the U.S. making its own move toward colonialism & alienated European allies which were important to have as part of NATO. You've heard of NATO, haven't you? The U.S. stayed in those places in Asia where it was diplomatically viable to stay -- in the Philippines & Japan. As far as "everyone" agreeing upon setting up an independent Vietnam, except the English & the French -- its like saying to a matador everyone will not gore you, except the bulls. Ho, your logic astounds me. But don't you think China & the USSR(along with the French & English) would have also had objection to such a scheme? Look what happened when the U.S. tried exactly that in South Vietnam a few years later. I like creative, independent thinking about history but you need to not let your imagination get the best of you like it seems to do. As for a "Mao-Chiang alliance," such a thing never existed. There was only a short-lived truce that fell apart very quickly after Japan surrendered. There wasn't anyone or anything in the world at that time that could have prevented the struggle in China between the Nationalist & the Communists I said this on an earlier post: "I'm not sure they would have been wrong if such a far-fetched hypothetical had actually happened." In response Ho said this: So we agree the long term presence of U.S. bases represents imperialism, and not only in this example. I respond now with: Not necessarily, especially