Australians were led to believe that "Vietnam was... a strategically important region to Australia" given the "yellow peril" of Chinese flooding southwards through communist Vietnam. This view does not fit well with the fact that, in the 50 countries that had troops on the ground in Vietnam, China was not one of them.
5
Vietnam was, unfortunately, a necessary endeavor. The domino theory and Soviet calculations were very evident in Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and eventually South America and more recently in Afganitstan in the 80's and even more recently under a different regime, to a smaller scale, Ukraine and Crimea. In 1960's though it was clear that Soviet intentions at the end of WW II were quite a menace and had to be countered.
The mistake made by the Americans was in backing a dictator and acting personally like pigs which gave the Communists credibility in their fight against "foreigners". The 60's were also a counter-conservative era here in the US on all levels and a bad time to have a war far away that lasted forever.
Im not a big fan of war, but i do remember there being some legit reasons for why we were there and why Australia also needed to get involved.
The mistake made by the Americans was in backing a dictator and acting personally like pigs which gave the Communists credibility in their fight against "foreigners". The 60's were also a counter-conservative era here in the US on all levels and a bad time to have a war far away that lasted forever.
Im not a big fan of war, but i do remember there being some legit reasons for why we were there and why Australia also needed to get involved.
6
Thank you for an excellent insight. Indeed, it's clear that 1968 should have marked the US withdrawal.
If all protestors knew that the region was becoming more stable, they would have fostered an intelligent path forward with the opposition instead of division. The legacy of Baby boomers is still rooted in misconception instead of problem solving.
If all protestors knew that the region was becoming more stable, they would have fostered an intelligent path forward with the opposition instead of division. The legacy of Baby boomers is still rooted in misconception instead of problem solving.
2
I am forever grateful to the sacrifices of those families of Australia to the wars made or taken on by American cause. I sadly don't feel my president does nor does he care. He is a con man who was voted in by fearful folk and Russian nerds. All I can add is I shall never forget my allies nor will I exhaust in making sure this disgusting infomercial is never elected again.
8
SEATO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organization
That's why Australia (and others) was in South Vietnam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organization
That's why Australia (and others) was in South Vietnam.
3
My memory of Australian troops was a small number of them that came into our camp one hot day and set upon our supply of Carling Black Label beer, the beer of "choice" there. They did an admirable job of reducing it to a pile of empty cans in relatively short order.
7
"A controversial form of selective conscription was sending 20-year-old (Australlian) men, too young to vote, to fight in Vietnam."
Sound familiar?
Sound familiar?
3
Great question! Also, what were the Indians doing there?
1
My husband, a double Purple Heart from 1968, and I spent 12 days touring Viet Nam last October with our friends from Perth - he is a decorated Viet Nam veteran as well. Clearly most Americans have no clue about the involvement of Australia in that war. We were with an Australian-based tour group and it was stunning to hear about the protests and losses they too suffered. And yes, our friend believed whole-heartedly, as my husband did, that they were fighting to save the country from Communism. It WAS hard to take, when we visited the memorials in the north, seeing the depiction of the U.S. and its allies as cowardly interlopers, while standing next to men who had put their lives on the line many times to "help save this world."
And yes, to many of the Vietnamese we met, we were "walking ATMs." Still, we heard stories of atrocities that happened during and immediately after the war when speaking to locals in social situations. There was something very powerful about being able to say, "I'm sorry for the losses we were responsible for" - and to hear back "We grieve your dead as well."
And yes, to many of the Vietnamese we met, we were "walking ATMs." Still, we heard stories of atrocities that happened during and immediately after the war when speaking to locals in social situations. There was something very powerful about being able to say, "I'm sorry for the losses we were responsible for" - and to hear back "We grieve your dead as well."
8
The possibility that defense of South Vietnam was a mistake does not change the fact that Australia and the United States both thought it was in their interest to be there. And in the context of the time, the "interests" they thought they were protecting were not just geopolitical---it was much easier then to think of the world as divided between free and unfree, with fewer shades of gray.
Leaving aside the issue of our current President, both the United States and Australia have more nuanced views of the world these days. And we still have common interests and common values.
An aside to my fellow Americans: The Aussies produced the best Vietnam war song. Search online for "Only 19".
Leaving aside the issue of our current President, both the United States and Australia have more nuanced views of the world these days. And we still have common interests and common values.
An aside to my fellow Americans: The Aussies produced the best Vietnam war song. Search online for "Only 19".
9
How about being a supportive ally? Vietnam was a big mistake both from the strategic and tactical points of view. If it was so important ports would have been shut down, cities in the North destroyed entirely.
I considered myself pretty ignorant of the Australian point of view on Vietnam, and mainly, appreciate this column dedicated to examining the why's and hows of Australian involvement. The writers new2 and George suggestion that South Korea's involvement be examined is a good one, especially because I can imagine the questioning of our support of South Korea by those without any sense of history.
The comments bring in so much more to this series.
Vietnam - what a disaster we wrought with clumsy meddling and attempts to direct the post colonial world.
The comments bring in so much more to this series.
Vietnam - what a disaster we wrought with clumsy meddling and attempts to direct the post colonial world.
