Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Now here's the rub: When the stamp was issued, France was NOT in control in Vietnam, and in fact French troops weren't even in Vietnam. On Sept. 13, British Major-General Douglas Gracey arrived in Vietnam with an advance brigade of British Indian troops to begin Operation Masterdom. They faced a new and determined enemy: the communist Vietminh under Ho Chi Minh was not only in control of Saigon but of most of Vietnam. Operation Masterdom, called Nam Bộ kháng chiến by the Vietnamese ("Southern Resistance War" in English) lasted several weeks, and succeeded in forcing the Vietnam into remote areas of North Vietnam with help from — get this — Japanese POWs who they released and armed!
French troops who finally arrived in Vietnam to re-establish French colonial control were transported there by American troop transports; that was probably the first of many efforts by the U.S. to support France in Vietnam, efforts doomed to failure by the defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu nine years later, in 1954.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
Very interesting, Bob.
Is the territory East of Australia Wallis and Futuna? I wonder why French Polynesia would not be included on that map. I know they didn't get French citizenship until 1946 when they were declared an overseas territory, but it had been a French protectorate since the 1880's.
Amazing the details that can be gleaned from a simple engraved work of art, eh?
Lars
Login to Like
this post
Bob, I'm not sure about this. Yvert & Tellier's catalogue of French colonies explains that "Indochine is a name given in 1888 to the union of colonies and protectorates of Cochin-China, Cambodia, Annam and Tonkin, then in 1893 to Laos and in 1900 to Kwangchow."
Do not the areas of Tonkin (in the north), Annam (in the middle) and Cochin-China (in the south) correspond to present-day Vietnam?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochinchina#/media/File:French_Indochina_subdivisions.svg
September 1945 was a ticklish period for the French. A lot of unpleasant stuff was crawling out of the woodwork, as French civilians accused others and were in turn accused of what they had or had not done in the previous five years. Positives very much needed to be drawn (to use a contemporary expression). Your stamp has the Croix de Lorraine added to the original 1940 design, to celebrate the return of that area (a six-month anniversary, if you like).
I reckon until it all kicked off after 1945 the French regarded that bit of the world as very much theirs, Japanese occupation or not.
Login to Like
this post
Guthrum, I'm not sure what you're not sure about! Perhaps it's my characterization of Indochina as a colony, whereas, as you point out, it was a "…union of colonies and protectorates of Cochin-China, Cambodia, Annam and Tonkin, then in 1893 to Laos and in 1900 to Kwangchow." You are correct about the I realize that I'll have to be more specific (and accurate!), although I have to say that the geopolitical history of Southeast Asia is incredibly complex.
You are correct that "Tonkin (in the north), Annam (in the middle) and Cochin-China (in the south) correspond to present-day Vietnam."
I understand why the French issued the stamp when they did, as a positive sign of improvement in their situation, which of course just confirms its value as propaganda. The French people were probably not aware how fragile the situation in Vietnam was, although later, in the months leading up to Dien Bien Phu, Vietnam became a political football, and was seen, correctly, as a huge French liability.
About the "…six-month anniversary…" that you mention: I assume that you're referring to six-month period starting in March, 1945 when the Japanese took over the administration of Vietnam from the pro-Vichy government. That makes sense, sort of, from the point of view of the French, but it doesn't seem to reflect reality: even though the Japanese were "allowed" to enter Vietnam early in the war, they certainly treated Vietnam a puppet state, and the French were never really in control throughout the war except in ways did not negatively affect Japanese war aims.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
Bob, I wasn't sure whether you felt that all, some or none of that area of S.E.Asia should have been shaded in on the stamp. I read you as suggesting that the 'Vietnam' portion should not have been claimed, as the French were not there in 1945. My apologies if this was a misreading.
The 'six month anniversary' to which I referred was the return of Alsace and Lorraine (hence the Croix de Lorraine which was not on the original 1940 design).
I'm sure you know of other examples where one country claims sovereignty over another via a stamp issue - which can lead to much ill-feeling!
Login to Like
this post
No, Guthrum, I wasn't thinking that at all. I'm mainly "amused" at the assumption by the French that Vietnam would automatically be returned to their control at the end of the war. It wasn't an illogical assumption, given that the other Allies, at least Great Britain and the U.S., would support the continuance of France's colonial ambitions, although we know that President Roosevelt, at least privately, thought that the Vietnamese and indeed the people in all colonies should have the right of self-determination.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
Here's an item which seems to fit this topic. This cover is currently being offered on eBay:
Note the postmark date (29 January 1942) and then the cachet, which identifies the cover as a "souvenir cover" commemorating the German occupation of Jersey, 1940-1945. The problem, of course, is that in 1942 no one knew when the war would be over, or, indeed, that the Allies would win. Clearly, the cachet was added after the war, to an cover that was cancelled during the war. There is a possibility, as well, that the cover is completely bogus, having been created entirely after the war, perhaps quite recently.
There are many such purely philatelic covers available which were clearly created with an eye to profit after the war.
