为什么法属中南半岛分裂成了多个小实体，而没有像荷属东印度群岛、甚至在某种程度上像英属印度那样保持统一？
正文翻译
I know India was divided but still a large chunk roughly 75% of it remained a single country meanwhile French IndoChina got split into 3 smaller countries with fraction of total size each.
我知道印度虽然被瓜分了，但很大一部分（约 75%）仍然保持为一个统一的国家，而法属印度支那则被分裂成三个较小的国家，每个国家的规模都只占总面积的一小部分。
I know India was divided but still a large chunk roughly 75% of it remained a single country meanwhile French IndoChina got split into 3 smaller countries with fraction of total size each.
我知道印度虽然被瓜分了，但很大一部分（约 75%）仍然保持为一个统一的国家，而法属印度支那则被分裂成三个较小的国家，每个国家的规模都只占总面积的一小部分。
评论翻译
Lintar0
I am Indonesian so I know more about Indonesian history than either Indian or IndoChinese history, but I think that it all came to timing.
It's probably because the French came relatively late to Vietnam and the rest of IndoChina. From what I can read, the French came in 1858, which by colonial terms, was relatively late in history (only 42 years before the start of the 20th Century).
By contrast, the beginning of Dutch control of Indonesian lands can be traced to 1619 when what was then known as Jayakarta was conquered by the Dutch East India Company and renamed Batavia, which is now modern-day Jakarta. The Dutch slowly conquered the outlying islands, and then eventually consolidated their control of Java, which is Indonesia's main island. Once the Colonial State had been firmly established in Java, the system was expanded to the other islands. The result is that by the 1900's, the whole of the Dutch East Indies had been integrated into a Colonial State, complete with its bureaucracy and economy.
The start of the English (then British) control of Indian lands occurred a century later (1757) with the English East India Company.
In both cases, the Dutch and the British had more time to consolidate their colonies. This also happened with the Spanish and the Philippines.
Had the French arrived in IndoChina during the 16th Century and started conquering, history may have turned out very different.
我是印尼人，所以我对印尼历史的了解比对印度或中南半岛历史都要多，但我认为这全归结于时机问题。
这可能是因为法国人来到越南和中南半岛那其他地区的时间相对较晚。根据我所读到的资料，法国人是在1858年来的，按殖民术语来说，这在历史上相对较晚（距离20世纪开始只有42年）。
相比之下，荷兰人对印尼土地控制的开端可以追溯到1619年，当时被称为查雅加达（Jayakarta）的地方被荷兰东印度公司征服，并更名为巴达维亚（Batavia），即现在的雅加达。荷兰人缓慢地征服了偏远岛屿，并最终巩固了对爪哇岛（印尼的主岛）的控制。一旦殖民国家在爪哇稳固建立，该体系便扩展到了其他岛屿。结果是，到20世纪，整个荷属东印度群岛已经整合为一个殖民国家，拥有完整的官僚机构和经济体系。
英国人（当时的英格兰人）对印度土地控制的开始则发生在一个世纪后（1757年），由英国东印度公司主导。
在这两个案例中，荷兰人和英国人都有更多的时间来巩固他们的殖民地。西班牙人和菲律宾之间也是如此。
如果法国人在16世纪就到达印度支那并开始征服，历史可能会演变得截然不同。
limhy0809
Singaporean here, I also think it had to do with will. Indonesia in the Sukarno and Suharto era had a very militaristic, brutal and expansionist viewpoint. They weren't really willing to let anyone leave Aceh and South Maluku. They even invaded and attacked multiple territories they felt belonged to them like Timor, Singapore and Papau.
Vietnam the regional power on the other hand was kind of the opposite. When they went into Cambodia because its dictator was invading them and killing Vietnamese civilans. They could have arguably held on to the territory as the Khmer Rouge had been mass murdering its own people for years. No one would have really disagreed to the point of directly intervening, let alone the Cambodians, at least for a while. Instead, they let the UN bring the back the Cambodian king and Vietnam left.
新加坡人在此，我认为这也与意志有关。苏加诺和苏哈托时期的印尼拥有非常军事化、残暴且扩张主义的观点。他们并不愿意让亚齐和南马鲁古的任何人离开。他们甚至入侵并攻击了多个他们认为属于自己的领土，比如帝汶、新加坡和巴布亚。
另一方面，作为地区强国的越南则恰恰相反。当他们进入柬埔寨时，是因为那里的独裁者正在入侵他们并杀害越南平民。考虑到红色高棉多年来一直在对其人民进行大屠杀，越南本可以据理力争地保留那片领土。当时没有人会反对到直接干预的地步，更不用说柬埔寨人了，至少在一段时间内是这样。相反，他们让联合国迎回了柬埔寨国王，随后越南撤军了。
youtskyyezhe
I mean China invaded Vietnam in large part because of Cambodia, so to say that the Vietnamese had no pressure to not get bogged down in an occupation/annexation would be incorrect. The Vietnamese were constantly wary of Chinese incursion from the north after the Americans left and arguably still are to this day. The Chinese got their asses kicked in Vietnam but they were still a major threat based purely on size, and they required significant attention.