1
one of their medics stitched up my scalp, which was lacerated when a drunk Thai medical officer swerved into the jeep carrying me. I guess Australia believed in the domino theory. If it had any validity, it was to former FRENCH Indochina, only. As for the Thai forces, seems they spent most of their time in the PX and 'steam baths' (brothels tolerated by military authorities). Koreans were feared.
4
It's remarkable that the domino theory is given credence. We're trading partners with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam now. The dominoes we buy from them are stamped "Made in Vietnam."
5
what was it like to kill? what was it like to kill an innocent child? there are more than dozens of returned men knowing how this torments them all the time. that is what they were doing in Vietnam.
2
There is some under-reporting here. The Australian Navy used inland waterways and the mouth of rivers for their fresh water supply. No amount of filtration, occurring back on the ship, could ever eliminate the toxic Agent Orange levels. All jungle foliage run off ended up in the rivers and bodies of Australian and American service men and women, with a cascading defective gene pool for children and now even grandchildren.
6
As this scenario of other countries getting involved when other countries are in civil war's, collapse etc, etc...the vacuum of control, power is at stake of what outside countries want to grab the golden ring. Or so they think. And at what cost ? Unfortunately, this, ''scenario,'' of mankind will continue as History repeats itself. USMC 67-68 Hue City, SupCo.3rdMarDiv.
PS lets not forget the South Koreans [ROK] who were sent too there..
PS lets not forget the South Koreans [ROK] who were sent too there..
This myopic review of events in Vietnam another in the litany of dismaying revisionist blathers on that conflict posted to this paper. It's alarming, and a vicious mind screwing, that writers who get work in papers like this cannot come to grips with the fundamental statement of truth on Vietnam: The US war there was WRONG. Wrong, as in "... should not have been if ethics matter in human decisions." Start all Vietnam War conversations with that.
I read this paper looking for insights, not rehash. What do we get here? Reasons to not approve of Vietnam (for Australia but they are apply generically): 1. It was not "winnable." 2. The price is too high.
Both those vacuous justifications are in fact just a buttering of the rotten piece of toast that was the Euro/American experiment in racism in Vietnam. The reason to not approve of either the French or Americans (& Aussies) in Vietnam is: hold on for a surprise ... the death and destruction wrought upon that place by us! Duh!
Imagine that, we should look back and self criticize so. I understand, that rough on all the little flag waving snowflake egos that combine to make us this nation. Well too damn bad, because it's the truth.
P.S. If I have read much many more times about Agent Orange (developed at DARPA) hurting our poor little invaders I am going to puke. We dumped endless tonnage, for which US companies made $millions, directly on an agrarian people! They are who deserve sympathy, not the invaders.
I read this paper looking for insights, not rehash. What do we get here? Reasons to not approve of Vietnam (for Australia but they are apply generically): 1. It was not "winnable." 2. The price is too high.
Both those vacuous justifications are in fact just a buttering of the rotten piece of toast that was the Euro/American experiment in racism in Vietnam. The reason to not approve of either the French or Americans (& Aussies) in Vietnam is: hold on for a surprise ... the death and destruction wrought upon that place by us! Duh!
Imagine that, we should look back and self criticize so. I understand, that rough on all the little flag waving snowflake egos that combine to make us this nation. Well too damn bad, because it's the truth.
P.S. If I have read much many more times about Agent Orange (developed at DARPA) hurting our poor little invaders I am going to puke. We dumped endless tonnage, for which US companies made $millions, directly on an agrarian people! They are who deserve sympathy, not the invaders.
6
Forget ethics they mean nothing. The cost was way more than the benefit, and that should have been known then. The French lost and we should have stayed out of it. A fear of communism drove us to do foolish things.
vulcanalex - Vietnam was not, as I state and you either overlook intentionally or miss, about cost vs benefit. If the cost were low it would still have been an evil enterprise, and if the benefit to us were potentially high it would still have been an evil enterprise, because the HARM was unjustifiable under any benefit no matter how cheaply that harm was purchased.
It was about racism, business profit, unchecked militarism, and bigotry. We did not "fear communism." Our racist business-profit driven military USED an invented fear of communism to run rampant without regard to ethics. So yes ethics matter, especially a lack of them.
It was about racism, business profit, unchecked militarism, and bigotry. We did not "fear communism." Our racist business-profit driven military USED an invented fear of communism to run rampant without regard to ethics. So yes ethics matter, especially a lack of them.
1
A blatant effort to whitewash history disguised as a serious opinion piece. What the Australians, New Zealanders and South Koreans were doing in Vietnam was to do the American dirty work in exchange for money and US security protection. There was nothing noble about these countries involvement in Vietnam for Vietnam was fighting a war for independence and against American aggression. Vietnam today is a proud and independence country. It has smartly chosen a foreign policy of being friendly to all nations with no foreign bases and troops on its soil.
15
Most people forget that with the defeat of the French in Indochina, Eisenhower determined that it was humiliating to to have these asians defeating a European power. And that's where our adventure in Vietnam began. An extension of the cold war. It failed in Korea where we refused to allow elections and also in Vietnam where we denied Ho Che Minh the elected process.
