In WWII, that area was occupied by the Japanese. IT was returned to the French after the war, but the people there didn’t want them back. So, they went to war over it (First Indochina war). The Viet Mihn won a huge battle in 1954 (Dien Bien Phu) which led to the French withdrawal from the region — and the partitioning of North and South Vietnam. The North communist (which, btw, the U.S. supported against the Japanese in WWII) and the South, now supported by the U.S. So, in the sense that it was the people living there trying to overthrow the colonizing nation, yes, there is a tenuous tie. However, it would have been a much stronger tie had it been the Native Americans who had revolted against the British (which included the eventual Americans).

I would not say that the Vietnam War (2nd Indochina War) was similar to the revolution because the U.S. was technically there at the invitation of the South Vietnamese government. — a sovereign country.

Ironically, FDR had stated that the French was the worst colonizing power in the world and that he would see to it that they did NOT get Indochina back after the war. Unfortunately, Truman wanted French support after the war, and France wanted Indochina back. The rest is, pardon the pun, history.

Britain also came to conquer us, whereas, we only wanted to teach Vietnam a lesson. (There’s no longer conquering done in any war we enter).