Admiralty communication, received 11 July 1940, F.O.371/24719[3583/3429/61].

67 Minute by Gage, 2 August 1940, F.O.371/24719[F3655/3429/61].

68 Note, 24 August 1940, F.O.371/24719[F4037/3429/61].

69 C-in-C to Admiralty, 23 August 1940, 379, F.O.371/24719[F3795/3429/61].

70 As note 68.

71 As note 64.

72 Telegram, 27 August 1940, 70, F.O.371/24719[F3865/3429/61].

73 Conversation, 27 August 1940, F.O.371/24719[F4040/3429/61].

74 Telegram, 2 September 1940, 1728, and minute, 4 September, F.O.371/24719[F4126/3429/61].

75 Baudouin, pp. 198–99.

76 Ibid., pp. 203–205.

77 Ibid., p. 218.

78 The letters are printed in Morley, pp. 301–302.

79 Ibid., pp. 174–75.

80 Ibid., pp. 176–77.

81 Decoux, pp. 103–104.

82 Morley, pp. 177–78.

83 Ibid., p. 178.

84 Decoux, pp. 108–109.

85 Telegram, 3 September 1940, 3, F.O.371/24719[F4109/3429/61].

86 Telegram, 3 September 1940, 4, ibid.

87 Telegram, 4 September 1940, 923, ibid.

88 Telegram, 4 September 1940, 2146, ibid.

89 Telegram, 4 September 1940, 164, ibid.

90 Telegram, 3 September 1940, 1902, ibid. See Drachman, E.R., United States policy towards Vietnam, 1940–1945 (Rutherford, 1970), p.16Google Scholar.

91 Telegram GOC Malaya to War Office, 3 September 1940, 11937, F.O.371/24719[F4109/3429/61].

92 Telegram, 4 September 1940, 4, ibid.

93 Telegram, 4 September 1940, 1738, F.O.371/24719[F4206/3429/61].

94 Telegram, 4 September 1940, 1739, F.O.371/24719[F4171/3429/61].

95 Telegram, 5 September 1940, 1747, F.O.371/24719[F4207/3429/61].

96 WM (40) 241st, 4 September 1940, CAB 65/9.

97 Foreign Office to Kerr, 4 September 1940, 386, F.O.371/24719[F4163/3429/61]. Telegram, 7 September, 91, ibid.

98 Minute, 4 September 1940, F.O.371/24719[F4126/3429/61].

99 Morley, pp. 182–83.

100 Telegram, 5 September 1940, 5, F.O.371/24719[F4204/3429/61].

101 Telegram, 7 September 1940, 7, ibid.

102 Telegram, 8 September 1940, 8, ibid.

103 Telegram, 5 September 1940, 78, F.O.371/24719[F4165/3429/61].

104 Telegram, 5 September 1940, 79, F.O.37l/24719[F4215/3429/61].

105 Telegram, 6 September 1940, 1938, F.O.37l/24719[F4165/3429/61].

106 Minutes, 8, 9 September 1940, F.O.371/24719[F4126/3429/61].

107 Telegram, 11 September, 948, 2214, ibid.

108 Telegram, 13 September 1940, 1797, ibid.

109 Minute, 15 September 1940, ibid.

110 Telegram, 15 September 1940, 96, ibid.

111 Telegram, 16 September 1940, 1820, and minute, 23 September, ibid.

112 Telegram, 4 September 1940, 1911, F.O.371/24719[F4165/3429/61].

113 Telegram, 5 September 1940, 1924, and minute, 8 September, ibid.

114 Telegram, 16 September 1940, 1810, F.O.371/24719[F3710/3429/61]. Cf. Memorandum by Grew, 14 September 1940, FRUS Japan 1931–41, II, Washington, 1943, pp. 293–94.

115 Minute, 22 September 1940, ibid.

116 Telegram, 20 September 1940, 1843, F.O.371/24720[F4330/3429/61], Cf. Hull to Grew, 18 September, 355, FRUS Japan 1931–41, pp. 124–25.

117 Minute by Butler, 5 September 1940, with note by Halifax, s.d., F.O.371/24719[F4219/3429/61].

118 Minutes, ibid.; Admiralty communication, 9 September 1940, F.O.371/24719[F4226/3429/61].

119 CFR (40) 51st, 9 September 1940, CAB 85/22. The planes in Martinique seem to have stayed there. Cf. Langer and Gleason, p. 15n; Haas, p.90; Drachman, pp. 17–19.

