Talk:Domino theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Southeast Asia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Southeast Asia-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Cold War Wiki Project Domino theory is part of the Cold War WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Cold War on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to the people, places, things, and events, and anything else associated with the Cold War. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] SomeoneAddThisSource

I'm not so good at making wikiedits and following the rules, however i think this quote from Henry Kissinger - a proponent of the "Domino Theory" made 40 years later may be relevant.

As we packed up our gear, I asked Kissinger one last question. Something I really wanted to know. "What if the United States had allowed Vietnam to go communist after World War II?"

"Wouldn't have mattered very much," Kissinger muttered. Lights off. No camera recording what he was saying. "If the Vietnam domino had fallen then, no great loss."

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/12/05/kissinger/index1.html


[edit] Comments

This article really does need sources.

Agreed. Sources? Theres alot of bullshit on this page. "in which large-scale attacks are used to intimidate the populace of a country into voting against an administration that advocates aggressive anti-terror policies."

Wait, he suggested that terror hoe attacks... would reduce... support... for anti-terror policy? Explain to me the logic behind that reasoning please? I mean sure Im not a theory theoretican but, Id suspect that the complete opposite would be the reaction (as it indeed WAS in the US post 9/11, patriot law etc etc etc) Until I see a source for the claim that he SAID it I highly recommend removing it.

Can someone please provide proof that Nixon said that the fall of Vietnam would bring about an invasion of the US and the end of freedom of speech, as this article alleges?


I honestly believe the derogatory remark about Chomsky is out of place. Regardless of whether the author agrees or disagrees with him opinion, saying Chomsky was "discredited" is both factually wrong (he is merely controversial) and unprofessional, therefore unfitting for Wikipedia.


WTH? American neoconservatives wanted to invade Iraq to spread liberalism across the Middle East? I'm not sure what is going on but it seems like most edits involving the invasion of Iraq are largely left of NPOV.

  Pardon? How can this be LEFT of NPOV? The left wants nothing to do with the clusterfuck in Iraq, being liberal doesnt necessarily mean LEFT you know.

[edit] Domino theory in the Middle East

Ok, so, when someone thinks "Domino Theory", apparently people think of Iraq. I'm really not sure about this at all. Does the invasion of Iraq constitute a nation invading another soverignty to prevent the spread of a particular ideology? I don't think so. --Shanoyu 22:34, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For me, and probably for most who remember the Soviet Union, "Domino Theory" means the danger of communism spreading through Southeast Asia. A few have begun using it in reference to the spread of democracy in the Middle East; thus the mention in the article. The second meaning is not, as far as I can tell, predominant or even very common. But it's common enough to warrant a mention.
As for your question "Does the invasion of Iraq constitute a nation invading another soverignty to prevent the spread of a particular ideology?" -- no, but the term "domino theory" is about encouraging the spread of an ideology, and always has been. --Yath 23:04, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. Either way, something needs to be changed. If you want to go with that, then the first paragraph of the article needs to be changed to reflect what Domino Theory is also. --Shanoyu 23:17, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You disagree with what? I've made several assertions. And if you've found a logical inconsistency in the article, edit away. --Yath 23:22, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I disagree that's what Domino theory is. I see it as completely related to the spread of communism as per the first paragraph. I would throw in the other definition into the first pagraph just so it doesn't look like the invasion of Iraq has anything to do with communism, except i'm not exactly clear on the definition now. Gonna look for primary sources that argue it as a theory rather than a reason for a course of action. --Shanoyu 23:29, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the original meaning was about the spread of communism and nothing else. But, given that it's a propaganda term, it should be allowed to take on the meaning that any sufficiently large group of users choose to assign to it. I don't sense that its meaning has changed just yet, but it is in the process of changing, and it may soon have the broader meaning of the spread of any ideology. The Iraq/democracy connection should be mentioned as a minor new development. --Yath 23:47, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] article

This article is dripping with POV. This is not a one or two word job but one dripping with POV in every sentence. If anyone likes the previous one, a lot of work will have to be done on this.

My "The aggressive momentum..." sentence is a mirror image of the sentence that existed here. As to whether its POV, its only POV if the other sentence was. Feel free to remove it if you dislike it. Ruy Lopez 14:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The domino theory turned out false, right?

