With the Counter Culture Movement well under way in both the US and the UK and with the introduction of television in the early 1900s, the rest of the world was now being clued in on a side of the Second Indochina war that they had not yet seen. For the first time in history, the media was now able to play uncensored footage of the casualties in Vietnam straight from the battlefield to the living room. This meant that those countries playing their part in the Vietnam conflict (including New Zealand and Australia) could now see first hand that this was not the 'preventative war' that they had initially thought it was. There was a huge feeling of government betrayal being felt by many citizens of the countries involved and so New Zealand (among other nations) began their anti-Vietnam plight in an effort to appeal to their own government in order to remove NZ forces from Vietnam.
More and more gruesome images of the horrors in Vietnam were being played on New Zealand television screens nightly and with it came a fast growing condemnation of NZ involvement in the war. Many protesters saw that the NZ government and Prime Minister Holyoake had betrayed the country by giving in to US demands and sending over NZ troops and so the anti-Vietnam war movement was quickly becoming very much a political issue.
Although a conservative in foreign affairs, Holyoake was sensitive to committing NZ troops to the war in Vietnam and even after the May 1965 announcement, the government did its best to limit the extent of its involvement and commitment to the war. Holyoake's unwillingness to use resources also played a key role in his approach to the issue of sending military personnel to Vietnam and according to historian Paul Moon, "in private, Holyoake was even more opposed to any increase in New Zealand's entanglement in the conflict".
In July 1966, a year after New Zealand's first troops committed to the war, Holyoake wrote to President Lyndon B. Johnson regarding the prospect of a marked escalation of the war, in which the Prime Minister explained the likely drop-off in New Zealand's support for the conflict if the foreshadowed escalation were to come to fruition.
More and more gruesome images of the horrors in Vietnam were being played on New Zealand television screens nightly and with it came a fast growing condemnation of NZ involvement in the war. Many protesters saw that the NZ government and Prime Minister Holyoake had betrayed the country by giving in to US demands and sending over NZ troops and so the anti-Vietnam war movement was quickly becoming very much a political issue.
Although a conservative in foreign affairs, Holyoake was sensitive to committing NZ troops to the war in Vietnam and even after the May 1965 announcement, the government did its best to limit the extent of its involvement and commitment to the war. Holyoake's unwillingness to use resources also played a key role in his approach to the issue of sending military personnel to Vietnam and according to historian Paul Moon, "in private, Holyoake was even more opposed to any increase in New Zealand's entanglement in the conflict".
In July 1966, a year after New Zealand's first troops committed to the war, Holyoake wrote to President Lyndon B. Johnson regarding the prospect of a marked escalation of the war, in which the Prime Minister explained the likely drop-off in New Zealand's support for the conflict if the foreshadowed escalation were to come to fruition.
President Lyndon Johnson and visiting New Zealand Prime Minister, Keith Holyoake, standing together at a White House ceremony welcoming Holyoake.
Photographed by an unknown photographer in 1968. ~National Library of New Zealand. |
Exerpt from Prime Minister Holyoake's letter to President Johnson: "particularly if this were to embrace military targets, would certainly cause widespread apprehension here... I should think that those in this country who would favour more drastic action against North Vietnam are a small minority indeed... I fear that I would have some difficulty in guiding public opinion - particularly as this is an election year - should your administration feel obliged to authorise measures which might be felt likely to change radically the nature of the conflict." |
Because Prime Minister Holyoake had on occasion expressed his own qualms over the nations commitment to the Vietnam War, those involved in the growing protest movement saw that perhaps NZ involvement was not simply an immutable government decision if their own Prime Minister was not one hundred percent confident in the decision.
Holyoake's stance is best described by aforementioned historian Paul Moon, who states;
"He (Holyoake) was stuck between a genuine desire for an end to the war, and the need for the nation to play its part to prevent the spread of communist aggression. Consequently, he was left defending a war which he believed to be right, but to which he had always been reluctant to contribute financially and in manpower."
This indecisive governmental stance fuelled the initially small group of anti-Vietnam war protesters who would use Holyoake's irresoluteness as a basis for many protests, marches and sit-ins during their movement.
Holyoake's stance is best described by aforementioned historian Paul Moon, who states;
"He (Holyoake) was stuck between a genuine desire for an end to the war, and the need for the nation to play its part to prevent the spread of communist aggression. Consequently, he was left defending a war which he believed to be right, but to which he had always been reluctant to contribute financially and in manpower."
This indecisive governmental stance fuelled the initially small group of anti-Vietnam war protesters who would use Holyoake's irresoluteness as a basis for many protests, marches and sit-ins during their movement.