And if Napolean had had a B-52 he would've won the Battle of Waterloo. The Domino Theory was a complete load of garbage, and there was NOTHING indicating it was valid. Russia "went" because of the repressive regime of the Romanovs, and the fact that there was an international anti-capitalism movement all around the world at the time. Mongolia (the second country in the world to "go") and China followed suit because they also felt that the "revolution" was coming their way. Cuba "went" because the very same Dick Nixon kicked Castro out of DC when Nixon was still VP. Castro was hoping to get support for his battle with Batista, but we supported Batista because it was in the best interest of American business. So Castro turned to the Soviets. Latin American insurgencies looked to Cuba because they were also hoping to throw off repressive regimes, in many cases worse that Batista's Cuba. They figured that if it could work for Fidel, it could work for them. Combine that with Che Guevara spreading the "revoluton" all over Central and South America, and you had quite a few countries that looked to Communism as a better solution than the bastards that ran their countries, and the USA sure as hell weren't going to help them become democracies - bad for American business. The Domino Theory was a simplistic theory for its time. Thinking it is still valid is even more simplistic.
LOL I think we both came up with a similar theory in about 15 minutes of venting. You'd think by NOW someone would finally figure out that the strategy just didn't work.
Re: LOL I've seen a lot of simplistic views of history in the forum but this whole "Domino Theory" being valid kick is amazing. If the Domino Theory worked, then Japan would've become communist by about 1980 or so.
Re: Re: LOL What amazes me is that even AFTER MacNamara admits he was wrong, people still trot out his theory. If Einstein had said "my theories of relativity are wrong", would anyone still be defending them? Its just stunning.
I was beating cheese-eating surrender monkeys before it was cool. Now you tell me I was a year too late? Sincerely, General Giap Dienbienphu
Re: Re: Re: LOL McNamara was not the originator of the domino theory. Are you saying that because McNamara's implimation of policy in Vietnam was such a colossal failure, that proves that his opinion abouth SE Asia and communist expansion is the most valid. McNamara also said JFK would have abandoned Vietnam, in spite of the fact that JFK was on record as believing the domino theory. I think you guys are making too much out of what actually happened and what the potential was. Even people who seem to oppose the theory are saying that communism was popular, and that is why it spread, and indeed that could be part of the domino theory. If communist regimes had been seen as the wave of the future, it would have made it more likely that country after country would fall to that system. One thig is certain, there were plenty of people in the Kremlin who believed in the Domino theory. Does the phrase "we will bury you" sound familiar. The Soviets definitely were interested in global expansion so there is no way you can just discount the domino theory.
If communism was popular at the time, then this fact contradicts the domino theory, because the domino theory posited a centrally organized strategy in which communism was forced on the weak (places like Vietnam) by the strong through force and the actions of agents, against the prevailing will of the majority people in that country. The domino theory is discounted because it did not adequately account for the known facts at the time of its origination and because it did not accurately predict events that happened in areas where it was applied as an explanatory tool. The domino theory is discounted because when it was actually applied as a mechanism for shaping US policy, most prominently in Vietnam, it was an utter and catastrophic failure.
Re: Re: Re: Re: LOL No kidding. It was Ike. But McNamara believed in it. Ike passed it on it on to JFK, who passed it on to LBJ. And Nixon got it from Ike directly when he was Ike's veep. There's no implication. McNamara has said that our entire policy towards SE Asia building up to and during the Viet Nam War was wrong, and that the Domino Theory itself was the main reason our policy was so misguided. McNamara has said the Domino Theory was wrong. Again and again. And how is the end result of Viet Nam an "implication" of a "colossal failure." We lost the war. Try this http://www.google.com/search?source...=UTF-8&q=mcnamara+domino+theory]Google Search Here's a Jack Valenti interview with Robert McNamara. I've quoted the parts where McNamara mentions the Domino Theory Got a link? I tried this Google Search and found no quotes made by McNamara stating that JFK was willing to abandon Viet Nam. On the contrary, I found McNamara stating that Kennedy was a firm believer in the Domino Theory and considered it vital that we NOT abandon Viet Nam. It spread because of socio-economic-political reasons, and through the Soviet Union's and China's influence in supporting insurgents who had socialist or pro-communist leanings. Why did these insurgents exist? Pretty simple, really. Their countries were usually a horrible mess, and the people were sick and tired of being abused by horrible dictators, thus making them ripe for a revolution. The Soviets and Chinese were smart enough to realize that if they could foster that revolution that they could create another satellite state. Wrong again. "We will bury you" had nothing to do with the "Domino Theory." The "Domino Theory" was a purely American invention, and the "we will bury you" speech made some people IN THE WEST confirmed that regionalism would be what would cause countries to "fall to communism." In contrast, the Kremlin looked at world communism as inevitable, and felt that eventually all the working classes of the world would unite to form a world government based on Soviet-style communism. Finally, from the guy who invented the Domino Theory, Dwight David Eisenhower himself, comes this press conference from 1954. Well, Viet Nam fell to the Reds. If the end result of a communist government in Indochina meant that the dominos would fall, and that Burma, Thailand, Japan, Formosa, the Philippines, Austraila, New Zealand and Japan would also follow suit, why didn't it happen? Isn't that proof enough that the Domino Theory was a load of crap? From the same interview: You are aware that the "Senator Kennedy" referred to is JFK, right, and the Indochina is Viet Nam, right? So as far back as 1954 we have JFK stating that Viet Nam was important to security of the region. Here are a few more quotes regarding Indochina from the same press conference. The Domino Theory maybe seemed a little plausable in 1954. The country was terrified of the Red Menace, and Tailgunner Joe McCarthy was accusing people left and right of being pinkos. I'm willing to give that much to Ike. However, the theory has been proven by history to have been wrong. Can't you just admit that?
