Additional belligerents in the Vietnam War?

[Reflection]

The main participants in the Vietnam War obviously were South Vietnam and the United States, against North Vietnam and the Viet Cong with extensive aid and covert military operations done by the Soviet Union. Additional belligerents on the anti-communist side include South Korea, Laos, the Khmer Republic, Australia and New Zealand, while on the pro-communist side there was China, Pathet Lao, Khmer Rouge, GRUNK and North Korea. But I wonder, could more nations have feasible participated in the war, and would this change any overall outcomes?

In particular, I can see the members of NATO like the United Kingdom, France and West Germany sending troops in support of the US (in particular, remember that the French Indochina War had begun this whole debacle to begin with). It probably wouldn't be nearly as many as what the US had invested and likely all would be volunteers, but it may be good for the extra support and not having to exhaust their own resources as much (which may be a good PR move back home). For the pro-communists, I can see the Warsaw Pact nations taking a more active role in assisting the NVA, and maybe taking part in joint military operations (most likely covert, and when possible, avoiding direct battle with America itself and focusing elsewhere). I could also see Cuba sending troops here, like they would in Angola.

But that's just really off the top of my head, as someone who is admittedly not an expert of geopolitics of the time. Was there any likelihood of additional belligerents in this war?

 

[marathag]

For the pro-communists, I can see the Warsaw Pact nations taking a more active role in assisting the NVA

WP shipped in a lot of aid, military and otherwise as it was

 

[SuperSniperSipperSlippers]

Canada would be quite likely to send troops to Vietnam if the conditions are right. Canada was generally not interested in fighting abroad, especially in any colonial wars. But with such a close alliance to the United States it's far from impossible, but the lead up to the war would have to be different. Canada was quite isolationist after the Second World War and had little connection to Asia, but we fought in Korea. If the war can be justified through the UN or some other multilateral treaty Canada might be convinced to join.

 

[Monk78]

Indonesia should have sent troops to fight communists

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Taiwan, maybe, unless that draws China's ire.

France wouldn't want to be there again but maybe they could lend out the Foreign Legion and any intelligence assets?

 

[Gillan1220]

Malaysia could send troops since they just came off the Malayan Emergency.

Taiwan, maybe, unless that draws China's ire.

Hence why Taiwan's support to the RVN was only limited to the medical aspect.

I could also see Cuba sending troops here, like they would in Angola.

Cuba did send some limited support. The problem here is that Vietnam is too far for the Cubans to project a significant force. Not to mention, the seas between Vietnam are directly controlled by the USN who had a major base at Subic in the Philippines.

 

[Basils]

Things spill into Cambodia earlier than otl and Thailand gets involved

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Thailand was heavily involved OTL, they sent a few divisions to South Vietnam and had American combat aircraft regularly basing themselves there, especially at U-Tapao.

 

[gladiator8085]

Malaysia could send troops since they just came off the Malayan Emergency.

Hence why Taiwan's support to the RVN was only limited to the medical aspect.

Cuba did send some limited support. The problem here is that Vietnam is too far for the Cubans to project a significant force. Not to mention, the seas between Vietnam are directly controlled by the USN who had a major base at Subic in the Philippines.

What if the Cubans sent more support/troops on Soviet flagged ships.

 

[vizzer]

Indonesia should have sent troops to fight communists

Weren't they involved in the Confrontation with the British at the time, at least until 1965, over the formation of Malaysia?
It does at least mean they have some troops experienced in long range patrols in jungle conditions.

 

[Basils]

Thailand was heavily involved OTL, they sent a few divisions to South Vietnam and had American combat aircraft regularly basing themselves there, especially at U-Tapao.

I said earlier. The thais really weren’t there til 69 and 70

 

[Gillan1220]

What if the Cubans sent more support/troops on Soviet flagged ships.

Possibly yeah and fly flag of convenience on those ships. But again due to the distance, the support may be limited. Angola was easier for the Cubans to reach rather than Vietnam especially with the USN patrolling the seas between Guam, Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines.

