For there to be a cure, you would require a problem. The UK staying out of Vietnam was a good thing. That being said, a Tory win would likely make it happen.That seems to be the cure, but would Home commit as many troops, would a large British antiwar movement develop, effects on UK politics?
Whilst that is partially true, Harold Wilson had a dangerous tightrope to walk. He had to keep the Americans onside. If he pissed them off, it might have damaged the UK economy which was still not very strong.RogueBeaver said:There were a few reasons: Wilson was worried that like Johnson, he would have to override his party's left wing and deal with the anti-Americanism rife within the Lab Left at the time.
Tony Blair stood on the Labour manifesto of 1983 and was a member of CND. Winston Churchill switched parties more than Paris Hilton. Ronald Reagan opposed Civil Rights at one point. You can change your views during the course of your life you know....RogueBeaver said:Wilson wrote anti-American pamphlets in his political salad days and then acted friendlier with LBJ than Blair and Dubya. No wonder Johnson called him "that little creep."
With a POD of 1962, make it happen.
One has to remember all the other commitment that the UK had in the '60s - the end of the Malayan Emergency, the Confrontation with Indonesia (a conflict almost on the same scale as Vietnam), Kenya and Aden to name a few. The question is does the UK have troops to spare from these commitments as well as things like BAOR?
One reason we didn't get involved in 'Nam is possibly because we were already fighting several wars already.
The Indonesia Confrontation only resulted in several hundred killed, on both sides over several years. Hardly comparable to Vietnam.