At the demise of British empire, America has assumed aspects of empire building. We had no business being in Vietnam but we manipulated the UN to support our nefarious activities all over the world - continues to this day. In Iraq, Hans Blix prepared and submitted a report that there were no WMDs in Iraq but we proceeded to invade. Just imagine the amount of destruction in the entire middle east this invasion has caused !!!!!
At the demise of British empire, America has assumed aspects of empire building. We had no business being in Vietnam but we manipulated the UN to support our nefarious activities all over the world - continues to this day. In Iraq, Hans Blix prepared and submitted a report that there were no WMDs in Iraq but we proceeded to invade. Just imagine the amount of destruction in the entire middle east this invasion has caused !!!!!
8
Hiking in Israel near the Kinneret circa 1980 I met several cheerful Australians.
When I expressed my ignorance re: the topic of this article, they nearly threw me over the cliff.
When I expressed my ignorance re: the topic of this article, they nearly threw me over the cliff.
4
As a young American living in Australia a few years ago, I was personally thanked by older Australians on a few occasions for America's help in saving Australia from Japan in WW2. After 65 years, this is still the centerpiece of American-Australian relations. Everything must be viewed though this lense.
10
Historians rarely point out that capitalism not militarism is our most dangerous and destructive behavior we've ever exported forcefully across the globe in conjunction with other white nationalist continental legacies of the British Empire.
16
It is? Seems like that economic system has improved the lives of many. Now unfettered it is not so great so it does need some limits.
4
South Korea contributed much more troops in Vietnam than Australia. In fact, no other nation sent more combat troops abroad to help US in a military conflict, since the end of WW2.
South Korea contributed about 320,000 combat troops over 10+ year period. South Korea maintained 2 full army division and a Marine Brigade in Vietnam during much of that period. And these were not peace keeping forces but fully involved in combat operations. South Korean forces suffered 5,099 KIA, ~10,962 WIA in Vietnam.
It's an astounding fact that virtual no one in the west seems to know.
South Korea has not been getting a free ride since the nation was saved by US in the 1950-53 Korean War.
Apologies. I don't mean to diminish the contribution made by the Aussies, but I do want to point out a very poor, militarily threatened nation, barely 10 years after the devastating Korean War ended, decided it wanted to help fight off communists in a foreign land.
South Korea contributed about 320,000 combat troops over 10+ year period. South Korea maintained 2 full army division and a Marine Brigade in Vietnam during much of that period. And these were not peace keeping forces but fully involved in combat operations. South Korean forces suffered 5,099 KIA, ~10,962 WIA in Vietnam.
It's an astounding fact that virtual no one in the west seems to know.
South Korea has not been getting a free ride since the nation was saved by US in the 1950-53 Korean War.
Apologies. I don't mean to diminish the contribution made by the Aussies, but I do want to point out a very poor, militarily threatened nation, barely 10 years after the devastating Korean War ended, decided it wanted to help fight off communists in a foreign land.
29
Great comment, new2. I served as a medical corpsman at the 12th USAF Hospital at Cam Ranh Bay (31 May 1967 - 31 May 1968). ROK (Republic of Korea) Marines from the White Horse Division guarded our base and when they were wounded in combat they were treated at the base hospital. Their espirit de corps and stoicism on the ward greatly impressed me. They were the equivalent of our Marine Corps. And they were models patients and sincere in their commitment as trusted allies. Perhaps with your comment and now my endorsement, the editors will run a column about them in this series on the history of the Vietnam War. It's certainly a glaring oversight by the NYT.
13
I have always assumed that in some way, shape , or form South Korea would have been involved in this mis-adventure. That South Korea paid such a price is news to me. My respects to the fallen of South Korea and their loved ones.
4
No mention of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization?
That might help explain the premise of this article even though the flaws of SEATO were obvious.
NFE
That might help explain the premise of this article even though the flaws of SEATO were obvious.
NFE
3
America lost FDRs contempt of colonial and corporate control of other countries and the right of any nation, no matter how small, to determine their destiny through democratic elections. Eisenhower turned his back on a generation that fought to preserve democracy in Europe and Asia when he threw his support behind the French puppet government that relocated to southern Vietnam during the French withdrawal and refused to participate in national elections to unify the three Vietnamese provinces. France coined the Domino Theory to lure America, and Thailand which means "land of free people" who were the pride of Asia for never becoming a European colony laughed all the way to the bank. We should never forget that our boys died in Vietnam to deny Vietnamese the right to determine their destiny with Eisenhower's flippant comment that "85% of the Vietnamese would have voted for the Communists" and destroyed the moral legacy America gave the world after the World War II, especially Asians who fought to throw off the yoke of colonialism.
9
You must also add Truman's rejection of Ho Chi Minh's request for aid in getting rid of the French in your narrative. While in Viet Nam last year, I heard several tour guides and others lay the blame directly at Truman's feet for the involvement of the USSR.
The U.S. had saved Australia in WWII, just 25 years before. I think Australia was being a supportive ally in a region important to them.
10
Why are two white-majority, English-speaking nations on the same side in a foreign war? Let me think...wait! Imperialism?
4
May I remind you that South Korea sent over 320,000 combat troops to Vietnam to help US/Vietnam in the conflict?