中国在很大程度上是因为柬埔寨问题才进攻越南的，说越南人在占领或吞并过程中没有压力是不正确的。在美军撤离后，越南人一直对来自北方的中国保持警惕，可以说直到今天依然如此。中国在越南被打得很惨，但仅凭其规模，他们仍然是一个重大威胁，需要（越南）投入大量的精力去应对。
limhy0809
I think I should have worded it better. I meant disagree as in terms of getting directly involved outside strong words and some sanctions. Similar to what happened with Russia annexing Crimea. Europe wagged their finger at Russia, slapped some economic sanctions and called it a day.
China and America going after Vietnam felt more like what was already happening. They seized the paracel island from South Vietnam just a few years prior.
我的意思是，我本应该表达得更清楚些。我所说的“反对”是指除了严厉的措辞和一些制裁之外，没有采取直接干预。这类似于俄罗斯吞并克里米亚时的情况。欧洲对俄罗斯指手画脚，象征性地进行了一些经济制裁，然后就到此为止了。
中国和美国针对越南的行为，更像是当时已经在发生的事情。就在几年前，他们还从南越手中夺取了西沙群岛。
mofk_
The bit about no one disagreeing with Vietnam stationing in Cambodia is untrue - as soon as we set foot there, everyone not inside the Soviet bloc condemned and sanctioned us, if they haven’t already done so since the Vietnam war. The UN denounced us, recognizing Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia. China invaded us. The US tacitly supported KR just to spite the Vietnamese. The ASEAN, Singapore in particular, called and continued to call the war an “unlawful invasion”, as recent as 2019 by PM Lee Hsien Loong. Thailand literally hosted the KR remnants inside their border.
We left after 10 years of enduring constant guerrilla warfare, crippling economic issues back home, and facing a crumbling Soviet unx. We shouldn’t have gone there in the first place.
关于没有人反对越南驻军柬埔寨的说法不是事实——我们脚一踏入那里，苏联集团以外的所有人都谴责并制裁了我们，如果他们自越战以来还没这么做的话。联合国谴责了我们，并承认红色高棉为柬埔寨的合法政府。中国攻击了我们。美国为了羞辱越南人，默许支持红色高棉。东盟，特别是新加坡，称这场战争为“非法入侵”，甚至直到2019年李显龙总理还依然这么说。泰国则直接在边境境内收容了红色高棉的残余势力。
我们在忍受了10年的持续游击战、国内严峻的经济问题以及面对崩溃中的苏联后撤离了。我们从一开始就不该去那里。
Deep_Contribution552
Indonesia made (and is still making) a concerted military effort to prevent breakaway territories. Britain was in India for longer than France was in IndoChina, and India also still had to resort to Operation Polo to annex the large state of Hyderabad. There was no comparable dominant entity to enforce unx in IndoChina; the prolonged independence conflict with France prevented any groups from adopting/co-opting colonial power structures to hold the region together.
印尼做出了（并且仍在做出）协调一致的军事努力，以防止领土分裂。英国在印度待的时间比法国在中南半岛要长，而印度最终仍不得不诉诸“波罗行动”来吞并海德拉巴这个大邦。在中南半岛，没有任何一个与之相当的主导实体能强行维持统一；与法国长期持续的独立冲突，使得任何组织都无法通过采用或利用殖民权力结构来维系该地区的整体性。
limhy0809
I also think the dominant power in IndoChina Vietnam didn't really want to dominate it's neighbours. When it overthrew Pol Pot after he had been invading them and killing their civilian. They left Cambodia when they could have arguably their to hold onto it. Given that the Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge had murdered 20% of Cambodia in a few years. Many Cambodia didn't resist and likely wouldn't have for many years since Vietnam was a massive improvement over Pol Pot.
我认为中南半岛的主导力量越南并不真的想统治其邻国。当他们在波尔布特入侵并杀害越南平民后将其推翻时，他们撤出了柬埔寨，而按理说他们本可以留下来并控制那里。考虑到波尔布特的红色高棉在短短几年内杀害了柬埔寨20%的人口，许多柬埔寨人当时并没有反抗，而且由于越南的统治比波尔布特有了巨大的改善，这种不反抗的状态很可能还会维持很多年。
Kryomon
I think India staying together was actually more of a surprise than anything.
It's the exception to the rule, because just about every other multicultural state has failed.
I don't really know about Indonesia though.
我认为印度能维持统一其实比任何事情都更令人惊讶。
它是常规中的特例，因为几乎所有其他的多元文化国家都失败了。
不过，我确实不太了解印尼的情况。
Hourplate994
True, it’s pretty impressive that India held together (Although some of it was by force, such as Goa and Hyderabad).
