Leej said:
The USA was involved in Vietnamn because France wanted nothing to do with it, they certainly aren't playing a part. The UK commitments fighting communists and other bad guys of its own elsewhere in the world so I doubt we would join. (...) Or was Canada part of SEATO? If Canada had sent troops it would have been on a scale similar to Australia.
Wanted nothing to do with it? Hmm, that's one way to phrase it, Leej. But ok, the French population would most likely revolt had the government sent troops to Vietnam in aid of the Americans there.
In regards to the Brits. It kinda depends on the timing of the intervention in the Vietnam War, doesn't it? See Derek's post on the matter. In general the Brits are loyal chaps that might, just might, have come to the American's aid, or rescue if you will, in 'Nam.
How was the early Vietnam War viewed in Canada? The Canadians seem more cautious than the British, but might offer some minor assistance. Naval or air units? Training the South Vietnamese in some way?
Is their any way in which to incerase the ANZ Task Force fighting in Vietnam? Fx. the AATTV was only a force around 100 men at most, if I'm not mistaken. In general the ANZ-units did remarkably well in Vietnam and could have made a difference had they been there in larger numbers (or the US copied their tactics) in my opinion.
Steffen said:
also, the bgs was not trained or equipped for that kind of counter-insurgency operations.
GSG-units could be used in the urban, farmed and coastal areas perhaps? Or used to train Vietnamese CT- and AT-units?
Some countries, Norway and Denmark fx., might send civil advisors or other personel (police, doctors. teachers ect etc), others might send combat units on a small scale; Chile, Mexico, Argentine, Brasil, South Africa or Pakistan (or even India if we place the PoD before LBJ annoyes them too much)?
Derek Jackson said:
The best POD for British troops in Vietnam (...) would have been for McMillan to stay healthy (...). I think this is especially likely if Kennedy lived and did what Johnson did in OTL.
It's a shame the Harrold McMillan re-elected in 1964-thread never took off! But that said, it was a distinct possibilty.
As noted earlier in said thread, Macmillan just might have gotten the British involved in Vietnam. PM Macmillan is in my opinion somewhat underated as he was quite clever and intelligent, but as also noted very conscious of history, so he might have streered well clear of that quagmire.
However, had the Brits gone to 'Nam, things might, just might, have turned out differently - see fx. Melvin's earlier post about the Diggers in Vietnam or the Could US win in Vietnam-thread!
Perhaps more importantly, the entire war might have had a completely different "reputation" had it not been seen as an American war of oppression and what not...
Best regards!
- Mr.Bluenote.
