Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Oz, New Zealand & Vietnam
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Docbrinsley (U6638310) on Thursday, 18th December 2008
I knew that Oz was involved in Vietnam but never realised that New Zealand was. Can anyone tell me why these countries got involved? Was it cos they wanted a piece of the action, or that they believed that they could halt the spread of Communism or did they just want to help out 'Uncle Sam'?
-
Message 2
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Thursday, 18th December 2008
Probably a bit of all three factors (certainly 1 & 3).
They also wanted to demonstrate that they could have their own foreign policy, one independent of the Brits -
Message 3
Posted by collins6789 (U7571065) on Thursday, 18th December 2008
The American were added by Austrian Land Sea and Air forces, I on not know about New Zealand. The Americans took over fighting the North Vietnamese from the French, who it turn took over from the Japanese forces from WW2. The North Vietnamese had at that time been gived arms and training by the Allies including the British, I met a Britsh man who flew B-24 Liberators from India to Vietnam to drop supplies to partisans fighting the Japanese.
Harold Wilson managed to keep Britian from the Vietnam war, but some special forces and other experts were seconded for training and actual operations, plus a lot of British equipement like Canbarra Bombers, Deltic engines for MTBs and Spey aircraft engines. -
Message 4
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Thursday, 18th December 2008
I don't think any Western country has committed forces just "to get a pice of the action". after WWII, Korea, Malaya and Borneo, I don't thin k the Australian Army felt particularly in need of another war. So it wasn't the first reason.
It was the combination of the second two. Australian foreign policy was based on a view that it was in its interests to block the expansion of Communism in South East Asia (and not just Communism - an expansionist Indonesia was a threat whatever hue the government in Jakarta) through collective action. The New Zealanders had the same approach. Hence their membership of SEATO.
An alliance with the USA, as the Western superpower, was (and is) also deemed vital to Australia's defence. If you area relying on America to come to your aid when threatened, it makes sense to co-operate when the US asks you to help out elsewhere in the region.
So, for both those interlinked reasons, Australia and New Zealand made contributions to the "Free World" forces in South Vietnam.
As to Australia wanting a foreign policy independent of the British. They already had one of them, but up to Vietnam, theirs and ours had tended to coincide. There was an assumption that the Brits would at least send a battalion (the Australian Task Force needed a third battalion to make it a full-size brigade), both in Australia and in UK (particularly in the Army, although the Chiefs of Staff had recommended against). That Harold Wilson held firm to his decision not to send troops was a surprise in many quarters.
And can we leave out the "SAS were in 'Nam" myth? It's a story put about by armchair fantasists. -
Message 5
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Thursday, 18th December 2008
"British equipement like Canbarra Bombers"
The Canberra's were built under license, and as the original B-57A was considered unfit for combat by the USAF, they were used purely for testing. The first USAF combat ready aircraft were B-57B's which other than outward appearance bore no resemblance to the British Canberra's whatsover. -
Message 6
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Thursday, 18th December 2008
Involvement was largely due to the 'domino theory' to stem the perceived threat of communism in SE Asia, hence Vietnam can be seen as a war of the Cold War,
The NZ forces were small and integrated with Australia's in an ANZAC contribution, but nonetheless the war caused controversy in both countries
Australia has had a separate foreign policy to Britain since 1941 and the Pacific War. I don't recall public expectation in Australia that Britain should have been involved in Vietnam - maybe military feeling was different. The main issue from the late 1960s was the unpopularity of Australian involvement. I think the 'East of Suez' announcement had more negative repurcussions in Washington -
Message 7
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 8
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Friday, 19th December 2008
I'd say the Canberras used by the RAAF in Vietnam were built by the Commonwealth Aircraft Factory. When we had an aviation industry..
The Conservative Govts in Oz at the time felt they had to back up the US, as after all we would have expected them to help us if the Big One broke out. "All the way with LBJ" was what Harolt Holt said, and meant it.
At the beginning of our involvement (Ted Serong and his Team) it was all rather quiet, then even when the RAAF got involved with Caribous and Canberras many Aussies supported the war. It was as it went on and on, and became obvious that it could not be "won" in any meaningful sense, that public opinion turned against it. The Moratorium Marches were the biggest turnout of public protest that had ever happened in Oz...but it took Gough Whitlams' Govt to come to power before the Aussie involvement ended. -
Message 9
Posted by Vixkrater (U12742005) on Friday, 19th December 2008
The first USAF combat ready aircraft were B-57B's which other than outward appearance bore no resemblance to the British Canberra's whatsover.Β
Yes but the RAAF used Canberras in their operations. -
Message 10
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 19th December 2008
The American were added by Austrian Land Sea and Air forcesΒ
The Austrians have a navy...? -
Message 11
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Friday, 19th December 2008
Of course Stoggler - you have not heard of Captain Von Trapp??