There are other functional multicultural states but nothing on the scale of India.
确实，印度能够维持统一确实令人印象深刻（尽管其中一部分是通过武力实现的，例如果阿和海德拉巴）。
虽然还有其他运作良好的多元文化国家，但在规模上都无法与印度相比。
ComprehensiveRow4347
Remember Still not yet 100 years .. marked difference between South and North. Split was agitated for in 1960's but compromise was reached on language.. May still happen. Who can predict the future!!! Who ever thought Soviet unx would collapse or South Africa would loose Apartheid or a Trump would behave as a Tyrant!!
确实，现在还不到 100 年……南方和北方之间仍有显著差异。20 世纪 60 世纪曾有人鼓动分裂，但最终在语言问题上达成了妥协。分裂仍有可能发生。谁能预料未来呢！！！谁能想到苏联会解体，或者南非会废除种族隔离，又或者特朗普会表现得像个暴君！！
Solid-Move-1411
Indonesia is even more diverse than India. It has 15K islands and over 800 languages.
印尼甚至比印度更加多元。它有15000座岛屿和超过800种语言。
Much_Upstairs_4611
IndoChina, before colonial integration, was already split amongst strong, more or less centralized States with power structures. Nobles, land owning aristocrats, artisans and mercantile class, and peasants. The French didn't erase these existing structures, but integrated them to form their colonial administration. When the French left the region, the region splitted along pre-existing political lines.
Indonesia, although it had societies, was decentralized. There were small State-like entities, but they lacked the Power Structures of Centralized States. Don't get me wrong, there were States and Empires in the region, but they were often lead by foreign influences, like Chinese/Muslim traders.
As they englobed the whole islands, the Dutch didn't really have clear political borders to work with. So they established a brand new hierarchy of power, establishing themselves the elites, and the peasant classes. During decolonialization, this structure had no where to split, so the country tried to force itself a new legitimacy.
Similar story to most African nations.
在殖民整合之前，中南半岛已经分裂为若干个拥有权力结构的、或多或少集权的强大国家。那里有贵族、土地所有者、工匠、商人阶层以及农民。法国人并没有抹杀这些现有的结构，而是将其整合进了自己的殖民管理体系中。当法国人离开该地区时，该地区便沿着预先存在的政治分界线发生了分裂。
印度尼西亚虽然也有社会组织，但却是分散的。那里虽有一些类似实体的微型国家，但缺乏集权国家的权力结构。别误会我的意思，该地区确实存在过国家和帝国，但它们通常由外来势力领导，例如中国或穆斯林商人。
由于荷兰人包揽了整个群岛，他们并没有清晰的政治边界可以利用。因此，他们建立了一套全新的权力等级制度，将自己确立为精英阶层，并设立了农民阶层。在去殖民化过程中，这种结构没有分裂的基础，因此该国试图强行为自己建立一种新的合法性。
大多数非洲国家的情况也类似。
OllieV_nl
Because the Americans backed Sukarno, and Sukarno wanted it all. He even got West-Papua, which was a separate colony with vastly a different demographic.
因为美国支持苏加诺，而苏加诺想要全部。他甚至得到了西巴布亚，那曾是一个人口结构截然不同的独立殖民地。
Beebah-Dooba
The institutional split had also happened under Japan. They reimplemented the Vietnamese Empire, Luang Prabang, and Cambodia Empire as distinct entities in 1945.
If I had to guess, France probably also kept those regions more institutionally separated than the areas of Indonesia under the Dutch, but idrk.
Obviously the story of the people there and their desires is the most important thing
机构的分裂在日占时期也已经发生。1945年，日方重新将越南帝国、琅勃拉邦（老挝）和柬埔寨帝国作为独立的实体运行。
如果要我猜测，法国可能也比荷兰在印尼时期更倾向于保持这些地区在制度上的独立，但我不太确定。
显而易见，当地人民的经历和他们的意愿才是最重要的。
KampretOfficial
He even got West-Papua, which was a separate colony with vastly a different demographic.
Dutch New Guinea was split off from the Dutch East Indies in 1948 as part of the Dutch trying to keep something in the SE Asia region during the Indonesian War of Independence. Indonesia is the legal successor state of the Dutch East Indies in which West Papua is part of before the 1945 Proclamation of Independence and is the legal basis of the Indonesian claim over West Papua.
Vastly different demographic? The only way that it's different is that Papua is populated by Melanesians, in which the Moluccas and the eastern Lesser Sunda Islands are as well (and they're definitely part of Indonesia proper). "Austronesianism" or Pan-Malayism has never been part of the Indonesian identity.
