Unit 4 Outcome 2 Attitudes to the Vietnam War – 1965 and ... - HTAV

Unit 4
Outcome 2
REVISION LECTURE
Debating Australia’s
future 1960 - 2000
Attitudes to the Vietnam
War – 1965 and 1970
Jo Leech
Carey BGS

“Vietnam War Waste of time How much stress
did it cause”
“Conscription. after being introduced in 1964,
civilisation went downhill..”
“..a group of kids in tie-dyed t-shirts wanted
peace..”
“There were presidents coming to visit Australia
like ‘All the Way with LBJ’.. He came in 1967 (I
think) and Holt drowned in the surf off the
Australian coast..”
“The debate on why do we need to send men
over to fight once again started up when they
have already done it like twice before. Who
would want to go and fight again I know I
wouldn’t..”

They wouldn’t cancel classes – this person
needs to grow up
If you have a whinge about the Moratorium
then think of all the people dying in
Vietnam
The changing of attitudes – was amazing
They didn’t see this war as some little easy
war to win
Initially fathers were proud to ship off their
lazy sons to do something useful
The attitude of this person is angry

This outlines that Calwell has warned the government
that their decision is both insane and inhumane
The main attitudes of the time were small and narrow
This happened because of the influence of sex, drugs
and rock and roll, and also in 1967, the summer of love…
Most people thought that Vietnam was a tropical
paradise where they would be sipping cocktails and
laying about on the beach
SOS – mothers who did not like the war – got hammered
by the press
His point is made clear as he uses techniques to argue
his view
… and yeah that’s the end

Mum and Dad and Denny saw the passing out parade at Puckapunyal
(1t was long march from cadets).
The sixth battalion was the next to tour and It was me who drew the card.
We did Canungra and Shoalwater before we left.
Chorus I:
And Townsville lined the footpath as we marched down to the quay.
This clipping from the paper shows us young and strong and clean.
And there's me in my slouch hat with my SLR and greens.
God help me, I was only nineteen.
From Vung Tau riding Chinooks to the dust at Nui Dat,
I'd been in and out of choppers now for months.
But we made our tents a home. V.B. and pinups on the lockers,
And an Asian orange sunset through the scrub.
Chorus 2:
And can you tell me, doctor, why I still can't get to sleep
And night time's just a jungle dark and a barking M.16
And what's this rash that comes and goes, can you tell me what it means
God help me, I was only nineteen.
A four week operation, when each step can mean your last one
On two legs: it was a war within yourself.
But you wouldn't let your mates down 'til they had you dusted off,
So you closed your eyes and thought about something else.
Chorus 3:
Then someone yelled out "Contact"', and the bloke behind me swore.
We hooked in there for hours, then a God almighty roar.
Frankie kicked a mine the day that mankind kicked the moon.
God help me, he was going home in June.
1 can still see Frankie, drinking tinnies in the Grand Hotel
On a thirty-six hour rec. leave in Vung Tau.
And I can still hear Frankie, lying screaming in the jungle.
'Till the morphine came and killed the bloody row
Chorus 4:
And the Anzac legends didn't mention mud and blood and tears.
And stories that my father told me never seemed quite real
I caught some pieces In my back that I didn't even feel.
God help me, I was only nineteen.
Chorus 5:
And can you tell me, doctor, why I still can't get to sleep
And why the Channel Seven chopper chills me to my feet
And what's this rash that comes and goes, can you tell me what it means
God help me, I was only nineteen.

Imagining Australia - Ch 11 - Mirams, Davidson,
Gordon
Unity and Diversity – Ch 7 – Darlington (out of
print)
Debating Australia’s Future 1960 – 2000: Vietnam
– Leech (HTAV)
Australia’s Vietnam War in History and Memory –
(eds) Cook, Peter and Manning, Corinne (out of
print)
Case Studies in Australian History – (ed) Stewart,
David
Home Fronts at War – Lewis, R and Gurry, L
Vietnam: The Australian War – Ham, P

1. A range of attitudes at each point in
time
2. The connection between the two
significant points in time
3. The degree of change in attitudes
between the two significant points and
the reasons for any change

Explain the historical issues covered in the key
knowledge
Apply historical concepts related to the period (1960
– 2000)
Analyse and evaluate written and historical
evidence
Synthesis 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