Re: Re: Re: LOL And the Bushies are basing the whole "democracy in the Middle East" thing as a sort of reverse Domino Theory, as if geography alone was a determining factor in deciding what sort of government a country would have.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LOL If there was absolutely nothing to the theory, why do you believe so many smart people on both sides of the aisle believed it? [/B][/QUOTE] There's no implication. McNamara has said that our entire policy towards SE Asia building up to and during the Viet Nam War was wrong, and that the Domino Theory itself was the main reason our policy was so misguided. McNamara has said the Domino Theory was wrong. Again and again. And how is the end result of Viet Nam an "implication" of a "colossal failure." We lost the war. Try this http://www.google.com/search?source...=UTF-8&q=mcnamara+domino+theory]Google Search [/B][/QUOTE] I agree that McNamara's entire policy was wrong, but that does not prove the domino theory was wrong. McNamara is trying to blame everbody else for his mismanagement of the situation. I think the biggest mistake we made in Vietnam, was supporting the coup against Diem. Once we did that we Americanized the situation to such an extent that bugging out quickly would have had huge implications in other countries that were looking towards the U.S. for leadership. I agree that McNamara and Kennedy were both supporters of the Domino theory. I don't have a link, but it is in his book. He believes that JFK would have seen the folly happening in Vietnam, wheras LBJ was not as sophisticated. I think this claim shows a taint to McNamaras current writing where he is trying to admit he was wrong, but shift as much of the blame away from himself as possible. Absolutely. I'm not saying the domino theory meant that the red army was going to roll through SE Asia, what I'm saying is if the U.S. had pulled out of vietnam quickly and allowed the North to consolidate power in Vietnam it would have helped ferment the idea that communism was the way of the future and emboldened communist insurgencies. It also would have sent a signal to dictators that the U.S. was not a reliable ally. The result wold likely have been that dictators would either have to clamp down hard on the insurgencies and hope to go it alone, or try to negotiate. I don't think it is likely the communists would be willing to negotiate when they had such a strong hand, so it is likely you would have seen more and more countries taken over by hard line communists. Call it whatever you like, the Communists in the Kremin were convinced that country after country would fall under their influence. That sure sounds like the domino theory to me. Well, Viet Nam fell to the Reds. If the end result of a communist government in Indochina meant that the dominos would fall, and that Burma, Thailand, Japan, Formosa, the Philippines, Austraila, New Zealand and Japan would also follow suit, why didn't it happen? Isn't that proof enough that the Domino Theory was a load of crap? You ignore the fact that the U.S. did interven in Vietnam, thus showing we were comitted to the region. Fighting the war bought time for the other countries in the region to stabalize. Although the War was a tragedy as far as american lives, it was an even bigger tragedy in Vietamese lives. It certainly was not a showcase for an easy communist revolution. I'm just arguing that we will never know, because the history is that we did fight for a long time in Vietnam. Nobody knows what would have happened if we had just allowed the North to take over the south in 1961.
Michael, Do you ever give up and admit you're wrong? Apparently not, because if you did you would be doing it every other post.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LOL One theory is that they would have eventually become economically dependent on the U.S. much the way the Chinese are today. Many of my Republican friends believe the Chinese are our biggest threat. I disagree of course because our economies are so intertwined. My point Michael, is that it is a lot easier to conquer people and stablize international relations with the "mighty" dollar than it is with the gun. This is why free and fair international trade is so important. But that's also something your boy is against.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LOL That is another theory. I don't know what would have happened. All we know for sure is what we did do, and what did happen. Since we didn't do what the believers in the Domino theory warned us not to do, we will never know if their warnings were correct. O.K. but sometimes the opposition only will be removed by the use of a gun. For instance, I don't think a credible argument can be made that economic sanctons were going to lead to the downfall of Saddam Hussein. I couldn't agree with you more on that.