他甚至得到了西巴布亚，而那曾是一个人口结构截然不同的独立殖民地。
荷属新几内亚于 1948 年从荷属东印度群岛中分离出来，这是荷兰在印尼独立战争期间试图在东南亚地区保留势力范围的一部分举措。印度尼西亚是荷属东印度群岛的法定继承国，而西巴布亚在 1945 年宣布独立之前就是其领土的一部分，这也是印尼对西巴布亚主权要求的法律依据。
人口结构迥异？唯一不同的一点在于巴布亚居住着美拉尼西亚人，但摩鹿加群岛和向风群岛东部（小巽他群岛）也同样居住着美拉尼西亚人（而这些地方绝对属于印尼本土）。而“南岛民族主义”或泛马来主义从未成为印尼身份认同的一部分。
ForgottenGrocery
I swear people just thinks that Indonesians is a monolithic culture of sharia Muslims with the exception of Balinese and Papuans...
我发誓，人们真的以为除了巴厘岛人和巴布亚人之外，印度尼西亚人就是一种由伊斯兰教法穆斯林构成的单一文化……
td900100
Laos was 2-3 small kingdoms that were under thailands thumb before it ceeded the French. Thailand kept the remaining Lao kingdoms. Cambodia was also under the Thai thumb and viewed itself as the successor of the Angkor kingdom. Combining them with vietnam would probably be a bad idea as they are also a distinct group that was more culturally and geopolitically in line with China. places like India were a lot more homogeneous and had a history of being united. Maybe not all at once but for long enough in lots of different places. there was also a centuries long independence movement that helped build native ideas of India. There was none of that in indoChina as the French left the 3 states basically on their own over the century they owned them
在割让给法国之前，老挝曾是处于泰国掌控下的 2-3 个小王国。泰国保留了剩余的老挝王国。柬埔寨同样也处于泰国的掌控之下，并视自己为吴哥王朝的继承者。将它们与越南合并可能是一个糟糕的主意，因为越南也是一个独特的群体，在文化和地缘政治上更倾向于中国。
像印度这样的地方要同质得多，并且有着统一的历史。也许不是同时统一，但在许多不同的地方统一时间都足够长。此外，那里还经历了长达数世纪的独立运动，这有助于建立本土的印度理念。中南半岛则没有这些，因为在法国统治的一个世纪里，基本上让这三个国家各自为政。
srmndeep
French did same with French West Africa and French Equitorial Africa. Looks like a French thing !
法国对法属西非和法属赤道非洲也采取了同样做法。看起来这像是法国人的风格！
Msajimi123
Short story speaking, it is divided into and conquer strategy, long story speaking, these 3 regions is roughly equal to the 3 power and political bases in Vietnam, the Red River Delta elites and their communes in the North, the Nguyen royal family power base in the center, and the landowning/military man in the South. Cambodia and Laos stay relatively intact administrative wise because they are considered as buffer zones for the real heart of French IndoChina.
简而言之，这是分而治之的策略；详而言之，这三个地区大致对应于越南境内的三大权力和政治基地：北方红河三角洲的精英及其公社，中部的阮朝皇室权力基地，以及南方的地主和军人阶层。柬埔寨和老挝在行政上保持了相对完整，因为它们被视为法属中南半岛核心地带的缓冲区。
Popielid
Most of IndoChina was covered by de facto strongly separate protectorates, with France taking over only in the xiXth Century, whereas Britain and the Netherlands dominated their East Indies through many separate wars over many centuries. Plus they were the first to unify the whole areas of modern India/Pakistan/Bangladesh and Indonesia respectively.
What's more, a unified IndoChina in it's historical borders would be just Big Vietnam ethnically. You would need at least Thailand and probably southern borderlands of modern China to truly balance the ethnic makeup of such a state.
中南半岛的大部分地区由事实上的、高度独立的保护国组成，法国直到 19 世纪才接管；而英国和荷兰则通过数个世纪的多场战争统治了各自的东印度群岛。此外，他们分别是第一个统一现代印度/巴基斯坦/孟加拉国以及印度尼西亚全境的势力。
更重要的是，一个处于历史边界内的统一中南半岛，在民族构成上实质上只是一个“大越南”。你至少需要加入泰国，可能还需要加入现代中国的南方边境地区，才能真正平衡这样一个国家的民族构成。
CosMV
Just as a curiosity. Why the southern tip of what would become Vietnam (in brown colors) was treated differently by the French and how it ended up in Vietnam if it was a different ‘entity’?
只是好奇。为什么后来成为越南南端的部分（图中褐色部分）被法国人区别对待？如果它是一个不同的“实体”，它又是如何并入越南的？
BlyatBoi762
Thats called CochinChina I believe, and you’ll notice Central Vietnam is coloured in Red, called Annam, and Northern Vietnam is purple, called Tonkin.
据我所知，那被称为交趾支那（CochinChina）。你会注意到越南中部被标为红色，称为安南（Annam），而越南北部被标为紫色，称为东京（Tonkin）。
CosMV
So Vietnam, being too big, was split into 3 different administrative divisions. Am i getting it right?
