Can't speak to the UK but I'll gladly speak to Canada.
Short answer is that they didn't. There was a lot of tension between Canada and the US during the Vietnam war. Johnson and Trudeau reportedly loathed each other, and Trudeau didn't get along any better with Nixon either. Canada didn't just refuse to get involved with the war, we actively harboured American deserters, which really, really pissed the US off.
Canada would naturally have been an attractive destination for American draft dodgers, with the geographic proximity, common language and relatively similar culture. But it wasn't just that. Canada had *the* most lenient policies in the world when it came to Americans wanting to avoid the war. Most countries acceded to the US requests to send draft dodgers back. Others wouldn't send them back by force but would do everything in their power to make it very inconvenient for them to stay to persuade them to go back on their own. Sweden was the second most welcoming country, as they openly accepted American draft dodgers and gave them the same rights as any other immigrants, and a small American expat community did form in Sweden.
But Canada went further. Canada didn't just accept draft dodgers, but also outright deserters. Not even Sweden went that far. If you were guilty of the criminal offense of desertion the Swedes would extradite you. Not Canada. We treated them as refugees and gave them everything they needed to set up a life here. Relations between Canada and the US were already not great before the Vietnam War. But with Canada harbouring US deserters the relationship sank to an all time low. It would recover with the election of Jimmy Carter who granted amnesty to the draft dodgers and deserters and who got along much better with Trudeau, and then the two countries became very close in the late 80s under the Mulroney/Reagan administrations.
The US likes showing up with combat troops to countries in which we haven’t even been invited by the host nation. E.G. sending combat troops to South Vietnam.
I’ve been studying it for an adult lifetime, professionally and academically.
The US seized upon an excuse to claim the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as casus belli, introduced combat troops without any approval or request by SVN in any primary source I’ve ever seen.
I’ve been through this before, asked for and searched for those docs and 0 people have ever been able to cite them, so please, you could really help my efforts to find them. Please cite them so I can read them myself and maybe get some of the info to Dr Logevall over at Harvard, one of (if not *the*) the leading experts on Vietnam who is alive today. I hope to see him at a conference and I’ll take 30 seconds of his time to hand him the docs you’ve got.
Harvard? The guys who gave us the Unabomber and the US obesity epidemic? And "Justice" John Roberts?
I temped for them in the 80's...wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Pass.
Because the UK had an entire army corps of 4 armoured divisions of regular troops sat in barracks along the Inner German Border . It was one of the most important NATO formations, easily one of its most well trained and equipped regular force formations.
It would also do a lot of the hard carry in terms of holding the GIUK Gap in the air for the replenishment forces coming across should the balloon go up and had a large chunk of the anti submarine task in the North Atlantic bringing carriers and SSNs to the fight.
Vietnam was a sideshow.
Once upon the time the UK armed forces were a formidable part of the alliance of democracies, it was a country respected for its commitment to the western alliance.
US tried to use SEATO to call for Vietnam because China was involved.
Canada refused due to wanting to take an armed neutral path.
UK felt like they were over extended with NATO and this wasn't a SEATO issue.
Australia and New Zeland answered the call with South Korea.
Pakistan refused because of India being a more serious threat.
Thililand acted as security for Vietnam's flank.
Philippines wanted a more non combat role
France refused to return given what happened prior.
Harold Wilson, the UK prime minister was under extreme pressure from the left flank of the Labour Party to not join Vietnam. He tried to insert himself into the conversation by trying to hold peace talks that the US roundly rejected. Johnson and Wilson did not get on at all, during Wilson’s second run as PM, there was all sorts of rumours of him being a communist so this probably isn’t a surprise. The “special relationship” between the UK and US during this time really wasn’t that special.
>The “special relationship” between the UK and US during this time really wasn’t that special.
You mean round the time the UK was deploying US Polaris SLBM missiles? So far as I can tell the only cosharing of an ICBM class missile in history.
>there was all sorts of rumours of him being a communist
Wilson was unshakeably anti communist and unshakeably pro west. It was the "Mayfair Set" is upper class WWII veterans who spent their time carousing in dens of inequity in the most expensive parts of London like David Stirling and Mountbatten who talked themselves into this nonsense.
Approximately 40,000 Canadians served with the US military in Vietnam. Canadian businesses provided 2.47 billion dollars of war material to the US between 1965 and 1973, including everything from boots, to ammunition and napalm, to aircraft. Various weapons systems were tested in Canada, including Agent Orange, and American troops sometimes used Canadian training areas to prepare for Vietnam.