What's really interesting is the fact that some of the people who supported the War in Iraq based in part on this reverse Domino Theory are now insisting that it was a pipe dream all along: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/11/18/lion_s_den/index1.html "Dressed in a black oxford shirt, with dour eyes and a frown, [Daniel] Pipes dismissed much of what the White House has said about rationale for the war and the occupation. "However popular the uprooting of Saddam Hussein, they do not want us there," said Pipes. Before the war, Pipes was a proponent of the democracy domino theory. In February, he published a column titled "Why Stop in Iraq: Here's a Chance to Reform the Entire Arab World." In it, he argued with those who suggested that democracy wouldn't work in Iraq, saying, "Japan had about as much affinity for democracy in 1945 as the Arabs do today, yet democracy took hold there ... A US victory in Iraq and the successful rehabilitation of that country will bring liberals out of the woodwork and generally move the region towards democracy." Now, though, he's contemptuous of the idealistic case for war, the case that wooed some liberals to Bush's side in the first place. "We have no, no moral responsibility to the Iraqi people," he said. "Our moral responsibility is to ourselves. I very much disagree with the name 'Operation Iraqi Freedom.' It should have been 'Operation American Security.'" This met with applause. "Our goal is not a free Iraq," Pipes continued. "Our goal is an Iraq that does not endanger us." What we need, he says, is a "democratic-minded strongman." "In a column this week, conservative writer and talk-show host Armstrong Williams wrote: "The administration's decision to depose Saddam Hussein represents the first meaningful step in 50 years of attacking the basic problem of hopelessness, tyranny and poverty in that region. This historic step will make democratic reform possible." Williams chose his words carefully, because while he may believe in democratic reform, he's dismissive of the idea that democracy itself can work in Iraq. Sitting on a panel called "The Media and the War," Williams spoke of Muslims' knack for being wrong about everything. "I can't think of one time when we've had a Muslim on the air, when we asked deep, penetrating questions, where they're on the right side," he said. "You find me a Muslim who, if you ask the right question, they'll come out on the right side of the issue. You can't find them." After the panel I asked Williams how this Muslim failing bodes for democracy in Iraq. He snorted. "That's a pipe dream," he said, laughing. "Democracy in Iraq?" he repeated, as if he'd never heard anything so preposterous. Noting that the country had never been democratic before, he asked, "What makes you think it's going to work now?" Was this idea of the war precipitating a flowering of democracy throughout the Middle East a concrete reason for this endeavor or was it just another pretext used to justify this action to the American people?
It's just another fabled tale people like Michael Russ tell themselves so they can look at themselves in the mirror and deny the fact they helped elect an incompetent liar POTUS.
Those nice politicians would never lie to ME, would they? Has it ever occurred to you that many of them didn't believe it but went along with it because it was convenient for them to do so? Or are you just really, really gullible? By the 1950s, the right wing in the USA and the Stalinist regime in the USSR were locked into a codependent relationship. Each needed the other to justify its own beliefs, desires and actions. Thus, for example, both sides perpetrated the lie that the USSR was actually the true heir to Marx's socialism when it wasn't. The Stalinists got to claim legitimacy from the "Marxist" mantle ("See? Even the capitalist running dogs say we're socialists! Therefore, we must be!") while the USA right got the ability to point at the horrors of the Soviet Union and shout "You see that? See how horrible it is? That's the only possible form of socialism!" It's a self-serving pile of crap that many fools on the left fell for until the '60s and that right dupes like manny and Alex still fall for today. There are several instances like this where a lie is propped up by both opposing yet codependent sides because both sides find its existence to be in their best interests. The "domino theory" is one such instance. To the Soviets, it was wishful thinking and propped up their support of dubious "revolutionary" movements around the world. To the USA, it provided a moral smoke screen for many of our more nefarious actions around the globe.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LOL First, there's no evidence Russia saw the domino effect that way at all. History has shown that the US had practically no understanding of how the Kremlin actually thought, highlighted by the fact that it always had more nukes pointed at Russia than Russia did at the US. Second - just because lots of smart people believe something, doesn't mean it has any basis in truth. Remember, people used to think for centuries that objects that were bigger fell faster, just because Aristotle said that. Doesn't make them stupid, just makes them wrong. But Michael, we failed to support the Vietnamese against the French, which is why the turned to the USSR. What you fail to grasp is that these countries with "communist" uprisings only turned to Russia after they realized they needed support of someone powerful enough to counterbalance the US. There was only one such power. Had the US told France to piss off, and supported the Vietnamese anti-colonialist movement, Vietnam might now be another version of Japan. But you are still missing the point. None of these insurgents were dedicated communists. They just hated their imperialist regimes. There