Attitudes to issues:
A range of attitudes at each point in
time.
1965 1970
• Pro/anti war
• Pro/anti conscription
• Alliance with U.S.
• Pro/anti communism
(domino theory)
• SEATO
• Pro/anti war
• Pro/anti conscription
• Pro/anti moratorium
• Bring troops home

The connection between the two
significant points in time.
Whose attitudes and what issues changed
and why and what stayed the same
For example : The Age newspaper changes views
The Gallup Polls show the public shifting opinions

The degree of change in attitudes
between the two significant points
and the reasons for any change
66 – 67 – 68 - 69
•Anti authoritarian – first time people publicly spoke out against government decisions (formation
of groups eg; S.O.S.)
•People began to mistrust the government and their decisions
•Influence of the media – people had seen the unjust and killings of Sth Vietnamese on TV – this
had never happened before (over the period of time of the war)
•Soldiers made their own movies/videos & took photos which were viewed back at home
•By 1970 friends had been called up & people aware of the unfair system – public demonstrations
were being held
•The length of the war – soldiers coming home injured or not, having been killed

Worth 20 marks – try and do in 30 minutes
Analysis of one document either point in
time
The questions will remain the same
Each questions will link to a dot point
Insert that you will be able to remove
There will be lines allocated to give you an
idea about how much to write
Focus will be on attitudes and change over
time
Leave a line between each question – 1,2,3

EXAM Task:-
consist of a document visual or written from either
one of the key date points
Answer 3 questions – students already know
Identification of the attitudes reflected in the
representation. Use evidence from the representation
to support your comments (4 marks)
Evaluation of the degree to which the representation
reflects attitudes about the issue you have studied as
that particular point of time (8 marks)
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)

Qu 1 - Identification of the ideas and values
reflected in the representation and
Qu 2 - Evaluation of the degree to which the
representation reflects the prevailing events,
ideas and values and attitudes reflected by this
group and how this is similar or different to
others of the same date period
Qu 3 - and then compare with itself in the other
date period

1965
1. Pro/anti war
2. Pro/anti
conscription
3. Alliance with U.S.
4. Pro/anti
communism
(domino theory)
5. SEATO
1970
1. Pro/anti war
2. Pro/anti
conscription
3. Pro/anti
moratorium
4. Bring troops
home
In no specific
order

•the nature of the Vietnam
War, and consequently
whether or not Australia
should be involved in that
war
• compulsory conscription,
particularly for overseas
service.

o
o
o
o
o
o
US support
Australia’s involvement Communism (fear of)
Govt. making
decisions
Conscription Issue
Public Opinion questions decisions
expected to be heard
Reasons for Australia pulling out of Vietnam when they
do;
Public opinion
TV
Government
Returned Soldiers
Vietnam Veterans treatment

Anti – communist – fear of domino affect
(personal views and pressure spread by
media and government)
Support the US
Support Australia – save Australia
Heroic
Freedom, travel (O.S.), adventure
Older generation support war – out of
WWII tradition, – initially encourage sons
etc.

Conscription had been discussed in
Australia previously in 1903, 1909- 1910, 1916
-1917, 1949 – 1959
Conscription was announced by govt. 1964
Conscription was actively introduced in
Australia in 1965 until 1972
All 20 year old men were to register
1966 – first conscripted soldiers sent to
Vietnam

Uni-students
Pacifists
Resisters (Draft Resistance Movement)
Anti-war
Unemployed
SOS – Save our Sons – eg: Jean Maclean
Housewives and mothers etc.
Arthur Calwell (Labour)
YCAC – Youth Campaign Against Conscription
Conscientious Objectors – took out anger on
returned soldiers

Anti authoritarian – first time people publicly spoke
out against government decisions
People began to mistrust the government and their
decisions
Influence of the media – people had seen the unjust
and killings of Sth Vietnamese on TV – this had never
happened before
Soldiers made their own movies/videos & took
photos which were viewed back at home
By 1970 friends had been called up & people aware
of the unfair system – public demonstrations were
being held
The length of the war – soldiers coming home injured
or not, having begin killed

When more was known about the Vietnam War and its causes,
people began to resent the fact that Australia was involved. This
feeling consequently made the Vietnam War an unpopular war.
The Australian public were very much opposed to being involved
in this war as many began to think that it was a civil war and
Australia had no reason to be there. Opposition to the war grew
in 1967 and a strong anti-Vietnam War movement began to
develop in 1968. Even though most Australians were against
communism, more and more people began to join the anti-war
movement as it became increasingly obvious that the war was
going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to win. Students from
high schools and universities began to join the anti-Vietnam War
campaign. Public protests saw young conscripts burn their draft
notices and some refused to register at all. The media started to
get involved and began to push for an end to Australian
involvement in the war. The public then started showing hostility
to soldiers.