4
Lee Kwan Yew's famous claim that the US war in Vietnam bought the other regional states time to consolidate and avoid becoming "dominoes" is highly contentious. Admittedly, hindsight is 20-20. But it quickly became clear, after Vietnam unified in 1975, that there was no such thing as a "Communist monolith" in Southeast Asia, or anywhere else, for that matter. Within four years, Vietnam had invaded Cambodia to depose the (nominally) communist Khmer Rouge; it did so only after it signed a security treaty with the USSR, which helped put Vietnam even more at odds with China. China attacked Vietnam in 1979 to "punish" it for its invasion of Cambodia and was clobbered instead. Lee's argument is further compromised by the argument that a lot of Singapore's concern with communist insurgency was actually concern about local leftist political movements who were not part of any larger communist conspiracy. In retrospect, there is little to validate the Vietnam War. The lessons to be learned from it are why did the US and its allies get the situation so wrong? And why did they learn nothing from it - after all, they repeated exactly the same mistakes in Iraq. In the end, the impression I am left with is that American foreign policymakers simply don't know much about the parts of the world in which they interfere. They go in with their own narratives that have little basis in reality and create disasters as a result.
30
Vietnam didn't invaded Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge invaded Vietnam in their attempt to recreate the Khmer empire through the Mekong Delta. Their battle hardened soldiers repulsed the Khmer invasion, and Vietnam decided to kill the snake who invaded their country once and for all. Vietnam helped the world discover the killing fields when they beat the Khmer Rouge in the Mekong Delta and drove them back into Cambodia.
When did we forget that we got dragged into Vietnam by the French to help prop-up their colonial investments in exchange for their "support" for NATO?
There is a bust of Ho Chi Minh by the Singapore River, right out front of the Asian Civilisations Museum. I don't believe you get such a fine memorial in Singapore unless the powers that be think well of you.
" As Menzies saw it, the risk in American policy was not strategic overreach but isolationism, and what an American withdrawal from Asia in the face of defeat would mean for Australia and its neighbors."
Informative/interesting article for those readers, like myself, interested in the post-WWII American foreign policy, particularly military interventions in third world countries.
Australia's participation in the Vietnam war is an excellent case in point.
In the paragraph initial above, the Australian Prime Minister at the time, Menzies, brings into focus the key question US allies have asked in times of joint military expedition overseas: What happens when the US give up the fight?
Of course, Vietnam was not the first time the US gave up an unwinnable war. In recent decades, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan have US allies pondering the same question asked by PM Menzies in the 60s.
Today, US military allies of the past are more stressed out than ever. Only to mention the Anglo-Saxo world, President Trump is alienating and humiliating traditional allies like the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zeland.
The US of the Trump era is becoming increasingly alone and isolated.
Informative/interesting article for those readers, like myself, interested in the post-WWII American foreign policy, particularly military interventions in third world countries.
Australia's participation in the Vietnam war is an excellent case in point.
In the paragraph initial above, the Australian Prime Minister at the time, Menzies, brings into focus the key question US allies have asked in times of joint military expedition overseas: What happens when the US give up the fight?
Of course, Vietnam was not the first time the US gave up an unwinnable war. In recent decades, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan have US allies pondering the same question asked by PM Menzies in the 60s.
Today, US military allies of the past are more stressed out than ever. Only to mention the Anglo-Saxo world, President Trump is alienating and humiliating traditional allies like the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zeland.
The US of the Trump era is becoming increasingly alone and isolated.
9
As I read this, my mind began to search for a period in my 70+ year life when America has not been at war with somewhere? Is there another country in the world that has the same record?
17
Imperial Britain always counter on her far flung empire to do the dirty work of their wars. Who fought and died at Gallipoli? How many from the Indian sub continent served on the front lines during World Wars I and II? With Britain in decline and unable to hold on to her empire, who has taken her place as the biggest imperial powers in the world? And still need others to do some of the dirtiest fighting. I do remember George W. during the debates in 204 talking about his "coalition" doing the dirty work in Iraq and so many of our hawks, yes you Dick Cheney, cheering him on.
The only good thing I say and we all have to understand this, Trump too shall pass and at the end of the day, we and the Australians and the New Zealanders and the Canadians and the British need each other and will continue t need each other as much as ever.
The only good thing I say and we all have to understand this, Trump too shall pass and at the end of the day, we and the Australians and the New Zealanders and the Canadians and the British need each other and will continue t need each other as much as ever.
7
A small point, Australia has supported the US in many if not most of its wars. Canada has been more selective supporting Gulf 1 Korea, anti ISIS and Afghanistan all UN sanctioned wars but refusing despite US pressure Vietnam and Iraq 2.
3
An interesting aspect of this was Australian force structure. The U.S. military went heavy, with lots of artillery, armored personnel carriers, even tanks. Under Westmoreland, the Army was always spoiling for a big encounter battle, which the VC and NVA forces largely avoided, and for good reason.
The Aussies had a lighter, more considered, approach, and, as the author says, more experience with counterinsurgency warfare.
The question remains: What were they fighting for? A series of corrupt regimes in South Vietnam that had no political legitimacy. And whether you go "heavy" as with American battalions or "light" as with the Aussie ones, it just didn't matter. The war was lost on the political level -- South Vietnam was always a fiction.