were no "communist" insurgencies. There were merely insurgencies that subscribed to socialism because that got them weapons from Russia. No one rallied the North Vietnamese peasants with the impassioned cry to fight for Marxian ideology. They wouldn't have cared. They just wanted to get rid of their oppressors. There is no indication AT ALL that Vietnamese Communists attempted to formet revolution in any neighboring countries. They didn't care. That's what MacNamara has admitted - that he saw the Vietnam war as a civil war, whereas in reality it was a war against colonialism. Nonsense. The Communists took their opportunities where they could find them, and they were opportunistic. But when Stalin was able to defeat Trotsky and Kamenev and Zioviev in the 20s, it heralded an end to the "global revolution" ideology. Then after WWII, they just locked themselves into a struggle with the west. Punch for couterpunch. The World Revolution was never meant to happen. So bombing Cambodia helped the region stabilize? If we had just supported the anti-French movement, all this would have been moot. As always, the domino theory resulted in us supporting an unpopular dictator against a popular Soviet backed revolt, which was only Soviet based because we supported the dictator they hated in the first place. It became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Well, we failed to fight a 10 year war in Cuba, and I don't see what exactly that has led to. We pretty much gave up after the bay of pigs - and we could easily have reconquered Cuba. So what was the result? A destabilization of the region? No, just a few small problems in the Carribean, at worst. Certainly no less than what Noriega did - someone ELSE we put in because we thought he'd fight Communism. Another good call. Cuba hardly destabilized the region, now did it. The reason, btw, Michael, that you become the target of these posts, is that you continue to cling to a very outmoded dualist view of the Cold War - that the US was correct in assuming Russia was backing insurgents all over the world. This is simply not true. None of the insurgencies that resulted in Communist regimes were started by Russia - they were local, and usually directed against corrupt dictators supported by the West. See Iran, Israel (to an extent), Egypt, etc. Russia was never very pro-active in formenting revolts, they were opportunistic. By using the domino strategy the US just played into their hands in providing these dictators to rebel against. Soviet history (with which I'm fairly familiar) bears this out. After 1924, Russia just wasn't that interested in world revolution anymore.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LOL Well, we'll never know, will we That being said, probably not. But that wasn't the point that was being made. If we hadn't propped up Saddam in the first place, its quite likely that the people in his place would look more favorably at the US, because for all that they may dislike our social policies, they'd much rather be in our position, than in their position. That's the real lure of the dollar - why be poor; be like us! But if we invade and occupy them, that attraction gets obscured by the hatred of those whom we occupy. Do all Iraqis hate us? No, but enough do. And that's going to cause us a lot of problems in the future, especially if we leave and set up a puppet regime to siphon off their oil. We've had that situation before. It was called Iran. That didn't turn out so well for our boys in the embassy.
What exactly do you think was the reason Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq? And if it was for oil, how do you explain the fact that Bush was so insistent that our aid to Iraq be grants instead of loans?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LOL how do you reconcile your acknowledgement that the Soviets provided weapons and training to insurgents throughout the world with this claim that Russia wasn't interested in world revolution anymore? Are you actually denying that there was a strong contingent in the Kremlin who believed that the Soviet Union was destined to be the leader of a communist world? Like I said, the Soviets may not have wanted to have the Red Army marching through the world (Although they were willing to put it to use in Eastern Europe when necessary), but that does not mean that they would not do whatever they could to help support communists, no matter if people in those countries actually wanted communism. To say that "None of these insurgents were dedicated communists." is a simplistic overexageration. Of course some of the leaders believed in communism. Don't you think the Soviets just gave guns to people out of the goodness of their hearts? Don't you think they would expect something in return for their support? Was it just coincidence that communist governments were put in pace once they came to power? Of course the Soviets were taking advantage of a bad situation, and there were plenty of bad situations for them to take advantage of, hence the domino theory. If the Domino theory was based on the premis that SE asia was a bedrock of free happy nations and we needed to fight in vietnam because if we didn't soviet agents were going to infiltrate into these happy countries and somehow turn them communist, then you would be correct, that there was nothing to the domino theory. But that was not the situation. Those countries were ripe for revolution, and seeing a communist revolution succeed in Vietnam would be proof to locals that communism was the way to freedom. What you seem to be arguing is not that a wave of communism was unlikely but that it might not have been such a bad thing.
Loans have to be repaid to the government. The Iraqis are going to eventually tax his buddies in Big Oil to repay said loans. This is why he was so insistent on getting grants.