所以越南是因为面积太大，才被划分为三个不同的行政区。我理解得对吗？
luca_cinnam00n
Yes, basically. CochinChina was also the first area to be handed over to the French so their presence is stronger there.
是的，基本上是这样。交趾支那也是第一个移交给法国的地区，因此他们在那里的存在感也更强。
I am Indonesian so I know more about Indonesian history than either Indian or IndoChinese history, but I think that it all came to timing.
It's probably because the French came relatively late to Vietnam and the rest of IndoChina. From what I can read, the French came in 1858, which by colonial terms, was relatively late in history (only 42 years before the start of the 20th Century).
By contrast, the beginning of Dutch control of Indonesian lands can be traced to 1619 when what was then known as Jayakarta was conquered by the Dutch East India Company and renamed Batavia, which is now modern-day Jakarta. The Dutch slowly conquered the outlying islands, and then eventually consolidated their control of Java, which is Indonesia's main island. Once the Colonial State had been firmly established in Java, the system was expanded to the other islands. The result is that by the 1900's, the whole of the Dutch East Indies had been integrated into a Colonial State, complete with its bureaucracy and economy.
The start of the English (then British) control of Indian lands occurred a century later (1757) with the English East India Company.
In both cases, the Dutch and the British had more time to consolidate their colonies. This also happened with the Spanish and the Philippines.
Had the French arrived in IndoChina during the 16th Century and started conquering, history may have turned out very different.
我是印尼人，所以我对印尼历史的了解比对印度或中南半岛历史都要多，但我认为这全归结于时机问题。
这可能是因为法国人来到越南和中南半岛那其他地区的时间相对较晚。根据我所读到的资料，法国人是在1858年来的，按殖民术语来说，这在历史上相对较晚（距离20世纪开始只有42年）。
相比之下，荷兰人对印尼土地控制的开端可以追溯到1619年，当时被称为查雅加达（Jayakarta）的地方被荷兰东印度公司征服，并更名为巴达维亚（Batavia），即现在的雅加达。荷兰人缓慢地征服了偏远岛屿，并最终巩固了对爪哇岛（印尼的主岛）的控制。一旦殖民国家在爪哇稳固建立，该体系便扩展到了其他岛屿。结果是，到20世纪，整个荷属东印度群岛已经整合为一个殖民国家，拥有完整的官僚机构和经济体系。
英国人（当时的英格兰人）对印度土地控制的开始则发生在一个世纪后（1757年），由英国东印度公司主导。
在这两个案例中，荷兰人和英国人都有更多的时间来巩固他们的殖民地。西班牙人和菲律宾之间也是如此。
如果法国人在16世纪就到达印度支那并开始征服，历史可能会演变得截然不同。
limhy0809
Singaporean here, I also think it had to do with will. Indonesia in the Sukarno and Suharto era had a very militaristic, brutal and expansionist viewpoint. They weren't really willing to let anyone leave Aceh and South Maluku. They even invaded and attacked multiple territories they felt belonged to them like Timor, Singapore and Papau.
Vietnam the regional power on the other hand was kind of the opposite. When they went into Cambodia because its dictator was invading them and killing Vietnamese civilans. They could have arguably held on to the territory as the Khmer Rouge had been mass murdering its own people for years. No one would have really disagreed to the point of directly intervening, let alone the Cambodians, at least for a while. Instead, they let the UN bring the back the Cambodian king and Vietnam left.
新加坡人在此，我认为这也与意志有关。苏加诺和苏哈托时期的印尼拥有非常军事化、残暴且扩张主义的观点。他们并不愿意让亚齐和南马鲁古的任何人离开。他们甚至入侵并攻击了多个他们认为属于自己的领土，比如帝汶、新加坡和巴布亚。
另一方面，作为地区强国的越南则恰恰相反。当他们进入柬埔寨时，是因为那里的独裁者正在入侵他们并杀害越南平民。考虑到红色高棉多年来一直在对其人民进行大屠杀，越南本可以据理力争地保留那片领土。当时没有人会反对到直接干预的地步，更不用说柬埔寨人了，至少在一段时间内是这样。相反，他们让联合国迎回了柬埔寨国王，随后越南撤军了。
youtskyyezhe
I mean China invaded Vietnam in large part because of Cambodia, so to say that the Vietnamese had no pressure to not get bogged down in an occupation/annexation would be incorrect. The Vietnamese were constantly wary of Chinese incursion from the north after the Americans left and arguably still are to this day. The Chinese got their asses kicked in Vietnam but they were still a major threat based purely on size, and they required significant attention.
