WI: Europe in the Vietnam War?

As the title says, what do you think would be the outcome of the traditional european allies of the U.S assisting in the Vietnam War?

Would the extra troops from France, GB etc help in any way?

I think the public opinion in the U.S would not turn so negative if they had more allies in the fight alongside them, although if the allies leave before the U.S it could give a "defeatist" feeling.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
France had enough. Take a look at the books by Bernard Fall: Hell in a Very Small Place or most importantly: Street Without Joy.

Britain...you've got to look at the times you're positing this in: Britain had been fightin in Malaya until 1960, and in Borneo against the Indonesians (The Indonesian Confrontation) up to 1962. They were pretty much done.

The three most likely Western countries that would send troops to Vietnam were Australia, New Zealand (and they did. Take a look at the Battle of Long Tan or the Battle of Coral) and then Canada.

Canadian volunteers sent more volunteers (per capita) to the US Army for service in Vietnam than the Western world sent to Spain to fight the fascists. About 30,000 in all. One was even awarded the Medal of Honor.

To be truthful, the politics just weren't there to make Europe want to get involved in that war. Canada was the only country that didn't officially send troops to fight anti-Communist actions that you could possible change. (Though they did wind up there as part of some ill-fated UN efforts: Canadian Gen. Lewis MacKenzie served along the DMZ with Indian, Polish, and Yugoslav officers.)
 
Clusterfuck in (West)Germany, second big slaughter is nearly twenty years ago and nobody wants his son in a war which is actually a nationalistic anti-colonialistic Uprising.
One german chancelor was asked for troops, but he said simply:"No" At least http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boehringer_Ingelheim produced some Agent Orange.
Let´s assume there were actually a few West German divisions in Vietnam. Would it make a difference? Probably not! But the cohesion of alliance would have certainly benefited from it.
 
Clusterfuck in (West)Germany, second big slaughter is nearly twenty years ago and nobody wants his son in a war which is actually a nationalistic anti-colonialistic Uprising.
One german chancelor was asked for troops, but he said simply:"No" At least http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boehringer_Ingelheim produced some Agent Orange.
Let´s assume there were actually a few West German divisions in Vietnam. Would it make a difference? Probably not! But the cohesion of alliance would have certainly benefited from it.

You mean the cohesion of the Warsaw Pact, right? Because it would strain public opinion in West Germany very badly. A silent majpority of Germans were broadly supportive of the war faute de mieux, and because they were not directly affected. Give them a stake in opposing it, and it makes a potent anti-NATO mix. There is plenty of resentment of NATO on the right of the political spectrum at the time, people bemoaning Germany's vassalisation and the high cost of supporting occupation troops. Deploying the Bundeswehr to Vietnam feeds that sense of alienation. I can see a strong neutralisation movement arising in tandem with the anti-war and student protest groups. Chances are they will not be successful, but you can imagine what it will do to mutual trust if German officers at NATO meeting keep prefacing next year's plans with "Pending the outcome of the next election, we will....".
 
Don't you think that involving European Powers to the Vietnam War gives the impression that the North Vietnamese are not defeatable that even the mighty US needs to be reinforced in subduing this one colonial nation?

Beside more importantly, is the threat of North Vietnamese communism that bad? :confused:
 
You mean the cohesion of the Warsaw Pact, right? Because it would strain public opinion in West Germany very badly. A silent majpority of Germans were broadly supportive of the war faute de mieux, and because they were not directly affected. Give them a stake in opposing it, and it makes a potent anti-NATO mix. There is plenty of resentment of NATO on the right of the political spectrum at the time, people bemoaning Germany's vassalisation and the high cost of supporting occupation troops. Deploying the Bundeswehr to Vietnam feeds that sense of alienation. I can see a strong neutralisation movement arising in tandem with the anti-war and student protest groups. Chances are they will not be successful, but you can imagine what it will do to mutual trust if German officers at NATO meeting keep prefacing next year's plans with "Pending the outcome of the next election, we will....".


That is exactly what I meant by "Clusterfuck". I'd be really curious to hear thoughts on that topic by Rudi Dutschke ;). What i meant with cohesive was the technical side of military, equipment and tactics blah blah blah.
 
As the title says, what do you think would be the outcome of the traditional european allies of the U.S assisting in the Vietnam War?

Would the extra troops from France, GB etc help in any way?

I think the public opinion in the U.S would not turn so negative if they had more allies in the fight alongside them, although if the allies leave before the U.S it could give a "defeatist" feeling.

The trick would be getting NATO to chip in at all. Unlike the AMerican conservative/red baiting public Europeans knew the Vietnam conflict for what it was: a civil war having little or nothing to do with "Communism" and everything to do with a people sick and tired or being told what to do by foreign tyrants.

Getting them to sends money and equipmenty and troops to help prop up a fascist dictator in Saigon?

Yeah, no.
 
Clusterfuck in (West)Germany, second big slaughter is nearly twenty years ago and nobody wants his son in a war which is actually a nationalistic anti-colonialistic Uprising.
One german chancelor was asked for troops, but he said simply:"No" At least http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boehringer_Ingelheim produced some Agent Orange.
Let´s assume there were actually a few West German divisions in Vietnam. Would it make a difference? Probably not! But the cohesion of alliance would have certainly benefited from it.


At the time it was believed that the German Constitution forbade their army from being deployed outside their borders. The German Constitutional Court ruled that it was possible in 1994. Getting a similar ruling in the 1960s is going to be a lot harder.

Cheers,
Nigel.
 
At the time it was believed that the German Constitution forbade their army from being deployed outside their borders. The German Constitutional Court ruled that it was possible in 1994. Getting a similar ruling in the 1960s is going to be a lot harder.

Cheers,
Nigel.

The reality was that 20 years and change prievieous to the Vietnam conflict Europe was in flames specifically because of an arrogant tyrannical fascist stooge. There is just no way Western European countries only just bouncing back are going to spend money toil and blood to fight on the side of an arrogant tyrannical fascist little stoodge, just because the Americans claim it's "Ta Fight them dirty COmmies."
 
Top