Weren't they involved in the Confrontation with the British at the time, at least until 1965, over the formation of Malaysia?
It does at least mean they have some troops experienced in long range patrols in jungle conditions.

Yes they were so the Indonesians were busy. Not to mention, the Indonesians have good relations with the USSR on top being supplied with Soviet warships, submarines, and Tu-16 bombers. The Indonesians would not intervene in Vietnam as not to jeopardize relations with the Soviets. In addition, the Indonesians may see the Vietnamese as not so different in fighting against foreigners just like they did in the early post-WWII years.

 

[Masteroftheuniverse]

Britain might have sent troops if Hugh Gaitskell had lived or if the Conservatives had won the 1964 election. The Americans were willing to offer a lot of economic assistance in return but Wilson refused, in large part because he knew the war would be unpopular.

 

[Quintuplicate]

Australia

What other participants in the Vietnam War had the draft and sent draftees to fight in it?

 

[Dr Dee]

Britain might have sent troops if Hugh Gaitskell had lived or if the Conservatives had won the 1964 election. The Americans were willing to offer a lot of economic assistance in return but Wilson refused, in large part because he knew the war would be unpopular.

I’ve heard British non-involvement was basically a ‘screw you’ directed at Washington for screwing over the UK because of Suez. Is that true or partly true?

 

[Gillan1220]

I’ve heard British non-involvement was basically a ‘screw you’ directed at Washington for screwing over the UK because of Suez. Is that true or partly true?

Or the UK was still recovering from the Malayan Emergency. This period also saw many African colonies under the UK declare independence.

 

[Reflection]

Or the UK was still recovering from the Malayan Emergency. This period also saw many African colonies under the UK declare independence.

When you put it that way, the lack of European involvement is starting to make a lot of sense. I think this may be another reason why France didn't send any troops or support to Vietnam, on top of the Indochina War being a recent disaster, they were also just coming off another war that ended badly for them: Algeria. I think getting involved in a new war after that was low on the priority list for Britain and France at this time.

That said, what about West Germany? Was there any real chance they could've gotten involved as quite possibly America's closest ally in Continental Europe? They hadn't had any major wars going on at the time, so were pretty good manpower and technology wise. The main hurdle could go twofold: One is that the Germans still remember World War II very recently then and memories of the Nazis might make them not want to take part in a violent war, and on the opposite end, people abroad in Vietnam, Cambodia and the like may not trust them either because, again, World War II was a very recent memory at the time. But were these reasons big enough for West Germany not to take part, or was there any other reason?

 

[marathag]

I’ve heard British non-involvement was basically a ‘screw you’ directed at Washington for screwing over the UK because of Suez. Is that true or partly true?

but new administration in DC. What better way to reset the board?

 

[Gillan1220]

That said, what about West Germany? Was there any real chance they could've gotten involved as quite possibly America's closest ally in Continental Europe? They hadn't had any major wars going on at the time, so were pretty good manpower and technology wise. The main hurdle could go twofold: One is that the Germans still remember World War II very recently then and memories of the Nazis might make them not want to take part in a violent war, and on the opposite end, people abroad in Vietnam, Cambodia and the like may not trust them either because, again, World War II was a very recent memory at the time. But were these reasons big enough for West Germany not to take part, or was there any other reason?

I know Germany was involved in Afghanistan and Syria recently so they could have technically sent troops to Vietnam. The Bundeswehr was involved in the Korean War, correct?

Is there a law in Germany that cannot deploy overseas or declare war unless attacked first like Article 9 for Japan?

Aside from the stigma of the Reich, I also think that every soldier was needed in West Germany just in case the Soviets and their Warsaw Pact allies come thundering past the Iron Curtain.

 

[naraic]

I’ve heard British non-involvement was basically a ‘screw you’ directed at Washington for screwing over the UK because of Suez. Is that true or partly true?

I'm sure the Suez didn't help things. No matter what there wouldn't have been a large deployment.

British involvement had it happened would have been tiny. I suspect a few hundred veterans of the Malayan emergency offering training for a few months before NIH kicked in and the Americans decided that they didn't want British trainers.