中国在很大程度上是因为柬埔寨问题才进攻越南的，说越南人在占领或吞并过程中没有压力是不正确的。在美军撤离后，越南人一直对来自北方的中国保持警惕，可以说直到今天依然如此。中国在越南被打得很惨，但仅凭其规模，他们仍然是一个重大威胁，需要（越南）投入大量的精力去应对。
limhy0809
I think I should have worded it better. I meant disagree as in terms of getting directly involved outside strong words and some sanctions. Similar to what happened with Russia annexing Crimea. Europe wagged their finger at Russia, slapped some economic sanctions and called it a day.
China and America going after Vietnam felt more like what was already happening. They seized the paracel island from South Vietnam just a few years prior.
我的意思是，我本应该表达得更清楚些。我所说的“反对”是指除了严厉的措辞和一些制裁之外，没有采取直接干预。这类似于俄罗斯吞并克里米亚时的情况。欧洲对俄罗斯指手画脚，象征性地进行了一些经济制裁，然后就到此为止了。
中国和美国针对越南的行为，更像是当时已经在发生的事情。就在几年前，他们还从南越手中夺取了西沙群岛。
mofk_
The bit about no one disagreeing with Vietnam stationing in Cambodia is untrue - as soon as we set foot there, everyone not inside the Soviet bloc condemned and sanctioned us, if they haven’t already done so since the Vietnam war. The UN denounced us, recognizing Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia. China invaded us. The US tacitly supported KR just to spite the Vietnamese. The ASEAN, Singapore in particular, called and continued to call the war an “unlawful invasion”, as recent as 2019 by PM Lee Hsien Loong. Thailand literally hosted the KR remnants inside their border.
We left after 10 years of enduring constant guerrilla warfare, crippling economic issues back home, and facing a crumbling Soviet unx. We shouldn’t have gone there in the first place.
关于没有人反对越南驻军柬埔寨的说法不是事实——我们脚一踏入那里，苏联集团以外的所有人都谴责并制裁了我们，如果他们自越战以来还没这么做的话。联合国谴责了我们，并承认红色高棉为柬埔寨的合法政府。中国攻击了我们。美国为了羞辱越南人，默许支持红色高棉。东盟，特别是新加坡，称这场战争为“非法入侵”，甚至直到2019年李显龙总理还依然这么说。泰国则直接在边境境内收容了红色高棉的残余势力。
我们在忍受了10年的持续游击战、国内严峻的经济问题以及面对崩溃中的苏联后撤离了。我们从一开始就不该去那里。
Deep_Contribution552
Indonesia made (and is still making) a concerted military effort to prevent breakaway territories. Britain was in India for longer than France was in IndoChina, and India also still had to resort to Operation Polo to annex the large state of Hyderabad. There was no comparable dominant entity to enforce unx in IndoChina; the prolonged independence conflict with France prevented any groups from adopting/co-opting colonial power structures to hold the region together.
印尼做出了（并且仍在做出）协调一致的军事努力，以防止领土分裂。英国在印度待的时间比法国在中南半岛要长，而印度最终仍不得不诉诸“波罗行动”来吞并海德拉巴这个大邦。在中南半岛，没有任何一个与之相当的主导实体能强行维持统一；与法国长期持续的独立冲突，使得任何组织都无法通过采用或利用殖民权力结构来维系该地区的整体性。
limhy0809
I also think the dominant power in IndoChina Vietnam didn't really want to dominate it's neighbours. When it overthrew Pol Pot after he had been invading them and killing their civilian. They left Cambodia when they could have arguably their to hold onto it. Given that the Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge had murdered 20% of Cambodia in a few years. Many Cambodia didn't resist and likely wouldn't have for many years since Vietnam was a massive improvement over Pol Pot.
我认为中南半岛的主导力量越南并不真的想统治其邻国。当他们在波尔布特入侵并杀害越南平民后将其推翻时，他们撤出了柬埔寨，而按理说他们本可以留下来并控制那里。考虑到波尔布特的红色高棉在短短几年内杀害了柬埔寨20%的人口，许多柬埔寨人当时并没有反抗，而且由于越南的统治比波尔布特有了巨大的改善，这种不反抗的状态很可能还会维持很多年。
Kryomon
I think India staying together was actually more of a surprise than anything.
It's the exception to the rule, because just about every other multicultural state has failed.
I don't really know about Indonesia though.
我认为印度能维持统一其实比任何事情都更令人惊讶。
它是常规中的特例，因为几乎所有其他的多元文化国家都失败了。
不过，我确实不太了解印尼的情况。
Hourplate994
True, it’s pretty impressive that India held together (Although some of it was by force, such as Goa and Hyderabad).
There are other functional multicultural states but nothing on the scale of India.
确实，印度能够维持统一确实令人印象深刻（尽管其中一部分是通过武力实现的，例如果阿和海德拉巴）。
虽然还有其他运作良好的多元文化国家，但在规模上都无法与印度相比。
ComprehensiveRow4347
Remember Still not yet 100 years .. marked difference between South and North. Split was agitated for in 1960's but compromise was reached on language.. May still happen. Who can predict the future!!! Who ever thought Soviet unx would collapse or South Africa would loose Apartheid or a Trump would behave as a Tyrant!!