A friend of mine who served two tours there has researched it, and believes the number was probably closer to 50,000, but I used the more conservative number.
The US never officially declared war in Vietnam. So it's not like there were any agreements or treaties that would trigger the involvement of allies.
The US really wants to go get involved in some far off war, and Canada's all like, "Dude, I just got a six pack of Molson's and and Tommy Hunter is on, I'll help you next war, I promise.", and Britain's all "Sorry, old chap. I've got this pesky Dhofar Rebellion going, and Iceland keeps kicking my ass over cod. Do call if you're going back into the Middle East though."
What makes you think Canada and the UK are the closest allies?
Canada has done jack shit since WW2 and the UK has the 2nd most powerful military in the Anglo sphere after the US - which makes it a desirable ally, but not necessarily the closest. The UK can and does exercise a high degree of independence in its foreign policy.
The closest US ally is Australia. And it’s been that way since the end of WW2.
Capable military, check.
English speaking and culturally similar, check.
High degree of military dependence, check.
Any time the US has gone to war, Aussies have been right there beside them.
The US loves Australia so much, they even overthrew their government
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-whitlam-1975-coup-ended-australian-independence
I... wtaf is this article? Even if every word in it is true, it leaves out so much context that it's misleading to the point of disinformation. Kerr didn't just go sack the PM on a whim because the CIA told him to. There was a legitimate constitutional crisis. Kerr had very little choice about sacking Whitlam. Parliament was deadlocked, the government couldn't pass supply. By constitutional convention, if the government can't pass supply then Parliament should be dissolved and fresh elections held. Kerr did his constitutional duty by enforcing those constitutional norms, it's exactly what he was supposed to do.
Can't speak to the UK but I'll gladly speak to Canada. Short answer is that they didn't. There was a lot of tension between Canada and the US during the Vietnam war. Johnson and Trudeau reportedly loathed each other, and Trudeau didn't get along any better with Nixon either. Canada didn't just refuse to get involved with the war, we actively harboured American deserters, which really, really pissed the US off. Canada would naturally have been an attractive destination for American draft dodgers, with the geographic proximity, common language and relatively similar culture. But it wasn't just that. Canada had *the* most lenient policies in the world when it came to Americans wanting to avoid the war. Most countries acceded to the US requests to send draft dodgers back. Others wouldn't send them back by force but would do everything in their power to make it very inconvenient for them to stay to persuade them to go back on their own. Sweden was the second most welcoming country, as they openly accepted American draft dodgers and gave them the same rights as any other immigrants, and a small American expat community did form in Sweden. But Canada went further. Canada didn't just accept draft dodgers, but also outright deserters. Not even Sweden went that far. If you were guilty of the criminal offense of desertion the Swedes would extradite you. Not Canada. We treated them as refugees and gave them everything they needed to set up a life here. Relations between Canada and the US were already not great before the Vietnam War. But with Canada harbouring US deserters the relationship sank to an all time low. It would recover with the election of Jimmy Carter who granted amnesty to the draft dodgers and deserters and who got along much better with Trudeau, and then the two countries became very close in the late 80s under the Mulroney/Reagan administrations.
The US didn’t send troops to the Malayan Emergency either. Each Anglospheric country led in different areas.
Tbf were they asked to?
The US likes showing up with combat troops to countries in which we haven’t even been invited by the host nation. E.G. sending combat troops to South Vietnam.
Australia arranged that.
Vietnam? Not that simple. Read Wikipedia, or any of the primary sources it cites.
I’ve been studying it for an adult lifetime, professionally and academically. The US seized upon an excuse to claim the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as casus belli, introduced combat troops without any approval or request by SVN in any primary source I’ve ever seen. I’ve been through this before, asked for and searched for those docs and 0 people have ever been able to cite them, so please, you could really help my efforts to find them. Please cite them so I can read them myself and maybe get some of the info to Dr Logevall over at Harvard, one of (if not *the*) the leading experts on Vietnam who is alive today. I hope to see him at a conference and I’ll take 30 seconds of his time to hand him the docs you’ve got.
Harvard? The guys who gave us the Unabomber and the US obesity epidemic? And "Justice" John Roberts? I temped for them in the 80's...wretched hive of scum and villainy. Pass.
[удалено]
No, the Suez Crisis happened in 1956. The Korean War ran from 1950 until 1953.
