Skip to main content

Why did Australia become involved in the Vietnam War?

There are two main reasons why Australia got involved in the Vietnam War.  The first had to do with preventing the spread of communism while the second had to do with Australia’s relationship with the United States.


In the 1960s, the United States was Australia’s most important geopolitical ally. This was during the Cold War and the US was the leader of the “free world.”  Australia was on the side of the US.  This meant that the country would be inclined to follow American policies in most cases.  Australia felt that it was important to get involved in Vietnam, in part because they were following America’s lead.


However, Australia might well have gotten involved in Vietnam even if the US had not wanted them to.  This was because Australia was a staunchly anticommunist country.  Australia was fully committed to democracy and capitalism and did not want communism to spread around the world.  Moreover, since Vietnam is much closer to Australia than to the US, Vietnam’s fate was much more important to Australia.  If Vietnam became communist, thereby causing all of Southeast Asia to do the same (domino theory), Australia’s security would be imperiled.  For this reason, Australia was just as (and perhaps more) motivated to fight in Vietnam as the US was.


Australia got involved in Vietnam, then, because its major world ally did and, more importantly, because it felt that its security would be threatened if communism spread further throughout the region.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more