Britain in Vietnam?

Britain officially stayed out of the Vietnam war in the 1960's although the government gave moral support to the United States which annoyed left wing activists. Experts from HMS Vernon were alledged to have advised the USA on mining Haiphong HarbourIn retrospect the verdict on Harold Wilson was " At least he kept us out of it". Was there a possible scenario in which Britain could have sent ground troops air or naval support? Dean Rusk is alledged to have said "One division, the Black Watch would have done"

Here is what may have happened. Harold Macmillan doesn't resign in 1963 and remains in office until 1964 . The Tories scrape back claiming we have never had it so good don't let Labour ruin it. In 1965 America commits ground troops supported by Australia and New Zealand. The British government decides to committ a token force to support our Commonwealth allies but given the slender majority and the possibility of an election it is made clear there are no plans to bring back national service. Macmillan resigns to make way for a new leader and Ted Heath forms a government and goes to the country on a slogan "All the way with LBJ" . Labour opposes involvement and Enoch Powell dissents and is sacked from the cabinet. Would the Tories have won on this slogan?

It wasn't until 1968 that the war became unpopular in the USA and it would probably have been 1968 before conscription was considered necessary

The war would still be lost because it would be lead by the Americans, whose strategy was appalling and doomed from the start. Britain would be better off going into Vietnam as the leader of a Commonwealth force. Britain's strategy in Malaya proved successful and was acheived with far less manpower, firepower, and wastage of life than the US campaign in Veitnam.

Xenos said:

The war would still be lost because it would be lead by the Americans, whose strategy was appalling and doomed from the start. Britain would be better off going into Vietnam as the leader of a Commonwealth force. Britain's strategy in Malaya proved successful and was acheived with far less manpower, firepower, and wastage of life than the US campaign in Veitnam.

Click to expand...

Who's to say that good advice or more strongly, good results (say in British areas? ) would not have had an impact on US strategic thinking?

THis is an very interesting POD.

I know little of the UK during this time period though.

I like the possible implications for the development of Anti-Americanism if the Vietnam war was more of a shared responsiblity with Europe.

Especially if it were to end with a victory!

It would be interesting to have the US adopt the British 'hearts and minds' strategy in the Vietnam war and also to get Europe thinking along Anglo-American lines.

It's likely Britain would refrain from sending conventional forces but would help in simialr way as in Oman. SAS, advisors and so on. But yes, it would greatly depend on how much freedom they would have. If US is running the show then whatever Brits (like the Commonwealth idea!) do it's pointless as war would be lost elsewhere.

The British would have raised rather more effective in raising good local forces.

Maybe they would have kept the Carriers. Even built new ones. Would have had implications for the Falklands. Also, could effect the Troubles and the British response to it.

I wonder what units the UK would (could) have depolyed ?

I don't know of a political PoD which could see the Brits involved, but with the Brits involved a Commonwealth division, air wing and naval task force could have been formed by matching or exceeding Australia's contribution. Perhaps the Brits could take on a province next to Phoc Tuy, and provide much of the divisional troops needed.

This is an interesting one... there is a TL out there somewhere - on here I think - which does have the UK (alongside Canada and ANZAC) committing forces, and their commanders talking to Westmoreland about a 'hearts and minds' approach... I can't remember if it is taken up by the Americans though.

Andrew Hudson said:

Britain officially stayed out of the Vietnam war in the 1960's although the government gave moral support to the United States which annoyed left wing activists. Experts from HMS Vernon were alledged to have advised the USA on mining Haiphong HarbourIn retrospect the verdict on Harold Wilson was " At least he kept us out of it". Was there a possible scenario in which Britain could have sent ground troops air or naval support? Dean Rusk is alledged to have said "One division, the Black Watch would have done"

Click to expand...

There was British involvement in Vietnam, but those involved were told they were conducting exercises... in planting live explosives.

Anyhoo, aside from all the legitimate political reasons not to get involved, look at how the Aus. and NZ SAS were hamstrung by the US wanting it to be an all-American affair (with their then naivity regarding proper SF operations).

Involvement might have stopped devaluation, but I doubt Wilson would've risked the political fallout; moreover we were simultaneously involved in our own post-colonial SE Asian and ME operations.

There's the kicker, Australian conscription was introduced for Broneo, not Vietnam as is commonly assumed. In 1965 Australia had a Btn and SAS sqn in Borneo and a Btn in Vietnam. In 1966 we had a Btn and SAS sqn in Broneo, 2 btns and SAS sqn in Vietnam (the SAS rotated out of Borneo late and into Vietnam early), it was in this year we took over Phoc Tuy province. In 1967 we had 3 btns and an SAS sqn in Vietnam, plus tanks bombers and a destroyer, we were very busy, that sort of sustained commitment is hard for Australia. Presumably Britain would rotate out of Borneo and into Vietnam in a similar fashion.

I wonder about Australia's defence policy if Britain was in Vietnam. Would get get the HMS Centaur in 1965/6 if the Commonwealth was going to form a naval task force? Would we send Mirages as part of a Commonwealth air wing, would we get our own IFR tankers in the '60/70s as a result of such an experience?

What about the effect on Britains forces? Would a commonwealth naval task force always have a carrier? The RN had Victorious, Eagle, Ark Royal, Hermes and Centaur in reserve? Would this see the Eagle and Ark retained until the mid 80s, or thrown away as worn-out in the 70s?