An Impressionable Boy

The following note is taken from the thesis:

​

A Note on Linguistics and Terms

​

Throughout this work I have tried to use chữ Quốc ngữ diacritics for Vietnamese words where possible; except for a few place names that are routinely westernized, such as Hanoi or Saigon; or where I have not been certain on the diacritics, especially for personal names, for which I did not trust to the vagaries of translation software, and so have preferred to leave unaccented.

​

The term “Viet-Minh” was anachronistic in 1953-1954 so, except in direct quotations, I do not use it to describe the people and army of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV), even though it was universally used by their French opponents. After that, choosing appropriate descriptors becomes more problematic, for, as Christopher Goscha notes in his latest work, where he spends three pages considering the nomenclature to be used in describing the situation in Indochina where both the DRV and the Associated State of Vietnam contended for legitimacy “…Words count.”[1] This is reflected in the situation at Điện Biên Phủ where, in addition to the Vietnamese fighting for the DRV, Vietnamese made up the largest part of the French forces.[2] Differentiating the allegiance of these troops by adding qualifications, such as “Democratic Republic infantry” or “Associated State paratroops,” not only burdens the reader and slows the narrative, but also obfuscates the key point that these soldiers were all Vietnamese, no matter what their political allegiance was. Other descriptors are loaded. For example, “communist soldiers” seemingly chimes well with the political nature of the PAVN but ignores the fact that only a small proportion of soldiers were Party members[3]. Similarly, “nationalist soldiers” is a sobriquet that soldiers of both allegiances would have self-identified with.  Thus, like Goscha, I use the term “Vietnamese” for soldiers of both sides. Since this work mainly considers the PAVN, the term is mostly used from that perspective, but where a predominantly Vietnamese unit fighting for the French is involved, they too are called that. Thus, at Độc Lập for example, I describe Vietnamese paratroops counterattacking the Vietnamese attack, and trust that the context makes the allegiances clear.

​

Likewise, whilst I use “French” as a catch-all descriptor, I have tried to give agency to the soldiers of different nationalities fighting for the French. In addition to the Vietnamese, (meaning, generally, ethnic Kinh,) mentioned above, where specific units are mentioned, I try to recognize their nationality, such as the Thai, Mèo and Nùng Vietnamese ethnic minorities, or the Moroccan, Algerian and Senegalese colonial troops.

​

Thus, the terms “Vietnamese” and “French” are used throughout this thesis as a convenient shorthand with no political bias, or disrespect to the other nationalities involved, intended.

 

[1] Goscha (2022)pp. ix-xi.

[2] Fall (1967)p.481. Only a small minority of the soldiers in the French army were French by birth. Vietnamese made up 36% of the French forces, followed by Foreign Legionnaires, Africans, and French. Vietnamese fought in whole units at battalion and company level or integrated into non-Vietnamese units at platoon level and lower. 

[3] Phạm Hồng Cư, interview No.2. Cư,a regimental political officer, estimated that only five men in a platoon , (of 30-50 men,) would be Party members.