Vietnam War (WWII, bomb, Britain, Washington)

[Trotter67]

I have very little knowledge on this subject and want to ask a couple of questions.


1: Did Britain offer any assistance to the US when the conflict broke out.

2: Why did the Australians and New Zealanders fight in the Vietnam war.


Thanks.

[catman]

1. Not that I know of.

2. Because it was in their part of the world.

[jtur88]

243 people on the Australian mainland were killed by bombing raids by the Japanese in WWII, so the Australians had a certain sensitivity about dominoes and upstart superpowers flexing their muscles in east Asia.

[Trotter67]

Originally Posted by jtur88

243 people on the Australian mainland were killed by bombing raids by the Japanese in WWII, so the Australians had a certain sensitivity about dominoes and upstart superpowers flexing their muscles in east Asia.

No disrespect, but whats that go to do with Vietnam?

[txgolfer130]

The Vietnam conflict in one form or another had been going on since 1947 in regards to modern combat time frames. The U.S. became directly involved in 1954.

The British did not offer any formal help either during the initial period after WWII or when the U.S. started sending Reg. Army advisors. Vietnam was a French province/under French control.

Australians/New Zealanders sent "advisors" to Vietnam in '62/'63 I believe. They sent formal troops there beginning in '66. They did so under the guise of the ANZUS pact.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Trotter67

No disrespect, but whats that go to do with Vietnam?

That was a reply to question #2, your post. When countries take direct civilian hits in warfare, they take future similar war-like prospects within the next 15 years or so a bit more seriously. Australia to Vietnam is about the same distance as Washington to Nicaragua.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by Trotter67

I have very little knowledge on this subject and want to ask a couple of questions.

1: Did Britain offer any assistance to the US when the conflict broke out.

Depends when you date the beginning of the the conflict. At the end of WWII the British were insistent upon France regaining control of Indochina and ironically the U.S. resisted. Following the death of Roosevelt, U.S. policy gradually began to the shift to the British position as the British position shifted towards neutrality. By the time the U.S. became fully involved in the Vietnam conflict Britain had removed all support leaving only members of the South East Asia Treaty Organization, the Philippines, New Zealand and Australia involved in the conflict.

[Trotter67]

Originally Posted by txgolfer130

The Vietnam conflict in one form or another had been going on since 1947 in regards to modern combat time frames. The U.S. became directly involved in 1954.

The British did not offer any formal help either during the initial period after WWII or when the U.S. started sending Reg. Army advisors. Vietnam was a French province/under French control.

Australians/New Zealanders sent "advisors" to Vietnam in '62/'63 I believe. They sent formal troops there beginning in '66. They did so under the guise of the ANZUS pact.

Thanks for the reply.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

1: Did Britain offer any assistance to the US when the conflict broke out.

Depends when you date the beginning of the the conflict. At the end of WWII the British were insistent upon France regaining control of Indochina and ironically the U.S. resisted. Following the death of Roosevelt, U.S. policy gradually began to the shift to the British position as the British position shifted towards neutrality. By the time the U.S. became fully involved in the Vietnam conflict Britain had removed all support leaving only members of the South East Asia Treaty Organization, the Philippines, New Zealand and Australia involved in the conflict.

Like i said, i know very little about this subject.

But thanks for a fantastic reply.

[Thyra]

Trotter.. :http://www.stoneschool.com/Reviews/MarchOfFolly.html
Although this book deals with other "Follies" It is the best description of how we got into Vietnam. I could not believe all the intricities of it..who was and who was not involved and all the "why's"..

[j_k_k]

Trotter, it is very interesting to consider the similarities in the tactics of Ho Chi Minh and George Washington (the former being an admirer of the latter). Both controlled (for the most part) a numerous ragtag civilian militia and a smaller regular army, with the proportions changing as the war went on. Both faced a powerful, well-trained regular military augmented with a less capable military force of their own national origin, though one that often fought with limited enthusiasm. Both typically lost battles to their powerful adversaries, yet won the war. Both waged intense propaganda warfare. Both were heavily dependent upon supplies from foreign countries mainly seeking to make the maximum trouble for a mutual enemy. Both faced an enemy that was slower on the ground, yet had an exterior mobility advantage. And one reason both eventually won was that their enemy's home front finally got sick of the war and said 'screw them, let 'em go.'