Bob
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
This evening I've been working with a French stamp, Scott #560, issued Sept. 17, 1945 and picturing France and its colonies in the Americas, South America, Africa, and Asia. I'm particularly interested in this one because of the date of issue and the fact that it shows Indochina, and therefore Vietnam, as one of its colonies. Here's the stamp, showing a detail:
Now here's the rub: When the stamp was issued, France was NOT in control in Vietnam, and in fact French troops weren't even in Vietnam. On Sept. 13, British Major-General Douglas Gracey arrived in Vietnam with an advance brigade of British Indian troops to begin Operation Masterdom. They faced a new and determined enemy: the communist Vietminh under Ho Chi Minh was not only in control of Saigon but of most of Vietnam. Operation Masterdom, called Nam Bộ kháng chiến by the Vietnamese ("Southern Resistance War" in English) lasted several weeks, and succeeded in forcing the Vietnam into remote areas of North Vietnam with help from — get this — Japanese POWs who they released and armed!
French troops who finally arrived in Vietnam to re-establish French colonial control were transported there by American troop transports; that was probably the first of many efforts by the U.S. to support France in Vietnam, efforts doomed to failure by the defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu nine years later, in 1954.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
re: Stamps are not always what they seem…
Very interesting, Bob.
Is the territory East of Australia Wallis and Futuna? I wonder why French Polynesia would not be included on that map. I know they didn't get French citizenship until 1946 when they were declared an overseas territory, but it had been a French protectorate since the 1880's.
Amazing the details that can be gleaned from a simple engraved work of art, eh?
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: Stamps are not always what they seem…
Bob, I'm not sure about this. Yvert & Tellier's catalogue of French colonies explains that "Indochine is a name given in 1888 to the union of colonies and protectorates of Cochin-China, Cambodia, Annam and Tonkin, then in 1893 to Laos and in 1900 to Kwangchow."
Do not the areas of Tonkin (in the north), Annam (in the middle) and Cochin-China (in the south) correspond to present-day Vietnam?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochinchina#/media/File:French_Indochina_subdivisions.svg
September 1945 was a ticklish period for the French. A lot of unpleasant stuff was crawling out of the woodwork, as French civilians accused others and were in turn accused of what they had or had not done in the previous five years. Positives very much needed to be drawn (to use a contemporary expression). Your stamp has the Croix de Lorraine added to the original 1940 design, to celebrate the return of that area (a six-month anniversary, if you like).
I reckon until it all kicked off after 1945 the French regarded that bit of the world as very much theirs, Japanese occupation or not.
Login to Like
this post
re: Stamps are not always what they seem…
Guthrum, I'm not sure what you're not sure about! Perhaps it's my characterization of Indochina as a colony, whereas, as you point out, it was a "…union of colonies and protectorates of Cochin-China, Cambodia, Annam and Tonkin, then in 1893 to Laos and in 1900 to Kwangchow." You are correct about the I realize that I'll have to be more specific (and accurate!), although I have to say that the geopolitical history of Southeast Asia is incredibly complex.
You are correct that "Tonkin (in the north), Annam (in the middle) and Cochin-China (in the south) correspond to present-day Vietnam."
I understand why the French issued the stamp when they did, as a positive sign of improvement in their situation, which of course just confirms its value as propaganda. The French people were probably not aware how fragile the situation in Vietnam was, although later, in the months leading up to Dien Bien Phu, Vietnam became a political football, and was seen, correctly, as a huge French liability.
About the "…six-month anniversary…" that you mention: I assume that you're referring to six-month period starting in March, 1945 when the Japanese took over the administration of Vietnam from the pro-Vichy government. That makes sense, sort of, from the point of view of the French, but it doesn't seem to reflect reality: even though the Japanese were "allowed" to enter Vietnam early in the war, they certainly treated Vietnam a puppet state, and the French were never really in control throughout the war except in ways did not negatively affect Japanese war aims.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
re: Stamps are not always what they seem…
Bob, I wasn't sure whether you felt that all, some or none of that area of S.E.Asia should have been shaded in on the stamp. I read you as suggesting that the 'Vietnam' portion should not have been claimed, as the French were not there in 1945. My apologies if this was a misreading.
The 'six month anniversary' to which I referred was the return of Alsace and Lorraine (hence the Croix de Lorraine which was not on the original 1940 design).
I'm sure you know of other examples where one country claims sovereignty over another via a stamp issue - which can lead to much ill-feeling!
Login to Like
this post
re: Stamps are not always what they seem…
No, Guthrum, I wasn't thinking that at all. I'm mainly "amused" at the assumption by the French that Vietnam would automatically be returned to their control at the end of the war. It wasn't an illogical assumption, given that the other Allies, at least Great Britain and the U.S., would support the continuance of France's colonial ambitions, although we know that President Roosevelt, at least privately, thought that the Vietnamese and indeed the people in all colonies should have the right of self-determination.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
re: Stamps are not always what they seem…
Here's an item which seems to fit this topic. This cover is currently being offered on eBay:
Note the postmark date (29 January 1942) and then the cachet, which identifies the cover as a "souvenir cover" commemorating the German occupation of Jersey, 1940-1945. The problem, of course, is that in 1942 no one knew when the war would be over, or, indeed, that the Allies would win. Clearly, the cachet was added after the war, to an cover that was cancelled during the war. There is a possibility, as well, that the cover is completely bogus, having been created entirely after the war, perhaps quite recently.
There are many such purely philatelic covers available which were clearly created with an eye to profit after the war.
Bob
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.