Impact if the US had a coalition of allies for the Vietnam War?

Deleted member 94680

Maybe the supposition of the OP indicates the mindset that discouraged the Western Powers from throwing in with the US?

The British, for one, were still hurting from the American 'betrayal' over Suez and politicians were too weary of domestic opposition to American actions in Vietnam to commit to supporting American-led operations.
 
Maybe the supposition of the OP indicates the mindset that discouraged the Western Powers from throwing in with the US?

The British, for one, were still hurting from the American 'betrayal' over Suez and politicians were too weary of domestic opposition to American actions in Vietnam to commit to supporting American-led operations.

It wasn't about "betrayal over Suez." The British Labour Party (in Government at the time) had a hefty contingent who were opposed to Vietnam on its own terms, and Wilson was not about to split his own party. A Tory Government probably would have got involved, Suez or not.
 
Australia struggled to support such numbers, having to introduce socially and politically damaging conscription.

New Zealand only ever sent volunteers. Our (conservative) Prime Minister of the era tried to keep involvement to a minimum, so as to not completely alienate Washington.
 
New Zealand only ever sent volunteers. Our (conservative) Prime Minister of the era tried to keep involvement to a minimum, so as to not completely alienate Washington.

Yes, V & W companies, an SAS troop and 161 battery.

However Australia couldn't sustain 2 3/4 infantry battalions in Vietnam (V&W coys made the 3rd Btn an ANZAC btn) and another btn in Malaysia without conscription to fill about half the infantry strength. This conscription to fill out the Regular Army and liable to serve overseas was a large break for Australia, all previous conscription schemes were to fill the Civilian Military Forces and only liable for service on in Australian territories.
 
Please clarify?

I of course meant to say “Pentropic” madness.

What if Menzies made an offer LBJ couldn’t refuse in the context of pentropic organisation? Could the offer be effectively a couple of combined arms groups from 1 or 3 division?

Just how ugly would a resented pentropic organisation’s failure in the field be?
 

Marc

Donor
What kind of corruption?

Black marketeering was a pastime, along with the usual "look the other way" bribes.
Keep in mind that in the 1960's, economically South Korea was pretty much a 3rd world country; while it was starting to take off by the mid-60's, modern Korea as we think of it is more a product of the 1970's and 80's.
 
Last edited:
Black marketeering was a pastime, along with the usual "look the other way" bribes.
Keep in mind that in the 1960's, economically South Korea was pretty much a 3rd world country; while it was starting to take off by the mid-60's, modern Korea as we think of it is more a product of the 1970's and 80's.

It's easy to forget, but in the 1960s, South Korea was receiving foreign aid from Kenya. Hard to believe now.
 
I of course meant to say “Pentropic” madness.

What if Menzies made an offer LBJ couldn’t refuse in the context of pentropic organisation? Could the offer be effectively a couple of combined arms groups from 1 or 3 division?

Just how ugly would a resented pentropic organisation’s failure in the field be?

I thought so, however the pentropic experiment ended in 1965 and no pentropic force was ever deployed outside Australia, indeed only 2 RAR btns were made into pentropic because the 3rd was needed in the 'tropical' establishment for 28th Brigade in Malaya.

Your mention of 3rd division is interesting; in 1964 there was debate in Australia about using the CMF to cover the RA's manpower shortfall, Lt Gen Paul Cullen CMF begged Lt Gen Wilton RA to allow him to raise a CMF battalion for service in Vietnam but instead the Government chose to introduce selective service conscription. This is a good example of the primacy of the RA over the CMF in the 60s, which has been suggested as the reason why the pentropic experiment went ahead, to break the hold of the CMF over the Army.

As for the pentropic battlegroups, in the arguments to scrap it it was mentioned that it was the number of battalions deployed that counted rather than their size, Australia was better of making a 4th btn of the RAR and deploying 2 btns rather than 1 big pentropic btn.
 
For what its worth British defence policy up to 1968 was to fight limited wars east of Suez, with an effort to do it cheaply in 1965 and a drop dead date of 1975 stated in 1966. Therefore a British contribution to Vietnam is entirely in line with this defence policy/strategy in theory.

It wasn't until after the devaluation of the pound in November 1967 that in January 1968 PM Wilson announced a rapid withdrawal EoS and the immediate rundown of assets used to discharge this strategy.

With a few different decisions in this 1965-68 timeframe surrounding the value of the pound, the future defence strategy and Britain's role in NATO and EoS Britain could commit troops to Vietnam.
 
Top