1930 the first moratorium took place in
Australia
May 1970 – Australian’s protested
government policies about involvement in &
conscription of armed forces (200,000 people
participated)
September 1970 and June 1971
AIM – all business brought to a halt while
marches, rallies & meetings were held in
towns, suburbs and major cities
The moratorium itself became an issue
People who opposed it – feared violence

1970 September Moratorium – same aims as
May, but different reaction – only 40,000 –
50,000 people attended with incidents of
violence
By 1970 people who had not registered for
conscription had broken the law, people
supporting them also broken the law
People who marched were registering their
interest, in what was going on

Vietnam Moratorium – did not bring about
immediate change in government policy
It revealed opposition to war & conscription
Reflection – change taken place between
1965 and 1970 in Australia
People started questioning the government
and their decisions
In 1965 people supported war and
conscription – by 1970 they didn’t and they
were more interested in the issues

1965
Australian advisers
increased to 100
1 st American
combat troops
Menzies
announced 29 th
April compulsory
national service
1970
April – Prime
Minister Gorton –
reduction of
Australian troops
Australia reached
peak with large
moratorium rallies
Some conclusions:
•Vietnam Moratorium – did not bring about immediate change in government policy
•It revealed opposition to war & conscription
•Reflection – change taken place between 1965 and 1970
•In 1964 people supported war and conscription – by 1970 they didn’t and they were more
interested in the issues

PRO-GOVERNMENT
Gallup Poll – 69% support
conscription, 56%
support deployment
Santamaria likened
threat to ‘that with which
Hitler confronted Europe’
‘no choice but to
respond as we have’ –
The Age
Isi Leiber, Brisbane
Archbishop Phillip Strong
ANTI-GOVERNMENT
‘We oppose it firmly and
completely’ – Arthur
Calwell
‘Lottery of death’ –
Calwell
‘Decision we may live to
regret’ – The Australian
Anglican bishops wrote
to Menzies ‘concerned
that we be seen to be
taking positive steps with
others’
SOS, YCAC, Rev Allen
Walker, Morris West
(Catholic)

PRO-GOVERNMENT
ANTI-GOVERNMENT
‘Political bikies packraping
democracy’ – Billy
Snedden
‘Miracle for there not to be
a blue’ – Santamaria
Majority of Australian
National University students
supported the Government
Gorton called on Labor to
disavow Jim Cairns for
‘anarchy’
Gallup Poll – 55% support
conscription
‘It is time to end trying to
save face and start trying
to save lives’ – Whitlam
‘Renewed democracy
rather than raped it’ – The
Age
‘Victor was Australian
democracy’ – The Sun
‘Involvement in Vietnam is
wrong and immorally
based’ – Brian Ross (d.r.)
From September 1969 the
majority of Australians
supported withdrawal

Anti War
The Australian (newspaper)
Changes view to pro-war in 1965
“The Menzies Government has
made a reckless decision on
Vietnam which this nation may
live to regret.”
“It has decided to send Australian
soldiers into a savage,
revolutionary war in which the
Americans are grievously
involved.” – The Australian, 1965.
Pro War
The Age (newspaper, anti-war all the
time until the Moratorium)
“There is clearly a United States call to
share, even in a small way, more of the
burdens...”
“[Conscription is]… part of the price
the nation has to pay… to defend itself
and to protect its vital interests
abroad” Editorial, 1965
There was on alternative but to
respond how we have.” – The Age, 30
April 1965.
The Sydney Morning Herald
“The war against communist
aggression in Vietnam is in a very real
and direct sense Australia’s war”
Editorial, 1965
“As a member of SEATO Australia has a
treaty responsibility to help the
defence of South Vietnam”