-
Message 12
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Friday, 19th December 2008
"Yes but the RAAF used Canberras in their operations"
And like the B-57's the Australian Canberra MK20's were license built by the Goverment Aircraft Factory. -
Message 13
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Friday, 19th December 2008
collins6789,
The American were added by Austrian Land Sea and Air forces ... Β
By whose Land Sea and Air Forces?
-
Message 14
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Friday, 19th December 2008
Stoggler,
"bore no resemblance to the British Canberra's whatsoever"
Come on, I don't think the differences between a Canberra B.Mk.2 and a B-57B were so great as to remove all resemblance other than outward appearance. After all, the Australian-built Sabres had a new engine and different armament, but were still Sabres.
"Unfir for combat" is very derogatory (even it is what Wikipedia says). It would be more accurate to say that the RB-57A (license build B.2s) were not fit for the combat role the USAF wanted them for, hence the mods. The Canberra B Mk.2 had a successful combat career in the hands of several operators.
It is interesting to note that 2 Sqn RAAF, using their license-build basic model Canberra B Mk. 20s, had a successful time in Vietnam, while the USAF never seem to have made a success of the B-57B, despite all the modifications to make it "fit for combat". -
Message 15
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Friday, 19th December 2008
Oh no.
Steelers, not Stoggler.
Stoggler, my apologies.
-
Message 16
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Friday, 19th December 2008
Well I didn't get my info from wikipedia, the words used were mine.
The Canberra MK2 was the equivalent of the B-57A of which only 8 were built, and they were used for flight and systems tests.
For information on all the changes made to the B-57B see the following:
-
Message 17
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Friday, 19th December 2008
Steelers
I think my point still stands - the USAF deemed the B-57A (essentially a copy of the B. Mk2) version not fit for combat in the interdictor role, and made extensive modifications (a Canberra, nonetheless) and it still didn't perform the way they wanted.
Meanwhile, other air forces around the world made successful combat use of the B Mk.2 version, and later interdictor variants, without encountering the problems the USAF did.
Strikes me the operator was the problem, not the aircraft.
Don't think the failings of the Martin B-57A/B-57B had mush bearing on Australia and New Zealand's commitment to Vietnam, though. -
Message 18
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Friday, 19th December 2008
wollemi
I agree a British commitment, or otherwise, was not a factor in the Australian and New Zealand decisions.
In 1965, when the Johnson administration first asked for a British committment, the Wilson Government was able to point at Borneo and Aden as existing committments. But as the war cranked up in 1967, with Borneo over and withdrawal from Aden scheduled for the end of the year, there does seem to have been an expectation that some committment could not be resisted (although there was all-party opposition - and military reluctance - to such a move).
It perhaps hasn't had the historical resonance because the decision not to commit was overtaken by "Withdrawal from East of Suez", which undermined the whole Far East posture, not just Vietnam. -
Message 19
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Friday, 19th December 2008
My point, LW, is that there would not have been expectation in Australia - from the public at least - for British involvement in Vietnam given the intense protests about Australian forces being involved, protests which escalated over the 1960s. The preoccupation was to get Australian forces out, not get another country's forces involved
I have read that after the 'East of Suez'announcement, the LBJ/Wilson relationship went into deep freeze -
Message 20
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Friday, 19th December 2008
wollemi,
I think the exchanges on British involvement took place between 1965 and the end of 1967got up to before the Australian and US protest movements (and, for that matter, the one in UK) got up to full strength. By 1969, Nixon was planning withdrawal anyway, so the question of a British contribution became moot (and the British Army was sinking into the Troubles in Northern Ireland)
You're right about the sudden decline in the LBJ/Wilson relationship. It didn't do a lot of good for relations between No.10 and Canberra, either. To a large extent, that was because the lack of commitment to Vietnam had been "spun" in terms of UK holding the ring in the rest of South Eat Asia, based on Singapore (bad omen) while others were engaged in Vietnam. To announce in quick succession over the winter of 67/68 that UK's military presence in Singapore would be halved by 1971, and then that it would be withdrawn altogether by then, did not look good. -
Message 21
Posted by JBsidetheseaside (U13725236) on Saturday, 20th December 2008
Wilson's refusal to send even a bagpipe band, as suggested by LBJ, was characteristically expedient. Committing any forces to the increasingly unpopular SE Asian war would have split his party, as would any unequivocal condemnation of it as the left were demanding.
The British were keen to sell weapons to the US though. The Harrier just missed out on service in Vietnam, but there were trials with SRN5 Hovercraft on the Mekong which the Americans rather naughtily peeked under the skirts to copy the technology for future use. -
Message 22
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 20th December 2008
JB
Wilson was helped by the fact the Conservative Party (or at least its leadership) were also opposed to a Vietnam commitment. They wanted Wilson to hang onto Aden, as the Douglas Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ government had promised.
The one thing that seems to be missing from most analysis of British actions at the time is that Malaya and Borneo were affordable because of the existence of the Gurkha Division, but the Gurkhas could only be used in defence of British (Or Commonwealth, at a pinch) territory.
