Debating Australia’s future – attitudes to the

Vietnam War 1965-1970

Ashley WoodSt Leonard’s College

Today’s session

• Exam Section D• Review key information• Response structure• Suggestions for practice responses

Unit 4, Area of Study 2

• Debating Australia’s Future 1960-2000– Attitudes to the Vietnam War 1965 and 1970

• A range of attitudes at each point in time;• The connections between the two significant

points in time;• The degree of change in attitudes between the

two significant points and the reasons for any change

Key skills– Explain the historical issues covered in the key

knowledge– Apply historical concepts related to the period– Analyse and evaluate written and historical evidence– Synthesise material and evidence to draw

conclusions– Analyse the way that the experience of the period

(1960-2000) has been interpreted and understood over time by historians and other commentators

– Express knowledge and ideas in writing, presenting material using historical conventions such as quotations, acknowledgement of sources and a bibliography

1. A range of attitudes

• Towards:– The war– Conscription– Conscripts deployed to Vietnam

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Sep-65 Sep-66 May-67 Oct-68 Dec-68 Apr-69 Aug-69 Oct-69 Oct3 70 Oct31 70

Fight onBring backUndecided

Gallup Poll on the question ‘Fight on in Vietnam or bring forces back now?’

01020304050607080

Jun-61

Jun-62

Aug-63

Jan-64

Nov-64

Sep-65

Apr-66

Jul-66

Nov-66

Nov-67

Dec-68

Aug-69

Oct-69

Apr-70

Oct-70

ForAgainstUndecided

Gallup polls on conscription 1961-1970

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Dec-65 Feb-66 Apr-66 Jul-66 Dec-66 Aug-67

Send to VietnamKeep in Aust.Undecided

Gallup Polls on sending conscripts to Vietnam

2. The connection between the two significant points

• What happened between 1965 and 1970 that may have affected attitudes to the war? Eg…– Conscripts deployed/killed (and regulars!)– Federal election 1966– Broadening protest movement– Tet 1968– Nixon and Vietnamisation 1970

3. The degree of change in attitudes between 1965 and 1970

and the reasons for any change

• Gallup polls are a good source for statistics• Important to acknowledge that more than

40% wanted to fight on

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Sep-65 Sep-66 May-67 Oct-68 Dec-68 Apr-69 Aug-69 Oct-69 Oct3 70 Oct31 70

Fight onBring backUndecided

Gallup Poll on the question ‘Fight on in Vietnam or bring forces back now?’

Exam Section D

• 20 Marks = ¼ of the exam• 30 minutes for the response• Question does not change• Some like to do this section first in the

exam – your choice

Three paragraph response

• Separate paragraphs, but no need to number the questions – paragraph structure should be clear enough– P1: Identify the attitudes in the representation– P2: How representative is the attitude in the

representation?– P3: How does it compare with the other year?

Two broad issues

• The war and whether Australia should be involved

• Conscription, and whether conscripts should be deployed to Vietnam

Why were we there?1: Domino Theory/Fear of

communism• China 1949• Korean War 1950-53• ‘Red Menace’ 1950s

• ANZUS/SEATO• US involvement so we were obliged

Why were we there?2: Alliances/US support

Why were we there?3: ‘Brownie points’

• “Our objective should be to achieve such an habitual closeness of relations with the United States and sense of mutual alliance that in our time of need, the United States would have little option but to respond as we would want. The problem of Vietnam is one where we could without a disproportionate expenditure pick up a lot of credit with the United States.”– Allan Renouf, Australian Embassy in the US

Conscription

• Nothing new – 1911-1929, 1940-1951, 1965-1972

• “The government has therefore decided that there is no alternative to the introduction of selective compulsory service”– PM Menzies, November 1964

• PM Holt sent first conscripts to Vietnam in 1966

Opponents

• Pacifists• Resisters• SOS – Save Our Sons• YCAC – Youth Campaign Against

Conscription• Arthur Calwell – opposition leader• Conscientious objectors

Reasons

• Negative media coverage of the war• Many people by 1970 had a direct

connection to someone called up• Some began to question the reasons for

Australia’s involvement in the war

• Important point – only 1 in 3 soldiers conscripted was posted to Vietnam

Development of Australian protest movement

• Draft Resistor’s Movement 1968• ‘New Left’ groups – more radical, general

revolutionary ideas rather than specifically anti-war

• Protests more likely to turn violent – some people felt alienated by the methods

Moratorium movement

• May 1970, Melbourne• Organised by Dr Jim

Cairns• Radical groups modified

their protests• Polls suggest many

people did not support the Moratorium movement

• “The most impressive demonstration seen in Melbourne…a legitimate expression of opinion by a substantial expression of the population”

• The Age, 9 May 1970

• “The struggle in South Vietnam cannot be resolved by military measures”

• The Australian, 6 May 1970

• “To us, it seems that Dr Cairns is acting wrongly”

• The Sun, 1 May 1970

So the Moratorium movement…

• Demonstrated a new level of anti-government protest

• Brought together previously disparate groups into one organised rally

• Showed that attitudes had changed• Did not change government policy as such

Back to Section D

• Previous exams and assessor’s reports are a gold mine!