确实，现在还不到 100 年……南方和北方之间仍有显著差异。20 世纪 60 世纪曾有人鼓动分裂，但最终在语言问题上达成了妥协。分裂仍有可能发生。谁能预料未来呢！！！谁能想到苏联会解体，或者南非会废除种族隔离，又或者特朗普会表现得像个暴君！！
Solid-Move-1411
Indonesia is even more diverse than India. It has 15K islands and over 800 languages.
印尼甚至比印度更加多元。它有15000座岛屿和超过800种语言。
Much_Upstairs_4611
IndoChina, before colonial integration, was already split amongst strong, more or less centralized States with power structures. Nobles, land owning aristocrats, artisans and mercantile class, and peasants. The French didn't erase these existing structures, but integrated them to form their colonial administration. When the French left the region, the region splitted along pre-existing political lines.
Indonesia, although it had societies, was decentralized. There were small State-like entities, but they lacked the Power Structures of Centralized States. Don't get me wrong, there were States and Empires in the region, but they were often lead by foreign influences, like Chinese/Muslim traders.
As they englobed the whole islands, the Dutch didn't really have clear political borders to work with. So they established a brand new hierarchy of power, establishing themselves the elites, and the peasant classes. During decolonialization, this structure had no where to split, so the country tried to force itself a new legitimacy.
Similar story to most African nations.
在殖民整合之前，中南半岛已经分裂为若干个拥有权力结构的、或多或少集权的强大国家。那里有贵族、土地所有者、工匠、商人阶层以及农民。法国人并没有抹杀这些现有的结构，而是将其整合进了自己的殖民管理体系中。当法国人离开该地区时，该地区便沿着预先存在的政治分界线发生了分裂。
印度尼西亚虽然也有社会组织，但却是分散的。那里虽有一些类似实体的微型国家，但缺乏集权国家的权力结构。别误会我的意思，该地区确实存在过国家和帝国，但它们通常由外来势力领导，例如中国或穆斯林商人。
由于荷兰人包揽了整个群岛，他们并没有清晰的政治边界可以利用。因此，他们建立了一套全新的权力等级制度，将自己确立为精英阶层，并设立了农民阶层。在去殖民化过程中，这种结构没有分裂的基础，因此该国试图强行为自己建立一种新的合法性。
大多数非洲国家的情况也类似。
OllieV_nl
Because the Americans backed Sukarno, and Sukarno wanted it all. He even got West-Papua, which was a separate colony with vastly a different demographic.
因为美国支持苏加诺，而苏加诺想要全部。他甚至得到了西巴布亚，那曾是一个人口结构截然不同的独立殖民地。
Beebah-Dooba
The institutional split had also happened under Japan. They reimplemented the Vietnamese Empire, Luang Prabang, and Cambodia Empire as distinct entities in 1945.
If I had to guess, France probably also kept those regions more institutionally separated than the areas of Indonesia under the Dutch, but idrk.
Obviously the story of the people there and their desires is the most important thing
机构的分裂在日占时期也已经发生。1945年，日方重新将越南帝国、琅勃拉邦（老挝）和柬埔寨帝国作为独立的实体运行。
如果要我猜测，法国可能也比荷兰在印尼时期更倾向于保持这些地区在制度上的独立，但我不太确定。
显而易见，当地人民的经历和他们的意愿才是最重要的。
KampretOfficial
He even got West-Papua, which was a separate colony with vastly a different demographic.
Dutch New Guinea was split off from the Dutch East Indies in 1948 as part of the Dutch trying to keep something in the SE Asia region during the Indonesian War of Independence. Indonesia is the legal successor state of the Dutch East Indies in which West Papua is part of before the 1945 Proclamation of Independence and is the legal basis of the Indonesian claim over West Papua.
Vastly different demographic? The only way that it's different is that Papua is populated by Melanesians, in which the Moluccas and the eastern Lesser Sunda Islands are as well (and they're definitely part of Indonesia proper). "Austronesianism" or Pan-Malayism has never been part of the Indonesian identity.
他甚至得到了西巴布亚，而那曾是一个人口结构截然不同的独立殖民地。
荷属新几内亚于 1948 年从荷属东印度群岛中分离出来，这是荷兰在印尼独立战争期间试图在东南亚地区保留势力范围的一部分举措。印度尼西亚是荷属东印度群岛的法定继承国，而西巴布亚在 1945 年宣布独立之前就是其领土的一部分，这也是印尼对西巴布亚主权要求的法律依据。
人口结构迥异？唯一不同的一点在于巴布亚居住着美拉尼西亚人，但摩鹿加群岛和向风群岛东部（小巽他群岛）也同样居住着美拉尼西亚人（而这些地方绝对属于印尼本土）。而“南岛民族主义”或泛马来主义从未成为印尼身份认同的一部分。
ForgottenGrocery
I swear people just thinks that Indonesians is a monolithic culture of sharia Muslims with the exception of Balinese and Papuans...