The Aussies had a lighter, more considered, approach, and, as the author says, more experience with counterinsurgency warfare.
The question remains: What were they fighting for? A series of corrupt regimes in South Vietnam that had no political legitimacy. And whether you go "heavy" as with American battalions or "light" as with the Aussie ones, it just didn't matter. The war was lost on the political level -- South Vietnam was always a fiction.
12
The Aussies relied on U.S. artillery and air support.
3
I agree but we restrained ourselves somewhat especially in punishing the North. The war was a massive mistake.
"When American officials first indicated, in December 1964, that the administration was considering sending combat forces to Vietnam"
This is wrong, there were already combat troops in vietnam, we simply called them "trainers" or "instructors", but don't be fooled , they were combat troops. The first combat military deaths in Vietnam happened under Eisenhower.
This is wrong, there were already combat troops in vietnam, we simply called them "trainers" or "instructors", but don't be fooled , they were combat troops. The first combat military deaths in Vietnam happened under Eisenhower.
9
What is Germany doing in Afghanistan?
My unit in Vietnam, Echo Company, Second Battalion, Third Marine Regiment, was commanded by Australian Army Captain Ivan J. Cahill, for parts of 1967 and 1968. He was supposed to be a liaison officer but, mysteriously, was named a Marine Corps company commander. Captain Cahill was a beloved, fearless and genuinely cool leader and eventually the United States awarded him the Bronze Star for his bravery during that command.
18
To answer the question of what Australia was doing in Vietnam, one has to understand Australia. Only Australians understand Australia. Example: I was in Sydney during the week of the US Bicentennial celebrations back in 1976. There were US flags flying from flag poles throughout downtown Sydney. Barges out in the harbor were shooting off fireworks. I was totally astounded. No one else was. At the same time Australians were adamant about proclaiming their differences from the US, as do Canadians, and were critical of our stodgy domestic politics. Why were they then celebrating OUR centennial as though it were their own? I wondered.
Why was every minor or major occurence in the US featured in their news media. Again, I wondered why without a clue. Despite the fair amount of time that I spent there during those years, I never was able to figure it out. They are different, that is all that I can say.
Why was every minor or major occurence in the US featured in their news media. Again, I wondered why without a clue. Despite the fair amount of time that I spent there during those years, I never was able to figure it out. They are different, that is all that I can say.
12
I married an Australian, and I'm writing this from Perth.
Before it suddenly grew up in the 1980s, Australia had a quite conflicted relationship with the United States. They did [and still do] depend on American force projection for their strategic defence, since although they have a modern military, they're surrounded by populous potential enemies with much larger armies.
In the past, there was therefore a combination of functional dependence, with simmering resentment of what was perceived as American cultural imperialism. Now they regard America and Americans with a natural affection. They are *very* worried about Donald Trump, and the prospect of an American withdrawal from the world, which would push them further into the orbit of China, who are already their main trading partners.
Before it suddenly grew up in the 1980s, Australia had a quite conflicted relationship with the United States. They did [and still do] depend on American force projection for their strategic defence, since although they have a modern military, they're surrounded by populous potential enemies with much larger armies.
In the past, there was therefore a combination of functional dependence, with simmering resentment of what was perceived as American cultural imperialism. Now they regard America and Americans with a natural affection. They are *very* worried about Donald Trump, and the prospect of an American withdrawal from the world, which would push them further into the orbit of China, who are already their main trading partners.
6
As an expat Aussie perhaps I can suggest that they were celebrating US independence from our common colonial power? Australia has always had a love/hate relationship with Great Britain partly due to the abominable treatment it received at Gallipoli and as per Churchill's directive to send Australian troops to Europe in WW2 & let the Japanese take Australia. Outside of Australia not many know of Bob Menzies nickname "Pig Iron Bob" due to his sale of pig iron to the Japanese prior to WW2.
10
Perhaps they admire and respect greatly some aspects of our history? And any excuse for having fun is a good idea. We have Cinco de Mayo day here.
1
The parallels between our Vietnam engagement policy and protocols and those used by Great Britain during the American Revolution are astonishing. We had great success using guerilla tactics against England in the 1700s. Britain preferred open engagement where its superior firepower and numbers would prevail. We didn't oblige them. And we won.
Yet isn't it ironic that our West Point-educated generals in the Vietnam War made that same mistake Britain did way back when. And we paid the price, "we" meaning those us who got caught up in the war machine, who were drafted as I was or who enlisted to try to get a better MOS (military occupation specialty).
We didn't learn from history. And how does our president reward the long alliance between Australia and the United States? Well, by insulting Australia's leader on the phone, that's how.
Yet isn't it ironic that our West Point-educated generals in the Vietnam War made that same mistake Britain did way back when. And we paid the price, "we" meaning those us who got caught up in the war machine, who were drafted as I was or who enlisted to try to get a better MOS (military occupation specialty).
We didn't learn from history. And how does our president reward the long alliance between Australia and the United States? Well, by insulting Australia's leader on the phone, that's how.