LW -
Message 23
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Saturday, 20th December 2008
Ah never thought of that LW!
The whole deal still sits like a wound on Australian society I think sometimes. My late grandmother was in the RSL Auxillaries?? and got hounded a bit for supporting the campaigns of Vietnam vets for office. I suppose thinking we ought to have a new flag didn't help either.... -
Message 24
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Saturday, 20th December 2008
During the War in Vietnam it was claimed that the British rearmed the Japanese forces there just three weeks after V-J Day to deny freedom to the Vietnamese from European Colonial Rule. During WW2 Britain promised India Independence if India cooperated during the War, as during 1943 there was an uprising in India against Britain's Dominance of the country. In latter years I learned that Eisenhower when US President informed Britain America would no longer go their aid to protect their Empire.
-
Message 25
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Sunday, 28th December 2008
I don't often check out the War pages, so have been a bit late coming to this.
Wollemi has probably given the main reasons for NZ joining this war. For us, though, solidarity with its allies Australia and the USA were stronger reasons than the domino effect, though that is what was sold to the public.
I was a teenager when we commited troops and at university where this the major focus of our protests. Students, tending to the left-wing, anyway, and with a generational gap between what we saw as boring old farts and us young reformers, were not specially taken with arguments of the communists taking over the world. (And indeed, it was always a silly argument.)
I don't think many of us realised that the government and especially the PM, Keith Holyoake, was very reluctant to commit troops to Vietnam - we were already in Malaya, and basically didn't have troops to spare and didn't feel this conflict was important enough to join. However Australia was keener and we had to follow them. (Thankfully we didn't follow them to Iraq - the same student protesters of the 1960s, now the Labour Government, hadn't forgotten enough of their principles to go there.)
Nowadays Anzac Day is one where the country comes together and there are even calls for it to be our national day; then Anzac Days were bitter struggles between older returned servicemen and young people laying wreathes for people killed in Vietnam. The older people took it, correctly, as a protest statement meant to devalue their commemorations and tried to prevent these wreathes being laid; now all soldiers of any war are remembered on these days.
This Australian war memorial site has more:
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 26
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Sunday, 28th December 2008
PS I forgot - because we always follow Britain in wars I had assumed until just three or four years ago that Britain was in Vietnam too. It was only on a visit to the Green Howard Museum somewhere (Richmond?) when I mentioned the lack of Vietnam stuff here to the attendant and got an amazed and disapproving reply that I realised you (sensibly) didn't take part. I suppose if the dominoes were to fall south westwards Britain didn't have to worry.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 27
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Sunday, 28th December 2008
Hello Caro
I think the main difference for NZ was that you were part of ANZUS in the 1960s. It would have been very difficult for NZ to refuse the request from the US, all Holyoake could do was restrict numbers. The involvement in Malaya meant the NZ military had experience in jungle warfare, which is what made them valuable beyond their small numbers
As NZ has not been part of ANZUS since the 1980s, there would have not been the same pressure for involvement in Iraq -
Message 28
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Sunday, 28th December 2008
#24
One theory is that the origins of the Vietnam War lie with these events at the end of the Pacific War when France wished to reclaim its colonial possession in Asia and was assisted to do so by both Britain and the US.
Britain's motivation is clearer as it itself had colonial possessions in Asia, but the US less so
The reason probably lies with post WW2 dynamics in Europe where it was essential France remain linked to Britain and the US to offset Russian power. Vietnam therefore became a kind of trade off to placate the French -
Message 29
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Sunday, 28th December 2008
Yes I am sure our less friendly relations with our allies (friends?) helped with this decision; nevertheless the National government would have followed Australia and Britain to Iraq. We got lucky. (Another reason for us to be slightly blase about security risks - not that I mean our governments are - we are not so much connected with the 'coalition of the willing'.)
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 30
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Sunday, 28th December 2008
Hello Caro
I don't think this current terrorism works like that, pretty much anyone can be a target
NZ is also unusual in that your 1 terrorist episode was by a purported ally..France -
Message 31
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Sunday, 28th December 2008
Well, that's what people tell us, but we don't really believe them. (Especially when they are trying to tell us that jokes about bombs in luggage need very heavy-handed treatment.)
The French have not been forgiven. My son, only born in 1980 for instance, will mention this quite regularly. (Though he seemed happy to spend time in France recently, I note, and liked the French very much, as did we.) What is more ironic is that no one else in the world cared either. (Shades of Palestine here. On a much smaller scale.)
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 32
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 30th December 2008
And can we leave out the "SAS were in 'Nam" myth? It's a story put about by armchair fantasists.Β
There was a thread on this a while back:
-
Message 33
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 34
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
There were NO British soldiers in Vietnam.Β
-
Message 35
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
"Not exactly the first time the British have taken the Lions share of credit for others sacrifices."
Rather like the pot calling the kettle black!
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.