On this day in 1930, 50 Vietnamese soldiers of the French colonial army mutinied, attempting to take control of the Yên Bái garrison and begin a war of independence against the French. The uprising failed and many of its leaders were executed.
The revolt was planned in advance by the Việt Nam Quốc Dân Đảng (VNQDD), a socialist party founded by Nguyễn Thái Học that sought independence from France. The VNQDD had previously attempted to engage in clandestine activities to undermine French rule, but increasing state scrutiny on their activities led to their leadership risking a large scale military attack in the Red River Delta in northern Vietnam.
Multiple uprisings were planned throughout the region, with VNQDD members taking command of forces with specific strategic missions. The uprisings were supposed to be simultaneous, but matters were complicated when a messenger carrying an order from Học to delay the uprising until the 15th was arrested.
Early in the morning of February 10th, 1930, ~50 Vietnamese soldiers stationed at Yên Bái attacked their 29 French officers, aided by 60 civilian members of the VNQDD. Although the French were caught off guard and several officers were killed, the majority of the soldiers present remained loyal to the colonial army and helped suppress the uprising. Three Vietnamese sergeants were awarded the Médaille militaire for their efforts.
Later than evening, another planned VNQDD revolt in the rural district of Sơn Dương was also suppressed. Although insurgents initially succeeded, raising the VNQDD flag over the town, at sunrise they were routed by the colonial army.
The French retaliation was swift and brutal. When VNQDD forces fled into the village of Co Am, the French bombed the entire settlement, killing 200 people, mostly civilians. This was the first time that military air power had been used in Indochina.
In France, the severity of the sentences led to a campaign of solidarity by the French Communist Party and various demonstrations by Vietnamese expatriates. On May 22nd, 1930, more than 1,000 demonstrated outside Élysée Palace against the French reaction to Yên Bái. The police arrested 47 people, deporting 17 back to Vietnam, where most of them engaged in communist anti-colonial activities.
In total, 547 individuals, both soldiers and civilians, were prosecuted for their role in the uprising. Thirty-nine of the surviving leaders of the VNQDD were sentenced to death, although some of these were later granted clemency. Học, along with twelve others, was guillotined on June 17th, 1930. The thirteen shouted "Vietnam!" in unison before being executed.
The subsequent French military and civilian crackdown saw military security increase and the VNQDĐ's ability to threaten French authority in Vietnam was extinguished. The vast majority of the leadership were killed or sentenced to death, and the remnants of the VNQDĐ fled to China, where several factions emerged under disparate leadership.
In the long run, Yên Bái allowed the Indochinese Communist Party of Ho Chi Minh to inherit the VNQDĐ's status as the leading anti-colonial revolutionary movement. After the Second World War, an opportunity to fight for Vietnamese independence arose, and this allowed the communists in the Viet Minh to dictate the platform of the independence movement. As a result, the communists were able to position themselves to become the dominant force in Vietnam post-independence.
Megathreads and spaces to hang out:
- 📀 Come listen to music and Watch movies with your fellow Hexbears nerd, in Cy.tube
- 💖 Come talk in the New Weekly Queer thread
- 🔥 Read and talk about a current topics in the News Megathread
- ⚔ Come talk in the New Weekly PoC thread
- ✨ Talk with fellow Trans comrades in the New Weekly Trans thread
reminders:
- 💚 You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
- 💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
- 💜 Sorting by new you nerd
- 🌈 If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can reserve a spot here nerd
- 🐶 Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog
Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):
Aid:
Theory:
lmfao i thought from all the memes Putin had actually brought something well-researched to that interview with Carlson but damn that shit was garbage. pure nationalist
that just seems authoritative for being long-winded starting at the 'beginning'
bro just brought Bogdan's letters as if that certifies everything he was saying, but its literally just a guy 4 centuries ago providing raison de guerre for a single war. 4 centuries ago
Aww. That's a lot less fun. : (
fr fr its such a good image
like
but Carlson wasn't actually that off base questioning the emphasis on extremely old events and why Putin didn't act on what is apparently such an historical basis any earlier
"Why now?" was a good question by tucker. I think maybe you missed the answer (because Putin did so much long winded explanation) Basically Putin's response was that he realized the west would never act to protect Russian speaking peoples and never respect Russian security concerns. He goes over all the ways he tried to get Russia involved in the western world and all the little betrayals leading him to realize that the west would never accept Russia as a partner and only ever wanted to colonize it.
"Why the specific date?" Putin said 1)there was a build up for a further invasion of the Donbas (and there was a documented uptick in shelling in the Donbas in early February 22) 2)There were specific statements by Zelensky that they were not going to uphold the Minsk Agreements. 3)There were specific moves to further Ukraine's entry into NATO.
Putin's explanation based on 21st century political developments is not adequate to reconcile a centuries-long historical argument of Ukrainian artificiality. if Ukraine was a polish-austrian creation, inalienable from Russia from its inception, it was just as unacceptable on those bases before the western provocations.
Putin isn't arguing that Ukraine was never supposed to be and that its existence is offensive. The historical context of the interview is to show that Ukrainian culture before Banderism was Russian culture.
He is saying that the false Ukrainian culture of banderism is a fabrication of the west because the west is ideologically opposed to the existence of Russia. The existence of Ukraine as neo-nazi state that persecutes Russians is unacceptable.
If the west didn't encourage neonazism in Ukraine, Ukraine wouldn't have to choose Europe or Russia. If the west didn't have a irrational drive to destroy Russia none of this would have happened.
He is saying that Ukraine isn't Russia's enemy, fascism is and the west is the source of Ukrainian fascism.
that's why he was talking about the polish-lithuanian commonwealth, imperial austria, hungary, & the bolsheviks before mentioning bandera at all
Because they were all involved in the formation of the state of Ukraine?
I dont get what you are digging at. If there's a point you are trying to make just make it instead of all the vague insinuations.
Honestly it sounds like you just gave up a half hour in because you were bored with the historical materialism and now you are trying to justify not watching the second half where Putin actually lays out why he started the war.
man you know he was not performing a fucking class analysis, he did this broad cliffsnotes you could get from wikipedia, with all the inconvenient details assiduously removed. ukrainian bourgeoisie doing their 'national awakening' in the 19th century? no that was the austrian general staff. the Hetman Bogdan allying with the Russians in 1654 is such an enormous deal we brought a copy of the letters... none of the times later the Hetmans/Cossacks tried to fight the Russians are mentioned. repeatedly the Poles are the oppressors of Russians, they tried to polonize the Russians---but where was poland in the 19th century again?
the narrative he is putting forward and the one you claim he was are at odds. you connect ukrainian nationalism only to banderism and western fabrication, while he also bases it on much earlier events but still specifically foreign or misguided (bolshevik) actors. the culmination of this, a thesis you're halfway to: "Ukrainian culture ~~before Banderism~~ was Russian culture" is a longue-duree repudiation of separate ukrainian identity/culture.
now he obviously isn't an earnest 'destroy all traces of Ukraine' guy---as his political record demonstrates, the point of this lil thread---but this narrative he's using is definitely trafficking in justifications for a suppression of ukrainian shit as a rejection of foreign influences
Do u want him to travel back in time to the boshevik revolution and merge the Ukrainian SSR with the Russian SSR?
i don't want him to do shit all we should appreciate is that this narrative is a new one, at least at the official level