What if the UK had been involved militarily in Vietnam instead of Australia?

pureet1948 · Oct 22, 2014

What if soldiers from Great Britain (not Australia) had fought in Vietnam alongside the Americans? The issues I would like to cover in this thread include the following:

1. How effective would SAS tactics and cleverness have proven against the Viet Cong?

2. Would there have been a draft in the UK like there was in the US? Would Oxford and Eton have erupted into antiwar riots like Columbia and Kent State in the US?

3. Would Great Britain have fought to win (a-la Margaret Thatcher's Falklands War)? Or would Harold Wilson's Vietnam policies mirrored that of the American president, Lyndon Johnson? (Guns and butter with no real mission objective)

4. What weapons would the British have used in Vietnam?

5. Would the Beatles have been peforming in Saigon?

NOTE: I'm thinking about writing an alternate history story about this, so I would appreciate answers to these questions as soon as possible.

Peter Parker · Oct 22, 2014

The reason the British did not fight in Vietnam was because America didn't support the Suez War and force them to back down.

You have to butterfly away this, and this POD could change the Vietnam War. Remember, Nasser won't become an Arab hero, changing how much aid the Soviet Union will send to the Middle East and Asia

Maeglin · Oct 22, 2014

Peter Parker said:
The reason the British did not fight in Vietnam was because America didn't support the Suez War and force them to back down.

Revenge for Suez was never a consideration of Harold Wilson's Government (why would it?). Wilson led a party where a significant portion of the members were simply opposed to US military adventures. No Prime Minister wants to start a civil war within their own party.

The POD would be Alec Douglas-Home winning 1964. The UK would then pull out when the Tories get crushed at the subsequent election.

Maeglin · Oct 22, 2014

Australia, meanwhile, was very supportive of the war (to start with). Menzies liked nothing better than redbaiting, while the ALP was (still) enduring its epic factional split. Holt certainly didn't lose any votes in 1966 by running on the war.

(New Zealand, incidentally, was somewhere between the UK and Australian positions. Keith Holyoake, despite being a conservative, was no Menzies-type, and decided that the best approach was to pay lip service to the ANZUS allies, while keeping New Zealand's involvement as small as possible. New Zealand, unlike Australia, never introduced the draft for Vietnam).

Sior · Oct 22, 2014

‘Hearts and Minds’? British Counter-Insurgency from Malaya to Iraq

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01402390902928172

"Grab 'em by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow."
~ President Lyndon Baines Johnson

Did not work, different philosophies on counter-insurgency, British worked American did not.

pureet1948 · Oct 22, 2014

Quote:
"The POD would be Alec Douglas-Home winning 1964. The UK would then pull out when the Tories get crushed at the subsequent election."

Dear Maeglin:

You think the UK PM in a British Vietnam War would have been Alec Douglas-Home? If so, how many troops would have been committed to fight with the Americans?

Maeglin · Oct 22, 2014

pureet1948 said:
Quote:
"The POD would be Alec Douglas-Home winning 1964. The UK would then pull out when the Tories get crushed at the subsequent election."

Dear Maeglin:

You think the UK PM in a British Vietnam War would have been Alec Douglas-Home? If so, how many troops would have been committed to fight with the Americans?

Still not that many. The UK had its own issues at the time in Aden and Borneo, and the Tories (unlike Labour) really would hold a grudge about Suez, so it's possible that you would simply be looking at the Royal Navy (fat lot of good that'd do in Vietnam) and the RAF, rather than the army, at least until the other entanglements have been sorted. I think conscription is truly out of the question: Douglas-Home was more a Holyoake than a Menzies.

deathscompanion1 · Oct 22, 2014

Sior said:
‘Hearts and Minds’? British Counter-Insurgency from Malaya to Iraq

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01402390902928172

"Grab 'em by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow."
~ President Lyndon Baines Johnson

Did not work, different philosophies on counter-insurgency, British worked American did not.

For the thousandth time. The British were fighting a small portion of the population confined to certain areas separated by sea from suppliers who were busy closer to home and possessed a significant support base amongst the population. It would be embarrassing if they lost Malaysia anyone half competent could manage it given the historic success rate of insurgencies in such conditions.

pureet1948 · Oct 22, 2014

Maeglin said:
Still not that many. The UK had its own issues at the time in Aden and Borneo, and the Tories (unlike Labour) really would hold a grudge about Suez, so it's possible that you would simply be looking at the Royal Navy (fat lot of good that'd do in Vietnam) and the RAF, rather than the army, at least until the other entanglements have been sorted. I think conscription is truly out of the question: Douglas-Home was more a Holyoake than a Menzies.

3 questions:

1. What SE Asian countries would the RAF and the Royal Navy use for staging areas for sorties into Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia?
2. Aren't you forgetting the Royal Marines?
3. So any alternate history fanfic I write would have to focus on RAF pilots and British sailors instead of soldiers?

Despite what you say, I'm still kinda in love with the idea of the SAS blowing up VC strongholds (they're good at that kind of thing, you know), and Vulcans flying bombing sorties with B-52's against Hanoi.

Maeglin · Oct 22, 2014

pureet1948 said:
3 questions:

1. What SE Asian countries would the RAF and the Royal Navy use for staging areas for sorties into Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia?
2. Aren't you forgetting the Royal Marines?
3. So any alternate history fanfic I write would have to focus on RAF pilots and British sailors instead of soldiers?

I think you'd see the UK contribution based out of Singapore.

