What was the cold war?

The cold war began in 1945, after the end of World War II. The term Cold War described the intense rivalry between world superpowers - the United States
and the Soviet Union. It involved the two superpowers threatening each other and supporting each of their allies with resources in skirmishes and local
conflicts. It also led to an 'arms race', where each country engaged in a competition to accumulate advanced military weapons; namely nuclear weapons.
Why was it called a 'cold' war?
This is because the two superpowers never directly fought against each other in conflict, and had only existed through wars of other countries which they
supported. If one country were to engage in war with another and one of the major superpowers were to be supporting, the opposing superpower would be
found to support the other.
Define the term 'arms race'
A head-to-head competition to see which country would be able to achieve a particular goal first.
Define the term 'brinkmanship'
It is the pursuit of a dangerous course of action with a catastrophic consequence right before backing out or pulling out of the plan.
Communism v. Capitalism
The Soviet Union was a communist state that meant the government directly owned all land, labour and capital (any resources that the country owned). Prices
in the country were fixed by state, meaning that the same product or service would essentially cost the same anywhere in the Soviet Union. The production of
goods was predetermined by fixed quotas.
The United States promoted capitalism, where prices are adjusted in accordance to supply and demand by the people of the country. This means that where
there is an abundance of goods or services, prices decreased and when there is a shortage, price increases. Governments did not interfere with private
companies or industrial production.
Propaganda and Conspiracy Theories
When the Cold War broke out in 1950, Senator Joseph McCarthy manufactured a "witch hunt" against supposed communism supporters in American society.
He invented the existence of a nation-wide communist conspiracy and accused anyone who disagreed with his anti-communism views of being a communist
themselves. People who had been to communist party meetings in the 1930s were accused of being communists. Some people, including movie actors and
directors were asked to spy on their friends to see if they were participating in any communist activities. McCarthy was supported by government officials to
support the theory that there were communists in every angle of America.
Power Struggles
Both the Soviet Union and the USA were major victors from World War II. The USSR had invaded many countries in Eastern Europe, annexed them and became
a colossal empire geographically, economically and militarily. USA had also gained from being a victor of World War II, as they had economical control over
most capitalist countries where America would help war-torn countries rebuild themselves in return for their purchase of American goods.
Proxy Wars
The following wars were direct consequences of the Cold War:
Afghanistan War - Muhaijadeen Forces against Soviet Forces
Vietnam War - South and North Vietnam
Korean War - South and North Korea
Alliances
Two major alliances were formed during the growing hostility between the two superpowers, they are:
Nato- US, Canada, Britain, Norway, Belgium, France, Portugal, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Denmark and the Netherlands
Warsaw Pact- Soviet Union, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Albania, Bulgaria, Poland and Romania
The Iron Curtain
The Iron Curtain was the term coined by Winston Churchill to describe the division of Europe between capitalist and communist countries. It was an imaginary
line that extended from Stettin in the Baltic Sea to Trieste in the Adriatic Sea.
Peaceful Co-existence
The Soviet Union granted Australia independence in 1955. That same year, US president and Soviet Premier met in Geneva to discuss the possibility of an
"open skies" agreement that would prevent a surprise attack from either side. This thaw in the US-USSR relationship was called the "Spirit of Geneva". Shortly
after the meeting, the USSR Premier announced that his army would have 640,000 soldiers cut. In the 1960s, these peaceful intentions did not continue due to
numerous confrontations between the two countries. In the 1970s, there was a period of dtente- where the tension between the two countries once again
relaxed. The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I) was signed in 1972, limiting anti-ballistic missile defence to one site for each country, and SALT II was
signed in 1979. Later that year, the peace had stopped again when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, once again sparking up some hostility from the USA.
Signification of the Cold War
International:
Conflicts arise out of the war e.g. the Korean War, Afghan War and the Vietnam War
Treaties signed - alliances formed
Rise of communism
Australia:
Involved Australia in wars because of the Cold War
Threat of communism upon Australia
Australia had wanted to strengthen ties with America
The Cold War
Wednesday, 5 February 2014
1:32 PM
History Page 1
History Page 2
Post World War II
The post-era in Australia was paradoxical in nature. Although it was a time of
economic and political stability with a prosperous new consumer class, it was also a
time of fear and tension as it had been through three long decades of depression
(Great depression 1920-1930) and conflict. The Australian way of life however did see
a shift away from political involvement, where progress was the new focus with peace
being a hopeful reality - Australians were moving to suburbia, having babies and
buying the newest electric appliances to embrace "progress".