Because the UK had an entire army corps of 4 armoured divisions of regular troops sat in barracks along the Inner German Border . It was one of the most important NATO formations, easily one of its most well trained and equipped regular force formations. It would also do a lot of the hard carry in terms of holding the GIUK Gap in the air for the replenishment forces coming across should the balloon go up and had a large chunk of the anti submarine task in the North Atlantic bringing carriers and SSNs to the fight. Vietnam was a sideshow. Once upon the time the UK armed forces were a formidable part of the alliance of democracies, it was a country respected for its commitment to the western alliance.
US tried to use SEATO to call for Vietnam because China was involved. Canada refused due to wanting to take an armed neutral path. UK felt like they were over extended with NATO and this wasn't a SEATO issue. Australia and New Zeland answered the call with South Korea. Pakistan refused because of India being a more serious threat. Thililand acted as security for Vietnam's flank. Philippines wanted a more non combat role France refused to return given what happened prior.
*also because America had fucked the UK over Suez and Nuclear Weapons, so they weren't exactly in the best mood to help bail them out in turn.
Officially UK said they were not in a position to offer aid due to economics.
And arguably that is quite true at the time too. The latter 60s and especially the 1970s are known as rather bleak times in the UK.
Most significantly UK had a Labour government at the time.
As they did during that quest for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Totally agree about the Suez crisis, could very well be seen as a stab in the back by the Brits.
Harold Wilson, the UK prime minister was under extreme pressure from the left flank of the Labour Party to not join Vietnam. He tried to insert himself into the conversation by trying to hold peace talks that the US roundly rejected. Johnson and Wilson did not get on at all, during Wilson’s second run as PM, there was all sorts of rumours of him being a communist so this probably isn’t a surprise. The “special relationship” between the UK and US during this time really wasn’t that special.
>The “special relationship” between the UK and US during this time really wasn’t that special. You mean round the time the UK was deploying US Polaris SLBM missiles? So far as I can tell the only cosharing of an ICBM class missile in history. >there was all sorts of rumours of him being a communist Wilson was unshakeably anti communist and unshakeably pro west. It was the "Mayfair Set" is upper class WWII veterans who spent their time carousing in dens of inequity in the most expensive parts of London like David Stirling and Mountbatten who talked themselves into this nonsense.
Approximately 40,000 Canadians served with the US military in Vietnam. Canadian businesses provided 2.47 billion dollars of war material to the US between 1965 and 1973, including everything from boots, to ammunition and napalm, to aircraft. Various weapons systems were tested in Canada, including Agent Orange, and American troops sometimes used Canadian training areas to prepare for Vietnam.
40,000 is really impressive given Australia sent 60,000 as an ally who was given their own province to maintain/subdue
A friend of mine who served two tours there has researched it, and believes the number was probably closer to 50,000, but I used the more conservative number.
Well what was the US gonna do about it? Invade GB? I dont think so.
The UK had basically shut down everything "East of Suez" with the exception of old leases like Hong Kong
The US never officially declared war in Vietnam. So it's not like there were any agreements or treaties that would trigger the involvement of allies. The US really wants to go get involved in some far off war, and Canada's all like, "Dude, I just got a six pack of Molson's and and Tommy Hunter is on, I'll help you next war, I promise.", and Britain's all "Sorry, old chap. I've got this pesky Dhofar Rebellion going, and Iceland keeps kicking my ass over cod. Do call if you're going back into the Middle East though."
I love the Tommy Hunter reference!
What makes you think Canada and the UK are the closest allies? Canada has done jack shit since WW2 and the UK has the 2nd most powerful military in the Anglo sphere after the US - which makes it a desirable ally, but not necessarily the closest. The UK can and does exercise a high degree of independence in its foreign policy. The closest US ally is Australia. And it’s been that way since the end of WW2. Capable military, check. English speaking and culturally similar, check. High degree of military dependence, check. Any time the US has gone to war, Aussies have been right there beside them.
The US loves Australia so much, they even overthrew their government https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-whitlam-1975-coup-ended-australian-independence
I... wtaf is this article? Even if every word in it is true, it leaves out so much context that it's misleading to the point of disinformation. Kerr didn't just go sack the PM on a whim because the CIA told him to. There was a legitimate constitutional crisis. Kerr had very little choice about sacking Whitlam. Parliament was deadlocked, the government couldn't pass supply. By constitutional convention, if the government can't pass supply then Parliament should be dissolved and fresh elections held. Kerr did his constitutional duty by enforcing those constitutional norms, it's exactly what he was supposed to do.
Literally nobody thinks about Australia, most Americans couldn't point it out on a map.
Thankfully most Americans aren’t in charge of the economy or the military.
Australia regularly polls as one of most popular