Anti War and Pro Moratorium and Bring Troops Home
Pro War and Anti Moratorium
All Newspapers – The Age and the Sydney Morning
Herald and the Melbourne Herald switched their
stance post-Moratorium
Newspapers (Melbourne Herald, The Age,
Sydney Morning Herald) BEFORE the
Moratorium
Before the Moratorium, all the newspapers were prowar,
pro-US and pro-conscription. However, following
the resounding success of the Moratorium and
display of public opinion against the war, from 9 May
1970 onwards, they shifted their stances and became
anti-war, anti-conscription and pro-moratorium.
26 May – The Herald: “Many Australians share the
abhorrence that Cairns and his group feel for the
Vietnam War and resent the conscription required to
fill Australian ranks in a doubtful cause.”
Melbourne Herald referred to the moratorium
as “dangerous tactics” that “must be
repudiated.”
“To break the law because they dislike
something the Government has done after
being elected by a majority”
“Civil disorder and encourage[d]
breaking the law”
The Age, after the Moratorium, referred to the antiwar
movement as “a legitimate expression” of anger
about the government’s approach in Vietnam.
The Age, 9 May 1970: “The hysterical predictions of
violence from government leaders showed that they
did not understand the people they govern.”
“70,000 citizens took to Melbourne streets
yesterday, shouting ‘Peace’, ‘Stop the war’” The
Age
Editorial from the Australian Financial Review,
7 April 1970,
Support of National Service, yet asks for
“care” to be taken – “A national government
has to think with extra care about how it
commits a conscripted force at to what
national purpose.”

Australian Gallop Polls
May 1965 – April 1969
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969
Approve
(increase or/
& continue)
Disapprove
(bring back)
Undecided
May July Sept
%
52 59 56
37 27 28
11 14 16
Sept
%
61
21
12
May Sept Dec
%
62 55 63
24 29 24
14 16 13
Dec
%
49
37
14
April
%
48
40
12

POLITICS
Liberal Party
• 1965 – Menzies (PM)
• 1966-67 – Harold Holt
“all the way with
LBJ”
• 1967-68 – McEwen
• 1968-71 – John
Gorton (PM) – “Bring
troops home”
(announces this)
• 1971-72 – William
McMahon
• 1972 – Gough
Whitlam (ALP)
elected.
Labor Party
(Opposition)
• 1965-67 – Arthur
Calwell Opposition
Leader.
• 1967-72 – Gough
Whitlam, ALP
Opposition Leader.
• 1972 – Gough
Whitlam became
PM.
- Ends conscription
- Brings all remaining
troops home.
Victorian State Politics
• Sir Henry Bolte –
Liberal Party,
Victorian Premier
throughout the war
until 1972.
• Jim Cairns, ALP from
Victoria (but in
Federal Parliament)
– Leader of the
Vietnam Moratorium
Movement.

1949 – 1966 R.G. Menzies – Liberal
1966 – 1967 H. Holt – Liberal
1967 – 1968 J. McEwan – Liberal
1968 – 1971 J. Gorton – Liberal
1971 – 1972 W. McMahon - Liberal

Dr Jim Cairns
(former
policeman
and Deputy
Prime Minister)
at the Anti-
Vietnam War
Moratorium
“The first mass Vietnam
War moratorium rallies
occurred in 1970. Cairns
called for the people of
Australia to come out
onto the streets and
march peacefully against
involvement in the war. In
every capital city in
Australia people turned
out in the tens of
thousands - young, old,
rich, poor, workers and
even bosses. It was a
national mobilisation that
shook the Australian
establishment. Cairns
was the inspiration, the
titular head and the main
spokesman for this
unique movement”.
T.Uren 13.10.03

DO NOT
Don’t give a narrative (eg: don’t tell a
story)
Don’t give a general account of
participation in the period in general
Don’t use evidence that doesn’t relate
Don’t write in point form
Answer the questions being asked

Task:-
consist of a document visual or written from either
one of the years 1965 and 1970
Answer 3 questions – students already know
Identification of the attitudes reflected in the
representation. Use evidence from the
representation to support your comments (4 marks)
Evaluation of the degree to which the representation
reflects attitudes about the issue you have studied as
that particular point of time (8 marks)
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)

Qu 3 - Changing attitudes in society between
1965 and 1970 – what’s changed during the
Vietnam War Need to understand the main
ideas and values of the various groups who
were involved in the debates and issues of
the Vietnam War – eg; pro and anti war and
conscription
Need to write from an Australian perspective
Try and include quotes and visual
representations which support your ideas
Qu 2 & 3 - Need to understand more than just
one group or one issue – what changed and
why it changed between 1965 and 1970

Show an understanding of the range of attitudes
IMPACT
CHANGE – the degree
CONNECTION
Tell context; eg: dates
Use specific evidence & analyse evidence
Conclusion – relate back to the question
Analyse and COMPARE – groups, ideas, values
etc.
Synthesise
KEY CONCEPTS – construction of the argument
Ideas and values of the range of attitudes
Present material – don’t give a narrative
Don’t write in point form
Refer to the sources and link to other sources