However, this mask of domestic peace and happiness did not go without being the
undermining of a communist threat, where the 1940s and 1950s were dominated by
communist plot. Australia had feared that its society would be under threat by
communism, externally and from within. Racist propaganda was originally used in the
Second World War, labelling the Japanese as "yellow peril", and this method had
worked out well with communism as well, where it was seen as a huge threat and the
"red scum"- out to destroy the Australian way of living. Australia saw an increase in
immigrants after the second World War and such European immigrants were to warn
Australians of communism, and many people started to fear the influence of their
own native communist party - the Communist Party of Australia.
The Parties
The three major parties involved in this election were the CPA (Communist Party of
Australia), Liberal and Labor. THE CPA was banned at the outbreak of World War II
but was allowed to resume activities at the rise of Soviet Union power. Although it
continued to grow throughout the 1940s as well as being in control of a few trade
unions, this party never really bore any huge power nor threat to any other party as it
simply lacked election success.
The fear, tension and conservatism shown previously by the Australia came out to
play in the 1949 elections, where all this would be directed at the communist party in
a very negative connotation. Robert Menzies was originally leader of the United
Australia Party (UAP) but that had disbanded in 1941 due to internal cabinet
divisions. He later gathered remnants of this party as well as any other non-Labor
parties to form the New Liberal Party, He had used the political thinking and fear of
the Australians to play out in his own favour, turning the tide against 8 long years of
Labor power.
Before the Election
It was a very popular perception that the CPA were out to destabilise the country and
change the way of living forever, in a very negative way. Many had thought the
strikes affecting Australian industries in the late 1940s had communists to blame. The
Liberal tactic was to go completely anti-communism and create as much propaganda
as possible in order for the opposing two parties to go down. They had essentially hit
two birds with one stone, as when they were targeting communism as a whole, the
The 1949 Election
Wednesday, 19 February 2014
8:57 AM
History Page 3
two birds with one stone, as when they were targeting communism as a whole, the
CPA had already lost favour while highlighting a suspicious Labor policy that had
attempted to nationalised private banks - seen by the people as a sign of communist
scheming at the time. The Liberal party had used all this to their advantage, and even
previous evidence where the Australian Labor party was shown to be against the CPA
was disregarded.
International funding and support was given to the Australian Liberal party, namely
the two major anti-communist powerhouses; Britain and the United States. With this
funding, the Liberals effectively mounted a substantial propaganda operation against
Labor and communism. On the 10th of December 1949, the Liberals had won the
election with its policy to ban the CPA and any other communist groups. Labor,
partly at fault for their own defeat, had not promised to end war-time rationing,
especially on petrol.
After the Election
The growing fear of communism had led to the demise of the communist parties, as
well as the defeat of the Labor party in turn for the popularity of the Liberals. As
much as the Labor party tried to justify that there were not to be a link between
them and communism in any way, the atmosphere of the Cold War and the
propositions made by Liberals had overruled their word. Communism was bound to
be on the election agenda as Korea was on the verge of a civil war, China had
become communist and Russia had exploded its first atomic bomb. The Liberals had
successfully exploited this situation to its fullest potential, taking advantage of the
entire atmospheric situation both domestically and internationally at the given time.
The consequence of Menzies coming into power had meant that Australia would see
itself soon to be involved in many international conflicts, labelling the enemy as
"communism", whether it be North Korea or other countries.
History Page 4
The Election Promise
A promise was made that the CPA, which was a 30 year old establishment at the
time, would be banned under a Menzies government in an attempt to eradicate
communism, but this plan didn't come to much avail as banning such a party would
not have been an easy task without much help from the Commonwealth
Constitution.
Planning the Ban
The idea was to dissolve the CPA, as well as revoking rights for communists to be
given jobs by the government or being able to work a trade union/ industrial
company. However, identifying a communist was hard, so they resorted to Section
30H of the Commonwealth Crimes Act (1914), where it allowed someone to be
accused of crimes against the commonwealth, and they would be held guilty for it
unless they were able to prove that they were otherwise innocent and clean of any
communist acts.
Another problem was trying to justify why all of these measures were appropriate, so
the liberal party tried to stir up as much public opinion against communism as
possible, bringing ideas to the table such as how the CPA used disruptive tactics such
as industrial strikes. They needed to vilify the CPA as much as possible.
The bill
The Australian Communist Party Dissolution Bill 1950 said the CPA was to be
declared unlawful, their property seized and have any other affiliated parties also
disposed of along with them. Anyone who had continued any communist activities
would be jailed for 5 years. In addition, if someone were to be declared a communist
(a person who supports or advocates the objectives, policies, teachings, principles or
practices of communism), they would be suspended from jobs in the federal
government, defence forces or in the unions.