12
There was a very significant differences. American guerrilla war had some effect and has considerable mythology attached to it, but it had no chance of winning the war. Only regulars could defeat the British. Similarly the Viet Cong was almost wiped out in the Tet offensive and the US was actually fighting the regular North Vietnamese army from there on. The other difference was that Britain was at war with France, Spain and Holland also(to put this in perspective Britain was in a direct war with countries that had almost 4 times its population). Britain itself was under threat of French invasion, the US was never under similar threat.
2
And Trump--who earned a Yellow Star with clusters for his role during the war--dishonors the Australians. They even shot down the Red Baron during World War I. We need to re-instate the draft. Would love seeing the Trump sons try to buy their way through boot camp.
15
Royal Canadian Air Force Captain Roy Brown shot down Manfred von Richthofen, "the Red Baron." Maybe you should give the credit to "Snoopy."
16
And draft Ivanka and Kushner while at it.
4
I understand that there is some dispute over the roles of Capt. Brown and Australian ground fire. Unfortunately, the medical examination done at the time had some inaccuracies, but the consensus (at least for the time being) seems to be that von Richthofen himself was most likely killed by a bullet from the ground.
3
What was America doing in Vietnam?
20
Australia's involvement in Vietnam made no sense from day one. It was never anything more than an unnecessary political gesture to the US. As history has demonstrated, a communist Vietnam was absolutely inconsequential to Australia. To imply that it was a moral crusade to protect democracy is absurd. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt, undemocratic and largely indifferent to the welfare of its people. Sadly we learnt nothing and continue to line up for whatever ill considered military adventure your arms industry persuades your government to indulge itself in.
33
Oh. So now the "domino theory" is being resuscitated. The Vietnam War was a colossal, unnecessary tragedy that resulted in millions of SE Asian deaths because Washington disagreed with how some people chose to live. Australians who opposed the war then and oppose it now are on the right side of history. But the past is always prologue and debates over Australia's "uncritical allegience" to the US during the Vietnamese conflict find echoes in US unease with Australia's rapidly developing relationship with China at the same time the US is increasing its military presence in Darwin and pressuring Australia to get on board with its strategy of increasing conflict with China. Make no mistake. A big part of the rationale for the NYT's new "Australian Edition" was that domestic Australian media did not seem sufficiently seized with the issue of trumpeting the "threat" posed by China (See the most recent NYT piece on the insidious influence of Chinese university students in Australia - Holy Yellow Peril!) and the necessity of an Australian foreign policy that "stood" with the US right or wrong. Fortunately, it seems the Australian people have learned something from their country's experiences in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan etc.. etc.. Sometimes your highest duty as an ally or friend may be to play no role as an enabler and tell that friend how wrong they are.
14
Thank you, very well stated. Add Iraq to the list of unnecessary tragedies committed by the United States. And, it's original mission long since ended, let's add Afghanistan to the list. 16 years in and there is a call for even more troops to defeat an army whose most powerful weapon is an RPG. Long time to roll up the rug and leave. The result will be the same now or in 20 more years.
3
The US had pulled similar arm-twisting con jobs in the Iraq invasion/occupation and the perpetual war in Afghanistan. But all empires end, and the US version is crumbling abroad and at home – the death throes, reigned over by the Trumpist GOP and corporate Dems, will be long and increasingly painful, resulting in a militarized police state at home …
… unless progressives can take over the Dems and defeat the Trumpists at the polls. Otherwise, we are doomed.
… unless progressives can take over the Dems and defeat the Trumpists at the polls. Otherwise, we are doomed.
44
America from abroad........how many Americans have finally come to realize how their country has long since become a gigantic war machine using aggressive capitalism to fuel the economy?
Aside from the countless wars initiated to support the defense industry, even foreign aide to Israel requires that country to spend 80 % of the aide purchasing war material from America.
I escaped America's war machine to Provence only to discover that I must pay all my income taxes to the US, much of which will be spent on the defense department.
Aside from the countless wars initiated to support the defense industry, even foreign aide to Israel requires that country to spend 80 % of the aide purchasing war material from America.
I escaped America's war machine to Provence only to discover that I must pay all my income taxes to the US, much of which will be spent on the defense department.
22
It will cost a $4000 fee, but you can renounce yr US citizenship – and US tax liability … if you become French.
5
> Relations between American and Australian military leaders were not always smooth . . . The Australians, with their experience in Malaya and Borneo, thought that they knew how to conduct counterinsurgency operations in Southeast Asian jungles
I recall reading about Australia's role in WWII. Douglas MacArthur flatly refused to believe the Australians when they told him that a Japanese Army was trying to march overland from the north coast of New Guinea to the south coast, and would have save for the Australians who met them half way across.
So by the 1960's . . . not much had changed.
I recall reading about Australia's role in WWII. Douglas MacArthur flatly refused to believe the Australians when they told him that a Japanese Army was trying to march overland from the north coast of New Guinea to the south coast, and would have save for the Australians who met them half way across.
So by the 1960's . . . not much had changed.
15
"As both tobacco and alcohol were supplied to the troops in Vietnam, they have a legitimate claim for compensation for their aftereffect, just as much as those that can be attributed to Agent Orange."
A radical and dubious claim more in the manner of a class-action plaintiff's attorney than that of a war historian or journalist.