120 Telegram, 14 September 1940, 13, F.O.37l/24719[F4163/3429/61].

121 Telegram, 6 September 1940, 6. F.O.371/24719[F4229/3429/61].

122 Telegram, 15 September 1940, 2260, F.O.371/24719[F4163/3429/61].

123 Minute, 10 September 1940, F.O. 371/24719[F4229/3429/61].

124 Telegram, 7 September 1940, 8, F.O.371/24719[F4204/3429/61].

125 Telegram, GOC Malaya to War Office, 13 September 1940, 12160, F.O.371/24719[F4248/3429/61].

126 Telegram, 14 September 1940, 2261, F.O.371/24719[F4229/3429/61].

127 As note 124.

128 As note 84.

129 Telegram, 16 September 1940, 2022, F.O.371/24719[F4204/3429/61]. Cf. Haas, p. 77.

130 Telegram, 19 September 1940, 2045, F.O.371/24719[F4204/3429/61].

131 Telegram, GOC Malaya to War Office, 19 September 1940, 12266, F.O.371/24719[F4253/3429/61].

132 Telegram, 19 September 1940, 2313, F.O.371/24719[F4204/3429/61].

133 Conversation, 13 September 1940, F.O.371/24720[F4309/3429/61].

134 Telegram, 15 September 1940, 13, F.O.371/24720[F4293/3429/61].

135 Morley, pp. 182–83; Baudouin, pp. 235, 237.

136 Telegram, 18 September 1940, 1829, F.O.371/24720[F4277/3429/61].

137 Telegram, 20 September 1940, 1840, F.O.371/24720[F4308/3429/61].

138 Morley, pp. 183–84, 188–89, 192, 194ff.

139 Telegram, 19 September 1940, 15, F.O.371/24720[F4308/3429/61].

140 Telegram, 21 September 1940, 19, F.O.317/24720[F4344/3429/61].

141 Telegram, 22 September, 1940, 20, and minute, 23 September, F.O.371/24720[F4349/3429/61].

142 Telegram, 23 September 1940, 21, F.O.371/24720[F4365/3429/61].

143 Telegram, 24 September 1940, 22, F.O.371/24720[F4399/3429/61].

144 Telegram, 25 September 1940, 24, F.O.371/24720[F4401/3429/61].

145 Telegram, 25 September 1940, 24A, F.O.371/24720[F4430/3429/61].

146 Telegram, 26 September 1940, F.O.371/24720[F4401/3429/61].

147 Decoux, pp. 110ff.

148 Ibid. p. 110.

149 Note, 21 September 1940, F.O.371/24720[F4308/3429/61].

150 Telegram, 24 September 1940, 21, ibid.

151 Telegram, 27 September 1940, 25, F.O.371/24720[F4470/3429/61].

152 Telegram, 29 September 1940, 341, F.O.371/24720[F4467/3429/61].

153 Murphy, p. 103.

154 Minutes, 1, 2 October 1940, F.O.371/24720[F4470/3429/61].

155 Telegram, 24 September 1940, 400, and minutes thereon, F.O.371/24720[F4400/3429/61].

156 Telegram, 25 September 1940, 1869, F.O.371/24720[F4433/3429/61].

157 Baudouin, p. 239.

158 Telegram, 23 September 1940, 1852, F.O.371/24720[F4374/3429/61].

159 Telegram, 26 September 1940, 1876, and minutes thereon, 1, 2 October, F.O.371/24720[F4483/3429/61].

160 CFR (40) 53rd, 16 September 1940, CAB 85/22.

161 Morton to Stevenson, 19 September 1940, F.O.371/24719[F4248/3429/61].

162 CFR (40) 54th, 19 September 1940, CAB 85/22.

163 Minutes, 20, 23 September 1940, F.O.371/24720[F4585/3249/61].

164 Foreign Office to Colonial Office, 29 September 1940, F.O.371/24719[F3651/3249/61].

165 Minute, 3 October 1940, F.O.371/24719[F4204/3249/61].

166 As note 158.

167 Telegram from Kerr, 11 September 1940, 93, F.O.371/24719[F4204/3429/61].

168 Telegram, 25 September 1940, 106, and minutes thereon, F.O.371/24720[F4425/3429/61].

169 Telegram, 28 September 1940, 1890, F.O.371/24720[F4460/3429/61].

170 Telegram, 9 September 1940, 1765, F.O.371/24729[F4243/3429/61].

171 Telegram, 26 September 1940, 1877, F.O.371/24720[F4441/3429/61].

172 Telegrams, 23, 24 September 1940, 2081, 2090, F.O.371/24719[F4126/3429/61].

173 Langer and Gleason, pp. 20–21.

174 WM (40) 260th, 27 September 1940, Item 5, CAB 65/9.

175 WM (40) 265th, 3 October 1940, Item 5, CAB 65/9.

176 Telegram, 9 October 1940, 132, F.O.371/24720[F4425/3429/61].

177 Decoux, p. 121.

178 WP (40) 364, 9 September 1940, CAB 66/11; also COS (40), 730, CAB 80/18.

179 Minutes, 20, 22 September 1940, F.O.371/24720[F4262/3429/61].

180 Telegram, 5 September 1940, 2167, F.O.371/24729[F4109/3429/61].

181 Cf. minutes in F.O.371/24721[F5191/3429/61].

182 Memorandum, 24 September 1940, and note, 8 October, F.O.371/24720[F4406/3429/61].