What was Australia's and New Zealand's attitude toward NATO during Cold War?

[MG1962a]

Australia would be as subservient to the US as it has been since the 60s

That is mostly rooted in the defense pact the US offered Australia in exchange for support for Vietnam. For the cost of roughly two battalions the US entered into a mutual defense deal. The Prime Minister at the time even said it was the cheapest treaty Australia had or was ever likely to enter into.

 

[Chlodio]

Nuclear testing in the Pacific

Thanks for this. I knew NZ had issues with nuclear weapons, but I had not known why.

 

[Chlodio]

Let's modify the scenario slightly. There's fighting in the Northern Pacific around Vladivostok and Petropavlovsk between the US and the Soviets, and North Korea invades South Korea, but China and Vietnam stay neutral. What do Australia and New Zealand do? Based on stated policies, war plans, etc.

 

[DiocletianIsBetterThanYou]

That is mostly rooted in the defense pact the US offered Australia in exchange for support for Vietnam. For the cost of roughly two battalions the US entered into a mutual defense deal. The Prime Minister at the time even said it was the cheapest treaty Australia had or was ever likely to enter into.

Sure, although this move by (I think) Holt had its roots in WWII and the death of the British Empire. The fall of Singapore was a serious blow to Australia's confidence in British protection. It prompted Australia to consider a new protector from possible menaces.

 

[MG1962a]

Let's modify the scenario slightly. There's fighting in the Northern Pacific around Vladivostok and Petropavlovsk between the US and the Soviets, and North Korea invades South Korea, but China and Vietnam stay neutral. What do Australia and New Zealand do? Based on stated policies, war plans, etc.

Australia would commit to whatever the US requested. Pretty sure New Zealand would stay out of it.

 

[Chlodio]

Sure, although this move by (I think) Holt had its roots in WWII and the death of the British Empire. The fall of Singapore was a serious blow to Australia's confidence in British protection. It prompted Australia to consider a new protector from possible menaces.

What were Australia's treaty obligations if not faced with an immediate or direct threat?

 

[MG1962a]

Sure, although this move by (I think) Holt had its roots in WWII and the death of the British Empire. The fall of Singapore was a serious blow to Australia's confidence in British protection. It prompted Australia to consider a new protector from possible menaces.

Oh with out a doubt. The US was looking to strengthen their strategic presence in the western Pacific and Australia was in the market for a new big brother

 

[DiocletianIsBetterThanYou]

Let's modify the scenario slightly. There's fighting in the Northern Pacific around Vladivostok and Petropavlovsk between the US and the Soviets, and North Korea invades South Korea, but China and Vietnam stay neutral. What do Australia and New Zealand do? Based on stated policies, war plans, etc.

There's no way Australia doesn't fight. It would be completely out of character not to do so. The Australian government volunteers itself to fight for US war efforts and consistently votes in the UN the way the US wants it to vote.

 

[MG1962a]

What were Australia's treaty obligations if not faced with an immediate or direct threat?

None, but Britain had always guaranteed Australia's defense, and WW2 showed that was no longer a viable position for either country.

 

[DiocletianIsBetterThanYou]

There's no way Australia doesn't fight. It would be completely out of character not to do so. The Australian government volunteers itself to fight for US war efforts and consistently votes in the UN the way the US wants it to vote.

Take for example the UN decision in 2011 to grant Palestine full membership status in UNESCO. I don't want to derail this thread with any debates about Israel and Palestine. I will simply note that Australia and the USA were among the 14 member states who voted against.