我发誓，人们真的以为除了巴厘岛人和巴布亚人之外，印度尼西亚人就是一种由伊斯兰教法穆斯林构成的单一文化……
td900100
Laos was 2-3 small kingdoms that were under thailands thumb before it ceeded the French. Thailand kept the remaining Lao kingdoms. Cambodia was also under the Thai thumb and viewed itself as the successor of the Angkor kingdom. Combining them with vietnam would probably be a bad idea as they are also a distinct group that was more culturally and geopolitically in line with China. places like India were a lot more homogeneous and had a history of being united. Maybe not all at once but for long enough in lots of different places. there was also a centuries long independence movement that helped build native ideas of India. There was none of that in indoChina as the French left the 3 states basically on their own over the century they owned them
在割让给法国之前，老挝曾是处于泰国掌控下的 2-3 个小王国。泰国保留了剩余的老挝王国。柬埔寨同样也处于泰国的掌控之下，并视自己为吴哥王朝的继承者。将它们与越南合并可能是一个糟糕的主意，因为越南也是一个独特的群体，在文化和地缘政治上更倾向于中国。
像印度这样的地方要同质得多，并且有着统一的历史。也许不是同时统一，但在许多不同的地方统一时间都足够长。此外，那里还经历了长达数世纪的独立运动，这有助于建立本土的印度理念。中南半岛则没有这些，因为在法国统治的一个世纪里，基本上让这三个国家各自为政。
srmndeep
French did same with French West Africa and French Equitorial Africa. Looks like a French thing !
法国对法属西非和法属赤道非洲也采取了同样做法。看起来这像是法国人的风格！
Msajimi123
Short story speaking, it is divided into and conquer strategy, long story speaking, these 3 regions is roughly equal to the 3 power and political bases in Vietnam, the Red River Delta elites and their communes in the North, the Nguyen royal family power base in the center, and the landowning/military man in the South. Cambodia and Laos stay relatively intact administrative wise because they are considered as buffer zones for the real heart of French IndoChina.
简而言之，这是分而治之的策略；详而言之，这三个地区大致对应于越南境内的三大权力和政治基地：北方红河三角洲的精英及其公社，中部的阮朝皇室权力基地，以及南方的地主和军人阶层。柬埔寨和老挝在行政上保持了相对完整，因为它们被视为法属中南半岛核心地带的缓冲区。
Popielid
Most of IndoChina was covered by de facto strongly separate protectorates, with France taking over only in the xiXth Century, whereas Britain and the Netherlands dominated their East Indies through many separate wars over many centuries. Plus they were the first to unify the whole areas of modern India/Pakistan/Bangladesh and Indonesia respectively.
What's more, a unified IndoChina in it's historical borders would be just Big Vietnam ethnically. You would need at least Thailand and probably southern borderlands of modern China to truly balance the ethnic makeup of such a state.
中南半岛的大部分地区由事实上的、高度独立的保护国组成，法国直到 19 世纪才接管；而英国和荷兰则通过数个世纪的多场战争统治了各自的东印度群岛。此外，他们分别是第一个统一现代印度/巴基斯坦/孟加拉国以及印度尼西亚全境的势力。
更重要的是，一个处于历史边界内的统一中南半岛，在民族构成上实质上只是一个“大越南”。你至少需要加入泰国，可能还需要加入现代中国的南方边境地区，才能真正平衡这样一个国家的民族构成。
CosMV
Just as a curiosity. Why the southern tip of what would become Vietnam (in brown colors) was treated differently by the French and how it ended up in Vietnam if it was a different ‘entity’?
只是好奇。为什么后来成为越南南端的部分（图中褐色部分）被法国人区别对待？如果它是一个不同的“实体”，它又是如何并入越南的？
BlyatBoi762
Thats called CochinChina I believe, and you’ll notice Central Vietnam is coloured in Red, called Annam, and Northern Vietnam is purple, called Tonkin.
据我所知，那被称为交趾支那（CochinChina）。你会注意到越南中部被标为红色，称为安南（Annam），而越南北部被标为紫色，称为东京（Tonkin）。
CosMV
So Vietnam, being too big, was split into 3 different administrative divisions. Am i getting it right?
所以越南是因为面积太大，才被划分为三个不同的行政区。我理解得对吗？
luca_cinnam00n
Yes, basically. CochinChina was also the first area to be handed over to the French so their presence is stronger there.
是的，基本上是这样。交趾支那也是第一个移交给法国的地区，因此他们在那里的存在感也更强。