In your response

• Don’t forget the key knowledge dot points• Range of attitudes• Change of attitudes• Connection between the two points• Refer to source and link to other sources when

applicable• Think of the given source as one piece of the

jigsaw• Don’t change the structure – do what you practice!• Sample response…

Sample source and answer

• “I subscribe to the domino theory … because I believe it is obvious …that if the Vietnam War ends with some compromise that denies South Vietnam a real and protected independence, Laos and Cambodia, Thailand and Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia will be vulnerable …this domino theory … has formidable realities to Australians who see the boundaries of aggressive communism coming closer and closer”

• Menzies 1965• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates

Identification of the attitudes reflected in the representation. Use evidence from the representation to support your comments: (4 marks)

• This source, an extract from the 1965 Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates as spoken by Liberal Prime Minister Robert Menzies, on his view of the spread of communism and the ‘domino effect’. It is evident that his attitude is one which was widely held at the time, through the support for his pledging troops to support the South Vietnamese and the subsequent introduction of compulsory national service for men aged twenty. Menzies’ reference to communism as ‘aggressive’ is another indication that the attitude reflected in the source is one of anti-communism and therefore pro-war and pro-conscription. Menzies’ is explicit when he states “I subscribe to the domino theory”.

Evaluation of the degree to which the representation reflects attitudes about the issue you have studied as that particular

point of time: (8 marks)• In 1965 most Australians supported conscription, and the war. Comments like

the ones made by Menzies in the above source were largely accepted by the public, and emulated by most print media forms. For example The Age stated that there was “no alternative to respond as we have”, clearly a supporter of Menzies who has previously been known to say that The Age was his favourite paper. Religious groups however, were divided in their opinions, for example the Catholic B.A. Santamaria likened Australian responsibility in Vietnam to the responsibility of fighting Hitler, while the Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane, Phillip Strong too supported the government’s views. Isi Leiber, a Jewish man, supported Menzies’ actions as indeed did the majority of Australians in 1965. There were a number of people who disagreed for example Arthur Calwell, Labor Opposition Leader, opposed the government’s actions “firmly and completely”, while the Australian newspaper stated that Menzies had “once again shown his contempt for public opinion”. Many Anglican Archbishops wrote to Menzies in complaint of his actions, and groups such as Save Our Sons (SOS) and Youth Campaign Against Conscription (YCAC) were formed, and vocal in their opposition to ideas of Australian troops being sent to Vietnam. However, while there were many ‘smaller’ groups opposing the Prime Minister’s actions, the source itself represents the majority of Australian’s opinions at the time.

Analysis of changing attitudes towards this issue. Use evidence from the other point of time that you have studied to support your comments: (8 marks)

• Between Menzies’ speech and the May Moratorium in 1970 a number of attitudes for and against the war evolved and changed. While in 1965 the majority of Australian’s did agree with Menzies’ view on the potential spread of communism, therefore supporting Australia’s intervention in Vietnam, while in reality the majority of the population was ignorant on the actual issues relating to the war. Liberal Party propaganda was utilised throughout the war years, hinting at Australia’s susceptibility to a potential communist takeover. Groups who opposed the war, such as the SOS and YCAC, were vociferous but disparate; however by 1970 this had changed. The alteration of public attitudes were brought about by an increasing awareness of the issues for example; the length of the war, the TV media footage, Super 8 movies brought back by veterans themselves and stories told by veterans. The anti-war movement was also active after the 1966 re-election of the liberal party with the distribution of pamphlets and minor protests throughout Australian cities. By August 1969 Gallop Polls reflected that the previous 69% of Australian public support for the war had dropped to an all time low of 55%. This was possible due to the actions of various Labor politicians for example Jim Cairns, who spoke for and promoted the 1970 May Moratorium. Likewise in 1970 Labor Opposition Leader Gough Whitlam spoke that “it is time to end trying to save face and start trying to save lives”, a comment in support for the withdrawal of Australian troops. The growing collaboration between different protest groups also contributed to the change in attitude, since with coordination and visions they were able to build greater public support to the level where the May Moratorium was seen as a success. This coordination of people, that was missing in 1965, was vital with growing public awareness about the various issue involved towards Australia’s involvement in Vietnam.

A couple of useful texts…

• ‘Imagining Australia, Aust. History Units 3 & 4’ – Thomson Press– Mirams, Davidson, Gordon

• ‘Australia’s Vietnam War in History and Memory’ – La Trobe Univ.– Cook, Manning

Misguided assumptions

• ‘Everybody was anti-war’• ‘Conscription was immensely unpopular’• ‘Tet was the turning point’• ‘All protestors had the same agenda’• ‘The Moratorium movement resulted in

Australia’s withdrawal from Vietnam’