This visual is 1965 – Pro War – Pro US – Pro Conscription

The graphic from the Australian, June 14, 1965, is an interesting window of time and much can be gleaned from it. It
showed the key attitudes that were present in 1965. However, to gain a more complete picture of the “Vietnam Era” it is
necessary to look at another point in time, 1970, to see the full extent of the attitudes present during this elusive period.
Thus we take a look forward to 1970 to see how they key attitudes of this document changed.
This graphic raises many key attitudes of the time in 1965. The graphic shows that it was anti-communist and pro-war. By
the use of the words “a murkey shadow” it can be noted that communism was considered a threat and a shadow that
had befallen on the US and was reaching “to our very shores” (Menzies). The graphic points out that considered a threat
to Australia by communism, being linked to America and he further illustrated this in his speech to Parliament (1965) that
“we have recognised that aggressive communist exists…and we are going to fight side by side with our great American
allies”. The graphic also highlights the “expansionist communism” fears of the time (Bottom, faithful alley) and that the
Domino Theory was a reason and justification for “Australia’s intervention to the war: (Curthoys), it also shows the US-
Australian alliance in 1965 and the changes of Communism, coming from Vietnam to Australia.
Though the graphic shows many key attitudes of 1965 towards the Vietnam Conflict, it fails to show the full extent of
attitudes. It fails to show the minority that were against the war such as the Australian’s claim that “the Menzies
government has made a reckless decision” (1965) and “the outspoken Calwell” (Bolton) who asked the Australian people
not to cast a “blood vote” for “the Holt government and a conscription” (Frame 05). It also doesn’t show that despite the
majority support for the Vietnam War, many such as the “Vietnam Generation” claiming that Australia should not go to
war and had not political obligation.
By the 1970s many events took place to change the views soon in the graphic and strengthen the views against war. In
1968, the Tet Offensive which was a major communist insurgency in Vietnam occurred and despite its outcome, had
psychological and political effects which were devastating to the US and Australia. The hackneyed term “light at the end
of the tunnel” was used so much that Australians began to question the motives of Australians going to war. The issue of
conscription in 1965 by the Menzies Government also had effects which changed the attitudes of the Australian public.
Generational change was another factor which changed views, and a new generation emerged and was questioning of
government motives. Curthoys argues that the “upsetting” images of ….. from media and TV served to make people more
aware. By 1970 most people had turned against the war (just after the US) and attitudes had changed, an example of
those being the moratoriums with Jim Cairns.
The graphic of 1965 is a valuable “window of time”,(E H Carr) and serves of an interest however, to gain a more complete
picture the study of change and another point in time such as 1970 (Moratoriums) is needed so that the Vietnam era is
shown in more complexity and detail and that we can gain a better understanding.

This written source is 1970 – Anti War – Pro Moratorium –
Bring troops home

This written source is 1965 – Anti War – Anti Conscription

The Source is – 1970 – anti- war , pro moratorium and bring
troops home

The Source is – 1970 – anti- war , pro moratorium and bring
troops home

The decision by the Australian Government to send a battalion to South
Vietnam is a grave one and commits Australia to a more direct role in
this cockpit of war where the conflict of power between Communist
China and the West in South-East Asia has been joined . . .
These are inescapable obligations which fall on us because of our
geographical position, our treaty commitments and our friendships. They
cannot be sidestepped if we are to give any meaning to our place in
ANZUS, SEATO and the Commonwealth of Nations . . .
In his statement to Parliament, Sir Robert underlined the assessments
made earlier in the year by Mr Hasluck when he nominated Vietnam as
the primary area of danger in South-East Asia. He sees it as “part of a
thrust by Communist China between the Indian and Pacific oceans”, and
warns that a take-over of South Vietnam would be a direct military threat
to Australia and all the countries of South-East Asia.
The Age, 30 April 1965 (Editorial)
-
The Source is – 1965 – pro- war, pro- SEATO, domino thoery

THE HYSTERIA which has been built around today’s events in the
Vietnam moratorium Campaign by its opponents was brought to
a fitting climax yesterday by the Minister for Labor and National
Service, Mr Sneddon. His Task in parliament of “Political bikies
pack-raping democracy” was grotesque vulgarity from a man
who saw himself as a Prime Minister only a short time ago.
Continued with three more paragraphs from the extract…
Editorial: The Australian, 8 May 1970

“I subscribe to the domino theory … because I
believe it is obvious …that is 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

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 proconscription.
Menzies’ is explicit when he states “I
subscribe to the domino theory”.