Regarding the marines and soldiers generally: you'll have some on-ground presence, but it is simply a case of how many are available given the other commitments. If you can find a way of butterflying away the Malaya Emergency, and all the other bits and pieces of the era, you would have a better chance of getting a larger UK presence.

pureet1948 · Oct 22, 2014

Maeglin said:
I think you'd see the UK contribution based out of Singapore.

Regarding the marines and soldiers generally: you'll have some on-ground presence, but it is simply a case of how many are available given the other commitments. If you can find a way of butterflying away the Malaya Emergency, and all the other bits and pieces of the era, you would have a better chance of getting a larger UK presence.

Butterfly away the Malaya Emergency and all the other bits and pieces of the '60s for a bigger UK presence in the 'Nam? Sounds promising. How do you suggest I do that?
BTW: I disagree with you about Singapore, Maeglin. I think Hong Kong would be better, as it's closer to Vietnam waters.

TFSmith121 · Oct 22, 2014

The fact the majority of the CTs were ethnic Chinese,

deathscompanion1 said:
For the thousandth time. The British were fighting a small portion of the population confined to certain areas separated by sea from suppliers who were busy closer to home and possessed a significant support base amongst the population. It would be embarrassing if they lost Malaysia anyone half competent could manage it given the historic success rate of insurgencies in such conditions.

The fact the majority of the CTs were ethnic Chinese, not Malayans, didn't hurt either...

The Vietnamese had been fighting the French, the Japanese, the French again, and then the Americans by proxy for close to three decades by 1965...I doubt a few companies of Gurkhas or whatever are going to make much of a difference in their desire to be free of foreigners, when 500,000 US troops and another half-million ARVN weren't enough.

Best,

Riain · Oct 23, 2014

I think you'd find that a British commitment to Vietnam would be much like Australia's, only bigger and more complete in the sense of supporting arms etc. Doctrine etc would be almost identical since Australia left Malaya and Borneo to fight in Vietnam with British doctrine and many British weapons.

Keep in mind that the Indonesian Confrontation is still in play until late 1966, so the British will be committed there in numbers until at least 1967.

Richard V · Oct 23, 2014

TFSmith121 said:
The fact the majority of the CTs were ethnic Chinese, not Malayans, didn't hurt either...

Not to mention Chinese Malaysians made up a large part of the merchant class, and you know what a hot bed of Communism those merchants can be.

British anti-war movement would be a pretty interesting chapter to the Sixties though.

MattII · Oct 23, 2014

So UK is in, but Aussie is out. This will have some interesting implications, as the VC reckoned the Australian troops to be some of the best, more independent and aggressive than the Americans, and much less likely to fall into traps. I don't think the UK troops would stack up particularly well man for man, but there would be more of them...

deathscompanion1 · Oct 23, 2014

MattII said:
So UK is in, but Aussie is out. This will have some interesting implications, as the VC reckoned the Australian troops to be the best, more independent and aggressive than the Americans, and much less likely to fall into traps. I don't think the UK troops would stack up particularly well man for man, but there would be more of them...

I thought that honour went to the Korean soldiers who skinned a few VC prisoners and would wait days in the jungle to ambush them until the VC gave up and went to shoot people who weren't so frightening?

MattII · Oct 23, 2014

Haven't heard of that one, but I've not done a big study of the war, so I can't say either way. Still, the VC didn't like facing the Australians, and all things the same, I really can't see your average tommy matching up to the diggers, he'd lack both experience and motivation.

pdf27 · Oct 23, 2014

MattII said:
Haven't heard of that one, but I've not done a big study of the war, so I can't say either way. Still, the VC didn't like facing the Australians, and all things the same, I really can't see your average tommy matching up to the diggers, he'd lack both experience and motivation.

Why? The base culture is much the same, as is the training. If anything the British are probably fighting more small wars at the time (retreat from Empire and all that), so would be marginally more experienced.

None of it would make a blind bit of difference - the UK would never have committed enough troops to make a difference, and would be very wobbly politically. If anything it would lead to the commitment of increased Soviet/Chinese resources to try and force the UK out of the war (politically) in the hopes of weakening NATO in Europe.

Overall I'd say it would be something of a distopia - the UK would rub the US Army up the wrong way by talking about their experience in Malaya and elsewhere (utterly different wars of no relevance), while the US would rub the UK up the wrong way by telling them what to do and ignoring their "advice". The South Vietnamese would of course go on fighting their own war for their own reasons, which doesn't correspond to the desires of either US or UK.
The UK would eventually withdraw, probably when whatever party took us in loses by a landslide, we see an earlier and more comprehensive East of Suez moment, and lots of strained or even broken relationships within NATO.

Dan · Oct 23, 2014

The RAF did operate in Vietnam inthe early days of US involvement.
It was a single squadron of RAF Belvederes providing heavy lift until enough C130s could be deployed.
Just find a way to expand and extend that involvement.

nixonshead · Oct 23, 2014

I had the British get involved in Vietnam in Kolyma's Shadow, but it stays pretty much in the background (it's not the main focus of my TL). I had it come about primarily as a result of Nixon beating Kennedy in 1960, the better personal relations between Nixon and Macmillan as opposed to Kennedy-Macmillan, and as part of a deal for Nixon to save the Skybolt project (which the UK was counting on for its nuclear deterrence) in exchange for support in Vietnam.
As mentioned, I don't go into too much detail, but overall I see it only making a marginal difference to the course of the conflict, and the number of Brits won't get too high, especially after Wilson becomes PM and starts looking for ways to pull out of the commitment.
I'd be very interested to read a timeline dedicated to the idea of the UK getting sucked into the conflict, especially the cultural impact at home.