A radical and dubious claim more in the manner of a class-action plaintiff's attorney than that of a war historian or journalist.
7
What indeed was Australia doing in Vietnam? As the leaked Trump-Turnbull tape shows, Australia is a long standing psychophant of the USA. And "conservative" Governments, led by Menzies (Vietnam) Howard (Iraq) and Turnbull are hawks, mindful that wars win elections. The Domino Theory was the Hype of the 1970s, much like WMDs for Bush and Howard, and refugees being terrorists for Trump and Turnbull. In the 60's and early 70's there were few volunteers in Australia to fight an unpopular war in Vietnam, so conscripts were sent. No problem, as in order to vote against the war and conscription you had to be 21, but you were conscripted before then at 19. So a generation was sent off to fight in an unwanted war by a Government that had been in power for 20 years, subservient to the UK and then the USA. Sadly for those that survived, they weren't welcomed home by an nation embarrassed by the whole fiasco, leading to even more PTSD and problems fitting into civilian life than veterans of other wars. What indeed was Australia doing sending them there?
23
There is a misconception in your comment, and it is a common one, even among Australians. While selective conscription was operating in the 1960s and early 70s only volunteers were accepted for combat roles in Vietnam. The "nachos" were a suspect group among the regular forces in Vietnam but after the heroism of the nachos of D Compnay 6RAR at Long Tan they were regarded as no different to the regulars. 6 Battalion is my old unit and has now conducted a number of tours in Afghanistan.
2
Yes there were no triumphant marches down city streets when the Diggers arrived back from the 'Nam. Nobody wanted to know about them.
Wars should only ever be about defence of one's people; anything else, no matter how successfully argued and rationalized, is untenable. Both the US and Australia are at their best in defence, but culpable on all other occasions.
25
Many may not understand today how pressed the world was by Soviet expansionism. Communist instigated and supported "wars of national liberation" threatened emerging countries on every continent. The Soviets attempted to place missiles in Cuba in 1962. We lived under the threat of nuclear obliteration. Grade schoolers practiced "Duck and cover." Kennedy was under great pressure to make a stand. Laos fell early in his administration, and he had little choice but to make that stand in Viet Nam. There has been a lot of revisionism both during the war and since. South Vietnam fell after the US withdrew all military and economic aid, not from internal rebellion - the VC had long ceased to be a treat by1975 - but by direct invasion across its borders by the Soviet and Red Chinese equipped North Vietnamese Army. How did the South Vietnamese people feel about a Communist takeover? In the years following the war, ten percent of the population fled the Socialist Republic in small boats. Over a quarter million died at sea. Glad to see this article about Australia's involvement.
8
It's true that the Soviet military, built on the foundation of historical Russian insecurity vis-a-vis Europe (and Asia), posed a dangerous threat. It is also true that socialism was highly attractive to people who experienced poverty and oppression at the hands of the "Great Western Powers" like the U.K., France, and Britain.
At the same time, as a graduate student in the Soviet Union in 1970, I saw the incredible weakness and poverty of life in Leningrad and Moscow which was probably much harder for people in the far-flung country towns. The production and distribution of food were incredibly backward. Beets, cabbage, carrots, bread and lard (for dessert) were the diet. Roads were in terrible condition. I realized that this country, even with its powerful missiles, was something of a "paper tiger."
U.S. governments have never been nuanced or sophisticated enough to grasp the complexity of most of the rest of the world. This includes the USSR, Southeast Asia, Latin America, and even Australia--and Iraq and Afghanistan today. (The list is endless.). We think we see and then dive in with massive military technology--the elephant in the china shop. Lew Kuan Yew's mantra notwithstanding, U.S. war-making in the past half century has left millions dead and millions of others maimed physically and psychologically. Most Americans have NO knowledge of the destruction inflicted on other peoples in their name.
At the same time, as a graduate student in the Soviet Union in 1970, I saw the incredible weakness and poverty of life in Leningrad and Moscow which was probably much harder for people in the far-flung country towns. The production and distribution of food were incredibly backward. Beets, cabbage, carrots, bread and lard (for dessert) were the diet. Roads were in terrible condition. I realized that this country, even with its powerful missiles, was something of a "paper tiger."
U.S. governments have never been nuanced or sophisticated enough to grasp the complexity of most of the rest of the world. This includes the USSR, Southeast Asia, Latin America, and even Australia--and Iraq and Afghanistan today. (The list is endless.). We think we see and then dive in with massive military technology--the elephant in the china shop. Lew Kuan Yew's mantra notwithstanding, U.S. war-making in the past half century has left millions dead and millions of others maimed physically and psychologically. Most Americans have NO knowledge of the destruction inflicted on other peoples in their name.
10
Communist takeover? Whah?
The US stepped after North and South Vietnam voted for communism in their election.
The US stepped after North and South Vietnam voted for communism in their election.
1
@Michael: One key point you make is simply not true. Laos absolutely did not "fall" early in JFK's administration. I would recommend the very excellent book, "A Great Place to Have a War" by Joshua Kurlantzick, to provide you with a more accurate understanding of the conflict in that country. Of course, you will have to confront the fact of the CIA's great failure there, just as they failed in all their attempts at autocratic regime establishment around the globe.
