The nationalist power that was strong in Indochina meant any French return was an inevitable conflict.3 Considering that Indochina was already a land of two different cultures, it is no surprise that nationalism was on the rise, having been already indigenous peoples living there with their own traditions and always having a sense of pride of their heritage. Perhaps the Second World War gave the nationalists the chance and the opportunity to build the foundations of an independent state free from imperial rule, and with the help of the Japanese and their influence of nationalism upon the Vietnamese, it became a reality, contributing to the decline of the French Empire. And also, the Japanese destroying a European colonial power meant Asians could defeat Europeans, possibly stimulating nationalism across Asia.
Clayton, coming across as a Whig in his writings on the French decolonization, implies that the rise of nationalism is perhaps a progressive step towards freedom for the peoples of the colonies. Due to the mistakes of the French and their ignorant, laid back attitude towards the rise of nationalism, people were able to make progress in breaking away from the Empire and gaining self-governance in order to form their own destinies and choices. While it can be considered that this perhaps was an unwise move from the colonies, like Indochina, the problem seems to stem from the French with their use of force with military might towards an already hostile people.
Countering this, it can be argued that there are two sides to this argument of a spread in nationalism after the war, one being that the British assisted it. According to Macmillan, there was a common belief that the British had lost the will to continue their once powerful and great empire, a decay in the desire to lead perhaps. Instead, he argued: "But they did not conceive of themselves as having the right to govern in perpetuity.