Why did Australia get involved in the Vietnam War? Has the involvement soured relations with South-East Asia?

Answer 1

Australia got involved because we feared 'the domino affect'. That is one nation after another falling to communism until Australia was directly affected. I don't believe the Vietnam involvement has been negative for Australia's reputation in SE Asia, because at the time, most SE Asian nations feared communism even more than Australia did. Post Cold War many younger people do not realise what a threat communism presented to the World up until the 1990s.

Answer 2

Domino effect, Australia was geographically more at threat from the spread of Communism than America.

Answer 3

Vietnam is best seen and understood not as a separate confilct or war, but as one front of the larger global Cold War. The Communist powers and the Western Powers were facing each other not just in Vietnam, but in Korea, Berlin, the Middle East, Africa, Cuba, the nuclear arms race, even the Student Riots of the 1960s and the Space Race. All are different parts of the same conflict, and all of them are (and were) tied to each other. Looking at Vietnam by itself and ignoring the rest of the Cold War is like trying to live in just one room of your house and ignoring the rest.

So Australia, being on the side of anti-communisim and freedom, had an interest in seeing the anti-communist side win the WHOLE Cold War, which means Australia had a stake in the outcome of the Vietnam War.

At the time this was expressed by the idea of "the domino theory", the idea that if Communisim was allowed to triumph in South Vietnam, it wouldn't stop there, but continue to expand into Laos (it did), Cambodia (it did), Thialand (it didn't), Burma (it didn't), and on down into Australia.

But like I said it was more than just that. Australia knew that if the U.S. got run out of Vietnam with it's tail between it's legs it would be severely weakened (it was) and would therefore be a less reliable ally (it was) . If you are Australia this gives you a big problem.... Australia has a lot of land, but not a lot of people, it does not have a huge navy or air force, but has a huge territory to defend. IF (big if here) a large Asian power with a huge population (China, India, Japan, Indonesia, Russia, pick whoever you want) were to someday start looking around for some place with a lot of land to expand into (like Japan did in WW2) Australia would need help to defend itself. (This is why the US Navy had to protect Australia at the Battle of Coral Sea in 1942.)

If Australia's biggest ally is weakened and humliated; who is going to come bail out Australia if there is trouble? The French? The Kiwis? Santa? In that sense Australia helping the US in Vietnam is sort of like local homeowners donating bullet proof vests and radios to the police department. It is what was called at the time "Collective Security". The US had a string of treaties set up around the world so that the Communists couldn't gobble up little countries one by one.

Australia was part of two of these, the ANZUS treaty and SEATO.

As U.S. allies under the ANZUS Treaty, Australia and New Zealand sent ground troops to Vietnam. (Though there is some dispute as to if this was done under ANZUS or SEATO or not. My sources disagree.) Both nations had gained valuable experience in counterinsurgency and jungle warfare during the Malayan Emergency. Geographically close to Asia, they subscribed to the Domino Theory of communist expansion and felt that their national security would be threatened if communism spread further in Southeast Asia. Australia's peak commitment was 7,672 combat troops, New Zealand's 552 and most of these soldiers served in the 1st Australian Task Force which was based in Phuoc Tuy Province. Australia re-introduced conscription to expand its army in the face of significant public opposition to the war. Like the U.S., Australia began by sending advisers to Vietnam, the number of which rose steadily until 1965, when combat troops were committed. New Zealand began by sending a detachment of engineers and an artillery battery, and then started sending Special Forces and regular infantry. Several Australian and New Zealand units were awarded U.S. unit citations for their service in South Vietnam. The ANZUS forces were cohesive and well-disclipined.

Also there was at the time SEATO, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization... sort of like NATO for the Far East.
Because of the 1954 Accords settling the First Indochina War, South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos were not SEATO members. The United States sought, but failed, to make the Vietnam War into a SEATO collective security problem.

SEATO fell apart in the 1970s. The ANZUS treaty has become more of a US/Australia treaty since New Zeland decided they were too politically correct to let US Navy ships visit their country. They don't like the fact that that some US Ships have nuclear weapons on them, and since the US won't tell New Zeland (or anybody else) which ships have nukes on them and which don't the Kiwis don't let any US ships into their country. That didn't stop the New Zelanders from steping up and helping out in Afghanistan, but, sadly, it did get them kicked out of the ANZUS treaty; at least as far as the US is concerned.

Since the anti-nuclear stance by New Zeland is strictly political theater for domestic consumption, it is hoped that New Zeland will be able to overcome it someday soon and get back on board with the rest of the Anglosphere.

Answer 4

Because they where close to the area and have direct involvements in the area and an economic interest.

Answer 5

I would waste points on Larry's superb answer if it were not based on wikipedia, which is no source at all. If you must use that damned thing, at least have the decency to plagiarize.

Answer 6

because America said so . as to relations no i don't believe so --- time has healed since the end of the conflict .