The Labor party however, did not completely like the idea of such a bill where they
believed if such a bill were to implemented, Australia would have a totalitarian state
image, revoking the basic rights and freedom of men who were accused of being a
communist. Labor said that though they would not oppose the whole bill, they would
try to amend the clauses that they thought impeded freedom and justice.
The bill failed to pass the first time around due to Labor making too many
amendments to it and the government unwilling to pass it in that form. When the
Korean war started however, it stirred up the situation to the advantage of the
government and could once again stress the dangers of communist expansion -
making this bill excusable and appropriate to be passed. It became law on 20th
October 1950.
Taking it to the High Court
The CPA unions went to the high court to ask for an injunction against the
Australia's Domestic Response to Communism
Wednesday, 19 February 2014
1:18 PM
History Page 5
The CPA unions went to the high court to ask for an injunction against the
government from putting any part of the Act into effect. That was refused, but the
government could not declare anyone a communist until the High Court could
conduct a review of it. On October 20th, the government appointed for the CPA's
property to be solved. In April 1951, after the High Court decision, Menzies forced
both houses into an election and he had now given the Liberal party control over
House and Senate.
The 1951 Referendum
In 1951, a referendum was proposed by Menzies regarding the communist act. This
act would now make CPA illegal, but not enough public voters were convinced that
their civil rights would not be taken away and thus the referendum was defeated. The
CPA, therefore, could not be banned by the federal government.
The defeat of the referendum did not however end the fear of communism, and the
1950s saw a huge increase in fears of communism where they thought communists
might be among everyone and anyone, ready to start a communist revolution. In
actual fact, the CPA had been decline for years.
History Page 6
The United Nations
21 countries that were all a part of the UN organisation were all called upon to come in aid of South Korea on June 25th 1950, where North Korea had overstepped
the 38th parallel with intent on gaining control of the entire Korean peninsula. This was when the war had officially started, with the UN aiding South Korea in an
attempt to push back the North Korean forces.
Australia's Own Situation
Australia itself had been experiencing plenty at the time, simultaneously with the invasion happening on the other side of the world. One of these events was to be
a disastrous flood in the north coast of NSW where two were killed and 9000 were left homeless. In Melbourne, there had a been a riot at a football game, calling
for the need for police brutality- using batons and pistols to suppress an angry crowd of 1000 after an attack on an umpire.
Volunteers
All 21 UN nations responded with troops, aircraft, ships, aircraft and medical teams to the situation. For the last time in Australian history, volunteers were being
used instead of conscripted recruits. Recruitment offices were initially flooded with volunteers for Korea, even given the fa ct that most Australians had not really
understood the concept of the Korean War. The UN that was less than 5 years old were the ones calling for action. Many Austr alians saw this as a chance to step up
and fight communism in the world, as it was increasingly gaining popularity as China had only recently became a communist country. Robert Menzies, PM of
Australia at the time (elected late 1949) had a vision to wipe out any communism supporters in Australia as the threat was becoming big. The involvement of
Australia in the Korean War was brought with enthusiasm, as the country stood strong on their stance against communism- an ideology being brought on by North
Korea in attempt to make the entire peninsula communist. Robert Menzies had spoke out, questioning Australia how they'd like it if Australia was a country where
the state was "all-powerful".
Incentives
The involvement in the Korean War saw opportunity for Australia to fight communism as well as strengthen their ties with the United States as they were also
involved. Australia was the first country following the US to commit units from all three military services to Korea.
Indigenous Figures
The Korean War also saw the rise to prominence of Australia's first Indigenous commissioned officer, Reg Saunders, from Portl and, WA. He had been commissioned
in the second world war and rose to being a high profile figure during the Korean War.
Obstacles
The Australian and UN forces often have a difficult time identifying and isolating the enemy. On one occasion, South Korean veteran Kim Yu Seon was serving as a
military policeman in North Korea.
Wilfred Burchett
Historian Richard Trembath seems to think that the most controversial Korean war figure was the correspondent Wilfred Burchet t. He wrote a piece of war
journalism and the fact that he chose to report from the North Korean front had him labelled as a propagandist by his country men.
Figures
From the 29th of June 1950 to 27 July 1953, some 17000 Australian sailors, soldiers and airmen served in the Korean war. Aust ralians casualties saw 339 killed, 1216
wounded and 29 prisoners of war. 43 Australian servicemen are still listed as MIA.