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.

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
Labour politicians for example Jim Cairns, who spoke for and promoted the 1970
May Moratorium. Likewise in 1970 Labour 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.

- However
- Nevertheless
- Although
- On the contrary
- Nonetheless
- Juxtaposed
- Contrastingly
- Despite this
- Conversely
- Similarly
- Alternatively
- In addition to this
- In contrast to
- Moreover
- On the other hand
- Furthermore
- Likewise
- Thus
- Hence
- In turn
- To a degree
- To some extent
- In sprite of this
- Whilst
- Then again
- Regardless of
Whereas

• Between 1965 – 1971 : 46882
Australians served in Vietnam
• 1967 : 8000 served at one time
• 494 died
• 2398 wounded
• Many conscripts (served army for 2
years)
11 years – 58, 000 Australians fought and 504 were lost – Ref: Vietnam
Veterans

12,000 helicopters used
Agent orange (90 million gallons sprayed by US – to kill jungle etc)
___________________________________
12 months duty – exposed to danger for 10 months
Always carried weapons
Veterans returned at different times
Came back at night – no protestors around
Told to change out of their uniforms – rejected by the army,
RSL, friends and had trouble adjusting to family life again
Not acknowledged & and a lot went “bush”
Last Australian troops were out in 1973
Welcome home – in 1987 – Sydney – Vietnam Veterans had to
organise this themselves
Government only started to support Vietnam Veterans more recently
- as
suicide and divorce rate was very high for returned soldiers

The Odd Angry Shot (Australian version )
Air America
Born on the Fourth of July
Casualties of War
The Deer Hunter
Full Metal Jacket
Good Morning, Vietnam
Platoon
Sword of Honour (mini-series)

Cartoons of five young men,
dressed in clothes associated with
their careers; a doctor in a white
coat with a stethoscope in his
pocket, a lawyer wearing a cloak
and wig, a mechanic and a
businessman in a suit. The fifth
man wears an Army uniform and is
a conscript. The accompanying
text calls for the abolition of
conscription.

A text poster soliciting
support for the May 1970
Moratorium, illustrated with
a photograph of an
American soldier holding
up the remains of a
Vietnamese child killed
during the My Lai
massacre. The poster
includes a caption from the
United States President,
Richard Nixon.

Holt calling
Cartoon by John Frith
The Herald, June 1968
Courtesy of the National
Library of Australia
Australia participated in the Vietnam
War partly because of its commitment
to halt the spread of communism in
Asia, and partly in an attempt to
maintain its alliance with the U.S.A.
The involvement of the Australian
military in the Vietnam War was to be
the longest in Australian history.
The first Australian troops arrived in
South Vietnam in July 1962. Some
50,000 Australians served in Vietnam,
including conscripts called up under
the National Service scheme
introduced by Sir Robert Menzies in
1964. Despite military successes,
notably at Long Tan, by late 1970
Australia had begun to withdraw from
Vietnam.
Frith’s cartoons on the Vietnam War
clearly reflect his sympathy for the
Australian troops. In this cartoon he
commented that in the face of
mounting opposition to Australian
involvement in Vietnam, troops were
placed in a no-win situation

National service was last
introduced in 1964 as a response to
"aggressive communism" and
"recent Indonesian policies and
actions" and a "deterioration in our
strategic position". Men aged 20
were required to serve in the army
for two years, followed by three
years in the reserve.
The policy sparked mass protests
and was opposed by the ALP at
elections in 1966, 1969 and 1972.
One of Gough Whitlam's first
actions on being elected prime
minister in 1972 was to abolish it.

Oz was a satirical magazine
begun by Richard Neville and
Richard Walsh. Martin Sharp did
many of the graphics. The first
issue appeared on April Fool's
Day 1963. Issue no. 6 (Feb. 1964)
fell foul of the censors and
Neville, Walsh and Sharp were
found guilty under the Obscene
and Indecent Publications Act.
They were sentenced to jail
terms with hard labour, a
decision quashed on appeal.
Neville and Sharp left for
England where they established
the London Oz, a much betterproduced
and altogether more
colourful publication, but this
also had its problems with the
authorities