It is interesting to read this--especially while teaching at a university in Ho Chi Minh City and currently reading "Viet Nam: A Long History" by Nguyen Khac Vien--to realize the lies and nonsense all of us in the US, as well as around the world, were fed by the US and French governments. Having helped defeat the Japanese, and wanting to unify their country under Vietnamese rule, the Vietnamese were forced to fight the French, then the Diem regime, and then the US. The US government never told us when and how they were supposedly to have the time, people and resources to dominate all of Southeast Asia, as we were told again and again. The lies told by the US government were CONSCIOUS LIES to get Americans to support the US war of aggression--and we killed 3.8 MILLION Vietnamese and wounded another 5.7 MILLION Vietnamese, while 58,000 or so Americans lost their lives (and another 110,000 or so are said to have killed themselves after returning to the States). This is not an academic question for me: I believed, and enlisted in the US Marine Corps in 1969 at age 17. Fortunately, I was never sent to war, and when I read the "Pentagon Papers" while on active duty, I turned around and decided I would desert before killing people who were only defending their homeland. The American people have never come to grips with what our government did to us in Vietnam (nor Iraq nor Afghanistan), and the US Empire continues against the peoples of the world.
63
The key phrase here is American Empire. Read Gore Vidal's book of the same name to see how the US Administrations battled to avoid stating the obvious - that the USA was becoming an Imperialist Country, in effect had been so since the Alamo.
15
The Alamo had nothing to do with US Administration.
The Battle of the Alamo was an important delaying action which allowed time for the the Republic of Texas to raise an army necessary to defeat the Mexican Army.
Only weeks later at the Battle of San Jacinto, Sam Houston's army won independence for the Republic of Texas.
The US had nothing to o with this.
NFE
The Battle of the Alamo was an important delaying action which allowed time for the the Republic of Texas to raise an army necessary to defeat the Mexican Army.
Only weeks later at the Battle of San Jacinto, Sam Houston's army won independence for the Republic of Texas.
The US had nothing to o with this.
NFE
3
Ah, yes, the Aussies....and New Zealanders. I was acquainted with a number of them socially and in the provision of their health care. They were not ordinary GIs, any endeavor, work or play, was 110%. I heard 'after action reports' from their Special Forces counterparts who had engaged with the Australians in their favorite "Moriarty, Are You There" competitions. WO Simpson, who several years later received the Victoria Cross, was enduring a dressing change by the orthopedic surgeon at the 8th Field Hospital when he roared, "Bloody well turn me pink!" I regarded it as an amusing figure of speech. His visiting officers, Ian T. and Noel DLH., were not amused and shortly thereafter berated him for cursing in the presence of a sister.
In serious discussions with some of them, it was enlightening to hear their experience and forthright perspective on jungle warfare and counter insurgency.
This series is interesting, sometimes objectively reveals the complexity of the situation at the time, needs to address the vast changes in mass communication and general knowledge/uderstanding since 1970 as many readers are under 60 years old and provides vivid verbal snapshots to fill in the historical record.
As my remaining Infantry, MI, Arty and Eng friends are at least 80 y.o., most have died, the first person recollections will soon no longer be available.
RVN 64-65 68-70
In serious discussions with some of them, it was enlightening to hear their experience and forthright perspective on jungle warfare and counter insurgency.
This series is interesting, sometimes objectively reveals the complexity of the situation at the time, needs to address the vast changes in mass communication and general knowledge/uderstanding since 1970 as many readers are under 60 years old and provides vivid verbal snapshots to fill in the historical record.
As my remaining Infantry, MI, Arty and Eng friends are at least 80 y.o., most have died, the first person recollections will soon no longer be available.
RVN 64-65 68-70
25
A son of an architect claimed his father had designed a huge hospital in Saigon before any US troops set foot in Vietnam. He alleged the war to take over France's colony had been planned way in advance to the actual US invasion in 1965. Is it possible the beautiful designed modern building in Saigon known as Third Field Hospital was already constructed before the first US troops arrived in Vietnam?
4
May Mr. Edwards expand further about 1968 and the Tet Offensive, where the U.S. media may not have been telling the whole truth about how effective it was and was the start of the American civilian population saying - it is time to come home.
I was a child in 1970. My father got transferred to Warner Robins, Georgia then.
We met a nurse who was stationed in Australia in 1968.
Her words stay with me to this day. 'The casualties just kept coming.'
I was a child in 1970. My father got transferred to Warner Robins, Georgia then.
We met a nurse who was stationed in Australia in 1968.
Her words stay with me to this day. 'The casualties just kept coming.'
11
An aspect of the war I had not thought much about. Well written, well considered.
Thanks...
USN 1967 - 71
Viet Nam 1968
Thanks...
USN 1967 - 71
Viet Nam 1968
24
Australia was there because the US was there.
The LARGER question:
Why was the US there?
To this day, I haven't a clue as to why the US was there. It certainly was NOT for the intended purpose of America's military: defense of the homeland.
Follow the money is generally a reliable way to get to the root of most things of this nature.
I'll rephrase the larger question:
Who was profiting by the US presence in Vietnam?