The End of the War
The war ended with the signing of the Armistice on the 27th of July, 1954. Australians remained in Korea and continued with a peacekeeping force until 19757.
The Korean War (1950)
Friday, 7 February 2014
11:58 AM
History Page 7
How did Australian's respond to the Korean War? It was an enthusiastic response
from the people of Australia as they had felt a passion and responsibility to defeat
communism.
Why might have Australians felt more justified in supporting the Korean War?
The Australians had a bit of an understanding towards the situation in Korea, as
opposed to prior wars such as the Vietnam War, so the involvement of Australia
would have had more background to it.
What was Australia's original commitment to the war effort in Korea? Australia
originally supplied only air and naval forces, but when it was news that Britain were
about to commit land forces, Australia jumped to beat Britain, to show the alliance
was strong with America.
Identify why Australian soldiers might have fought in Korea. The threat of
communism and the idea that a drastic change of life to Australia was very real in
those days
What was one of the problems facing Australian soldiers while fighting in
Korea? There were many occasions when enemy soldiers would get mixed with
South Korean civilians and the North Korean soldiers would mix with the South
Korean civilians, using them as shields. The decision whether to shoot them or not
was a dilemma.
Reflection on Australia's Involvement in the Korean War
Tuesday, 11 February 2014
1:25 PM
History Page 8
Robert Menzies was the Liberal Party, Prime Minister of Australia from 1949 to
1966 and was extremely anti-communist
-
Menzies wanted to keep ties with Britain and invited Britain to test their atomic
bombs in the desert of South Australia at Maralinga
-
He strengthened ties with the United States- the biggest anti-communist power -
As far as Australia had a policy of its own, it consisted of two main ideas. First
was supporting Britain and America with wars in Asia especially when guerrillas
led by communists were trying to take power. The second was joining treaty
organisations to make Australia seem more safe
-
1951 formed the ANZUS pact- Australia, New Zealand and the US -
1954 formed the SEATO - US, Britain, France, New Zealand, Australia, Pakistan,
Thailand and the Phillippines. Both of these treaties were based on cold war
fears of communism.
-
Such policies meant Australia had to be involved in overseas conflicts -
Korean War (1950-1953)
Malaya (1955-1962)
Borneo (1963-1965)
Vietnam (1965-1972)
The Menzies Era and Anti-Communism
Wednesday, 12 February 2014
1:30 PM
History Page 9
Petrov was a clerk working for OGPU (State Political Directorate), the Soviet spy
organisation, since 1933. In 1951, he was sent to Australia as a full agent to make
sure other Soviet citizens in Australia did not defect. He himself had defected and
brought allegations that there were spies in Australia by the Soviet agents and
allegedly had documents for this. Ten days later, two days before the parliament
broke up for election, Robert Menzies had used this to his advantage and announced
that a Soviet spy had defected to Australia, planting worry in the greater public's
head about communist threats getting closer.
The USSR had attempted to take his wife back to the Soviet Union and had forced
her into a plane. During a fuel stop at Darwin, she was offered asylum by Australian
officials. Only ten days before the election, rumours circulated that there was a
communist involvement with the Labor leader Bert Evatt along with supposedly
being involved with the Petrov affair.
What does the poet mean by "the looming danger of the cold war"? They are
referring to communism.
According to this source, when did Petrov first approach Menzies about
asylum? Why was there a delay? February 1954. There was a delay as Petrov had
his own time, saying it was not the right time.
From your own knowledge of prior events, provide evidence which supports
the claim in the poem that Evatt underestimated the fears of communism. Evatt
defended the communist party in the high court and had believed in equality,
freedom of political ideas. The poem states "Evatt laughs it off as trivia,
underestimating hysteria." Evatt did not take the ideas of communism as a threat at
all.
Briefly explain how the KGB came to "lose" Evdokia at Darwin. She speaks to an
air hostess about her situation and the air hostess tells the government about her
situation.
How did Menzies gain from Petrov's action? Use the following lines "And as it
seems that Evatt might win, The PM swore to bring him ruin. So Doc Evatt may be a
real good bloke, But he doesn't even get to stroke. Menzies wins, Evatt bats zero." Evatt
came close to winning the election, so Menzies had to come up with a quick and
smart plan in order to turn the tide (The Petrov Affair). Menzies wins the election and
in the poem, it is likened to a cricket game.
What is the "Party fission" to which the poet refers? After the Petrov affair and
Menzies won the election, where Petrov had accused Labor for being involved in
communist spy affairs, causing internal fission and bickering.
What were the findings of the Royal Commission? They found that they could
Petrov Affair (1954)
Tuesday, 25 February 2014
1:48 PM
History Page 10
What were the findings of the Royal Commission? They found that they could
not charge anyone in Australia for being spies or being related to communism. Their
was no evidence and that the Petrov affair could very well be an elaborately staged
hoax.
History Page 11
Australia's Isolated Position
During and after World War II, Australia began increasingly more aware of its isolated
position in the pacific and thus decided to turn to its geographical neighbours for
stronger links rather than the traditional links with Britain due to colonisation in fear
of communist expansion. ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand and United States) was
formed in 1951 so that the countries would consult each other on appropriate if
there were to be a threat in the pacific.
Britain had started to pull away from its colonies in favour of countries from Europe
for defence support, prompting Australia to pursue a stronger link with America due
to its geographical positioning.
ANZUS
Australia had proposed a NATO-style pact, where each of the countries would have
to come to the support of any country in need; a mutual support agreement. Since
Australia already had a peace deal with Japan, they held back from such an
agreement. Instead, the ANZUS was formed (Australia, New Zealand and United
States) in September 1951. The weakness of the ANZUS treaty was that countries
were not immediately obligated to come and help but rather had to "consult" the
idea of it beforehand. However, in 1984 a problem had existed where American
nuclear-powered ships were visiting New Zealand, causing dispute. Thus, this meant
New Zealand were to withdraw from the treaty.
SEATO Alliance
By 1954, the situation in SE Asia looked more and more dangerous for Australia as
the fear of "monolithic" communism had become overwhelming. In 1954, the French
had finally withdrew from Indo-China, North Vietnam became a communist regime
and there had been further unrest in Malaya & Indonesia. The Korean war showed
that China was willing to provide resources for other communist regimes. This
promoted Australia to discuss the ideas of a proper defence treaty as well as a few
other South East Asian countries, thus becoming the SEATO (South-East Asia Treaty
Organization).
The countries that had signed were America, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, France,
The Philippines, Thailand and Pakistan. It as created to directly combat the spread of
communism in SE Asia. It bound each member to come to others' aid in the event of
external aggression, thus making it much stronger than the ANZUS treaty. It was
intended to be the Asian version of NATO but it never reached the same level as the
North Atlantic treaty..
Cambodia, Laos and South Vietnam could not be named in the treaty as they came
under sections of the Geneva Convention (1954) but were named in a protocol which
stated an attack on any of these countries would be caused for intervention by
SEATO countries. SEATO further highlighted the division between Australia and
The Anzus Treaty and SEATO Alliance
Wednesday, 12 February 2014
1:37 PM
History Page 12
SEATO countries. SEATO further highlighted the division between Australia and
Britain and the growing link with the United States. SEATO became the reason why
America had been involved in Vietnam, and why Australia became involved too
because of it.
Impacts from the Alliances
Both alliances gave Australia reassurance that it was no longer just a geographically
isolated former British colony, but a strong country in itself and a major player on the
diplomatic world stage, helping to stop the "scourge" of communism. In the event of
an attack, Australia would have countries to rely on. A side effect of this was the need
to link the Australian policy to America's. The treaties allowed Australia to
concentrate more on domestic policies such as the economy, rather than
international policies. Most importantly, it saved the government financially by
reducing the expenditure needed for defence as it now had resources from other
countries.
History Page 13
As evident in source 7.13, it is clear that Australia wishes to have a better relationship
with the United States and create a strong allying force, where if we were to help them,
the same in response would likely be given.
The decision to send Australian forces to Vietnam was one that was on Australia's terms,
as it was requested by Australia to Vietnam that they would allow us to supply them
with troops under the guise that we would be providing ourselves with better regional
peace and stability.
In Source 7.16, Menzies tells the parliament that Australia was requested to send troops
over, whereas in truth, it was the other way around.
It is not something new and it fits very directly with the foreign policy, with Australia
clearly outlining its allegiance with the United States and its opposition against
communism.
It is quite conspicuous that Australia has a hidden agenda from the get-go when they
had sought out to deceive the parliament with the details of communication between
South Vietnam and Australia. This clearly means that Australia did not have a black and
white plan to go in just to defend the region as Australia might've proposed, but rather
did it for reasons such as strengthening military ties with USA, so they would almost be
in the owing a favour in return to Australia where we provided them with assistance in a
war.
The Vietnam War (1965)
Thursday, 27 February 2014
10:09 AM
History Page 14
Conscription
The introduction of the Australian National Service Scheme saw people who were
once indifferent about the idea of war and engaging in conflict stand up to protest
their rights. They believed that conscription was unfair, and should not be a scheme,
thereby igniting an anti-war movement where they were firm to believe that Australia
should not have been involving itself with overseas conflicts.
The National Service Scheme was a plan to enlist Australian men that were 20 year
olds for military service by random (birthdate), given that they were to past three
military examinations/texts which consisted of a medical examination, an interview
and finally a security check. Following this, a month's notice would be given before
they were to start their duties. If found that people were providing false information
or purposely intending to not serve, they would be prosecuted.
When the first national servicemen Pte. Errol Wayne Noack had died on May 25,
1966 in Vietnam, university students would gather outside the state memorial under
drizzling rain to mourn his death.
Moratoriums and Opposition
Refer to Reference Page 1
Several groups formed in the wake of Australia's new and more dedicated
commitment to the Vietnam War. Among these were Youth Campaign Against
Conscription (YCAC) formed in late 1964 and closely aligned to the Australian Labor
Party (ALP), and Save Our Sons (SOS) founded in Sydney in 1965 shortly after the
government announced an increase of troops to Vietnam.
A moratorium is a period of time in which there is a suspension of a specific activity
until further events warrant a removal of the suspension or issues regarding the
activity has been resolved. There were three moratoria held, in May 1970, June 1971
and September 1971. The moratoria had turned the opinions of Australian citizens
around, and now they would turn to oppose participation in war as well as
conscription.
Save Our Sons
Refer to Reference Page 2
Save Our Sons (SOS) was a group comprised mostly of middle aged women, whose
sons were subject to conscription and therefore were possibly going to serve
Australia as servicemen. Other young men and women who had felt strongly against
conscription also fell under this banner of SOS. They were generally peaceful in
nature, from silent vigils of commemoration to handing out flyers at railway stations.
They worked with members of parliament, anti-war groups in an attempt to get their
message across. Although facing hardships such as verbal abuse from people who
had supported conscription, they believed their cause was worthy enough to
Changing Attitudes Toward the Vietnam War
Wednesday, 5 March 2014
8:49 AM
History Page 15
had supported conscription, they believed their cause was worthy enough to
withstand the opprobrium.
The flyers appeals to people who had connections or relations to young men that
would be a servicemen. Their general idea was that if enough people had a unified
and gathered opinion, the government might have done something.
Public Opinion
When the war first began, Australians had little to no concern over the situation in an
overseas conflicts that didn't involve Australian soldiers at all. If anything, they were
voluntary soldiers who were already in a training role. Even with the spread of
communism in Asia, this would still not become much of a problem to the greater
Australian public. In 1966, when conscription was announced as a program, anti-war
groups had their opinions ignited in this public debate against conscription and the
war. Although most of the country was displeased with a decision to have national
servicemen fight in the Vietnam War, their protests and moratoriums had little to no
impact to status of Australian forces being in Vietnam as in the early 1970s, the
withdrawal had been well underway, regardless of protests in the public streets of
major capital cities across Australia.
Australians had initially supported the war, as public opinion of sending infantry
battalions to Vietnam saw more people approve of the decision over the span of two
months from May 1965 to July of the same year. However, after 4 years of
participating in the war, during October 1969, it was clear that more people now
wanted forces to withdraw from Vietnam. During the early stages of war in 1966,
Liberal who had supported it had much more favour than Labor who opposed it.
Australian school teacher William White made headlines with a photograph of him
being taken to jail after refusing to register in 1966. This lit up much public opinion
about how conscription was unfair and had impacted the lives of many people
personally. They were now questioning the morals of conscription.
History Page 16
This weekend marks the 40th anniversary of the first Moratorium march.
Forty years ago this Saturday, between 100,000 and 200,000 people thronged the
streets of the country's capital cities, emphatically announcing that they did not
support their government's involvement in the Vietnam War, or conscription of the
nation's youth to fight it.
The massive marches were unlike anything before them; they did not merely occupy
city streets but took them over. The protesters shrugged of the authority of the
police and government for thee days as they engaged in an entirely peaceful protest.
It was on that day that the antiwar movement, which had been protesting against the
war since 1962, felt that they had finally won. But forty years on, what is the legacy of
the Moratorium?
The three Vietnam Moratoria - in May 1970, June 1971 and September 1971 - were
organised by a coalition of anti-war and anti-conscription organisations called the
Vietnam Moratorium Campaign. Formed in Canberra in late 1969, it was the
brainchild of the Victorian Committee for International Co-Operation and
Disarmament. By early 1970 it had a loose federal structure, with Vietnam
Moratorium Campaigns in each state, and a National Co-ordinating Committee with
representatives from each state.
The Moratorium Campaign was a very big tent. It included the usual crowd -
students, unionists, socialists and communists - but it also included politicians,
academics, radical clergymen and churchgoers.
The Moratorium's aims were the withdrawal of Australian and all other foreign troops
from Vietnam, and the repeal of the National Service Act. These two campaign aims
were the focus of a decade's debate in Australia over both the war and conscription.
Midway through 1969, the Gallup polls showed that the Australian population had
shifted its long-held views on Vietnam and now opposed the war. The protest
movement had always felt that conscription was unfair. The Youth Campaign against
Conscription and the mothers' group Save Our Sons, and later, the Draft Resisters, all
held that the scheme unfairly targeted young men who could not vote.
The Moratorium, at its heart, was about participatory democracy. The antiwar
movement had spent the previous five years undoing many cherished assumptions
about the nature of engagement with the nation. In 1964, protesters were not
allowed to carry placards on poles, stand still in one place or march in the street. By
1970, they were routinely occupying streets in "sit-down" protests. The Chairman of
the Victorian VMC, Labor Party MP Jim Cairns wrote that "there must be freedom to
break the law, when we know the law is bad. We must have freedom to express
opinion contrary to the ruling opinion." Cairns was a champion of participatory
democracy, stating in parliament that "Parliament is not democracy. Democracy is
government by the people, and government by the people demands action by the
people." But he was no anarchist - he expressly stated that "there must be no claim
for the use of violence." The first and largest moratorium was an entirely peaceful
affair.
Forty years on, what the Moratorium fought is no longer as important as how it
fought it. The cause - ending conscription and the war in Vietnam - has been
Reference Page 1: Vietnam War Moratorium
Wednesday, 5 March 2014
1:40 PM
History Page 17
fought it. The cause - ending conscription and the war in Vietnam - has been
eclipsed by the idea of people power. The moment when up to 200 thousand people
marched through the streets of Australian cities in May 1970 is etched indelibly in the
mind of everyone who lived through it. Ask anyone over 55 today about the
Moratorium, and they will probably tell you they were there.
It's a myth that it ended conscription; Whitlam did that. Equally, it didn't end the
war - John Gorton, a Liberal Prime Minister, made the decision to bring the troops
home. But the Moratorium wasn't a failure. Its greatest victory was the way it
changed our minds about political engagement.
The key to participatory democracy is that it's participatory - democracy requires the
populace to be engaged, informed, and to discuss their ideas with each other at all
levels, and to speak out when they see an injustice or a wrong. It's also
fundamentally inclusive. We aren't as nave as we were in 1964. We were far more
sceptical of claims that Iraq had WMDs than we were when told that the "Viet Cong"
was backed by China. Then again, we are still at war in Iraq, despite the original casus
belli being debunked.
The Moratorium was also, fundamentally, about peace. In that, it stands in stark
contrast to our national myth, Anzac. The Anzac legend has only recently come under
fire for being a backwards-looking story, one that bestows hero status on its warriors
and privileges war as a method of nation-building. The Moratorium privileged
informed, critical debate, and an inclusive, consultative model of nation-building. At
its heart, the Moratorium recognised a community of humanity, far larger than the
nation, and bade us all treat the members of that community with respect.
For all its faults, it was forward-looking, compassionate, and it would not stand for
injustice. It is telling that, on its 40th anniversary, the Moratorium is overshadowed
by debates about Anzac.
Australia has changed a lot in the last 40 years. The protesters are now the middle-
class; baby boomers who now inhabit positions of power in our society and are on
the cusp of retirement age. The heroes of the movement, like Jim Cairns, are gone,
and its opponents, like Gerard Henderson, are everywhere. The pendulum has swung
back to the right. But democracy is always strengthened by informed, compassionate
political engagement amongst its citizenry, and we only have to look to the
Moratorium for that moment in our history. And with the challenges that lie ahead -
continued war in the Middle East, the consequences of the 2008 market crash, even
Rudd's takeover of the health system - can we afford to remain complacent?
Pasted from <http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/33984.html>
History Page 18
Save Our Sons Flyer
Save Our Sons (SOS) was established in 1965 in Sydney but soon other groups formed
under the SOS banner across the country. Some men and young women became
members, but for the most part SOS was comprised of women, mostly middle-class and
middle-aged, whose sons were old enough to be subject to national service. The nature
of SOS protests varied some involved silent vigils in public places of commemoration
such as Melbournes Shrine of Remembrance; at other times members handed out
leaflets at Army barracks or railway stations from which national servicemen were
travelling to begin their military service.
Members of SOS also prepared and circulated petitions, approached members of
parliament and worked in conjunction with other anti-war groups to protest against
national service and the war. Their protests were not always met with the same civility
with which they were conducted. Some members of SOS were subject to abuse and
insult. Called communists at a time when the term was replete with implications that the
accused was somehow anti-Australian, some women were also sworn at and called bad
mothers and neglectful wives. One woman recalled the unpleasant experience of
regular protests outside the Swan Street barracks in Melbourne while families farewelled
their sons into military service. Unwelcome and subject to abuse, the SOS protesters
persisted because they believed their cause was worth the opprobrium and verbal
confrontation.
Sometimes protest activities resulted in the arrest of SOS members. In April 1971 five
SOS women were sentenced to 14 days in Fairlea Womens Prison for handing out anti-
conscription leaflets to men registering for national service. The charge was trespass.
The case attracted considerable media attention and the women were released after 11
days.
Membership of SOS had another effect too. Many were becoming involved in political
activities for the first time. Although they often came from Liberal voting suburbs, many
women who joined SOS found that the issues of the war and national service moved
them into the Labor camp. Others had always been there. For many who joined SOS the
experience gave them the confidence and ability to publicly express their views for the
first time. The womens movement of the 1970s benefited from the politicisation of such
people.
Reference Page 2: Save Our Sons
Wednesday, 5 March 2014
1:43 PM
History Page 19
Stage One: Peaceful and Ineffectual
In November 1964, the Youth Campaign Against Conscription (YCAC) were
established, mainly by university students. They organised mainly marches and
demonstrations. June 1965 saw a formation of group Save Our Sons (SOS), mostly
middle aged women who had sons that were subject to conscription. Bill White was a
schoolteacher who had a clean cut, sincere, old fashioned stigma to him which
separated him from the rest who had opposed conscription. His willingness to risk
prison brought him to public attention.
Left-wing unions were strongly against the war, in 1966 members of the Seamen's
Union refused to carry war materials to Vietnam. However, this decision was strongly
criticised, slammed and opposed in the public press.
Stage Two: Militant and Violent
Mid 1960s saw the protest against the war become more militant and radical. The
protests became louder, more violent and this sparked up police reaction to be of
equal violence. This again led to the protests to be more violent and aggressive.
Windows of offices connected to the United States were smashed, young men
publicly burnt their draft cards and there was often clashes between police and
protestors.
Such a case was in October 1966, where US president Johnson would visit and have
Australian demonstrators throw themselves in front of his vehicle in petition. The
violence and militant protests had actually weakened the anti-war movement, where
public opinion was influenced as they were put off by the public protests of student
groups. The anti-war movement needed to be presented in more moderate terms, in
more local areas and in a way more Australians could relate to it.
Stage Three: Moratorium and Decentralised
The moratorium movement was where people would stop work at a given time and
place, in a suburban and local level run by known people within their community;
marching for peace. The moratorium movement called for the withdrawal of
Australian troops from Vietnam and an immediate end to conscription. On May 8th
1970, the movement reached a climax as people across the country would gather at
the centre of their capital cities to protest.
In Melbourne on this day, a crowd estimated between 80,000 to 100,000 people led
by Jim Cairns brought the city to a standstill. He had said it was an example of
people taking charge, voicing their opinion on the issues and making their points
clear. The day passed peacefully.
In 1971, nearly all troops were withdrawn from Vietnam but conscription still
remained. When the Whitlam government took over in December 1972, all forces
were completely withdrawn and conscription was put to an immediate end, with now
The Anti-War Movement in Australia
Friday, 7 March 2014
11:54 AM
History Page 20
were completely withdrawn and conscription was put to an immediate end, with now
a diplomatic relationship being formed with South Vietnam.
Television Coverage and the Protest Movement
It was widely believed that troops were sent to Vietnam for no better reason than to
fight in an irrelevant war against communism and receive gratitude from America. TV
and filming allowed the world to understand that the US were harming helpless and
innocent Vietnamese people while in war. Women and children were subject to
mutilation as well as rape.
The End of the War
The men who had come back from the war were treated with indifference, being
without ceremonies or welcome parties as with previous wars. Years later, the
veterans are still fighting for recognition for their efforts in the war and
compensation for physical and mental damage that the war had caused.
History Page 21