I'm surprised to see nothing in the article about how the theory faired under the test of time (sounds fancy, but is that good English? :) ). Not only did the Vietnamese win, first in the North and then in the South, and did Cambodia become socialist (or communist if you wish, though that's a misnomer), and then .... nothing! No spread of 'communism'. In stead, Vietnam, Cambodia and China started fighting amongst themselves. And China and the USSR haven't quite been the best of friends either. No international conspiracy, just local politics and wars of liberation (not unlike the revolutions in the USA and France, by the way). In such a short article (surely, more can be said about the subject?) it would go to far to explore the details of all this, but there should at least be some mention of this. I'll give it a go, see if anyone else picks it up. Or has something similar been removed? I see the history is as long as the article is short. There must have been a lot of deletions. I hope my edit doesn't get deleted as well then :) . DirkvdM 13:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, all the points you made are highly disputed, but they are significant to the arguments of the critical side in the controversy section. They should not however, be presented as fact in the lead. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:10, 2005 August 3 (UTC)
Actually, it didn't for two reasons. 1)Many communist leaders outside of Indochina saw the war as the model for all other communist wars. Che Guevara, who supported Ho Chi Minh, opnely stated that he wanted to create "two, three, many Vietnams." 2)Communist armies, and their sympathizers were emboldened at first by the phony Paris Peace Accords of 1973, and then by the Fall of Saigon, just as radical islamists were emboldened by our pulling out of Lebanon in 1984, and Somalia ten years later. Those that didn't overthrow governments and turn them into communist regimes certainly tried. Even non-communists were encouraged by the Fall of Saigon. Even since then, all anybody has to do is shout "Vietnam" at any US military intervention as a buzzword for American defeat. DanTD 12:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the US should stop with interventions then.. since they obviously suck balls at them or appear 7 years to late (ww2) when almost all profits in selling both sides is gone.

Maybe you should get your facts straight about why the US sends troops anywhere, since you're obviously brainwashed by communist propaganda. We hold them back during a crisis and we're lazy slobs, but we take action, and people like you think we're "capitalist, fascist, imperialist swine," or some other red buzzwords like that! ---- DanTD 21:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Khmer Rouge communist takeover of Cambodia added

I added a paragraph on the Khmer Rouge and the killing fields. I found it very surprising there was no reference to it.

There are two thiongs I don't understand in the article. The first is there was no further spread of the ideology in the region, which both critics and supporters alike argued proved their view of the theory was correct. How can this be an argument for the supporters of the theory?

The other is what starts with Many supporters, however, attempt to explain this...". I don't see the connection with the preceding text. Explain what and how? The two paragraphs are about differnt things. And they're both about the view of the supporters, so the 'however' looks odd. DirkvdM 15:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Good points both. The sentence you bring up first is trying to explain that, when Communism solidified in Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos as a block, but then spread nowhere else, the supporters said, "look, the secured Communists in Vietnam helped finish off the revolution in neighboring Cambodia, we were right" and the opponents said "it didn't spread to Indonesia or Thailand, so you were wrong." The point is that it spread a little bit but not a lot and both sides interpret what happened as supporting their position.
  • I think I've fixed the second issue you raise; that paragraph refers to the one that starts "the primary evidence against..." I've placed these next to each other which hopefully will solve the problem; they were together originally but appear to have been split up over time. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • On second look the whole controversy section is pretty poorly structured. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree, and you might want to find a way to point out that both the Khmer Rouge and Pathet Lao were originally part of the Viet Minh. DanTD 19:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kennan, containment, and the Truman Doctrine

How about writing something about Kennan, containment, and the Truman Doctrine in the background section? I guess that was the background to the Domino theory, only the name wasn't used before Eisenhower. Vints 09:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


Wasn't it? I thought the Mr. X Article apeared before Eisenhower used the term...

In the X article "containment" not "Domino theory" was introduced Vints 19:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, many consider the foundation of the domino theory to be Dean Acheson's "rotten apple" theory of 1947. The United States was supporting the Greek economic royalists against the Greek Communists supported by Tito of Yugoslavia. Acheson, then Undersecretary of State to George Marshall, informed Congress that there was a "great polarization in the world. If Greece went Communist, it would be like a rotten apple in the barrel, infecting the rest." Here, Acheson implied "the rest" to be the Near East, India, China, and Japan. B lav 03:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Butterfly effect?

I don't understand the reference to the butterfly effect in the beginning of the article. The Domino theory is essentially about one takeover leading to another leading to another in a very visible way. The butterfly effect is about how small variations in a system can produce large variations in the long term in a way that is often not easily foreseen. The only thing in common with the terms at all is that they both deal with cause:effect situations, although in completely different ways. I'm taking the reference out. Smooth Nick 22:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What?

This the second stupidest thing I have ever hear any real life or fiction policy. This is fictional right? (The whole domino theory can't possibly be worthy to call itself a theory)

Sorry, but there's too much evidence that it's true. Among other facts mentioned in the article, as well as some other points I brought up, Che Guevara vowed to create more communist wars similar to Vietnam in other parts of the globe. Vietnam was viewed by communist leaders as the model for all communist wars. DanTD 23:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


"Actually, it didn't for two reasons. 1)Many communist leaders outside of Indochina saw the war as the model for all other communist wars. Che Guevara, who supported Ho Chi Minh, opnely stated that he wanted to create "two, three, many Vietnams." 2)Communist armies, and their sympathizers were emboldened at first by the phony Paris Peace Accords of 1973, and then by the Fall of Saigon, just as radical islamists were emboldened by our pulling out of Lebanon in 1984, and Somalia ten years later. Those that didn't overthrow governments and turn them into communist regimes certainly tried. Even non-communists were encouraged by the Fall of Saigon. Even since then, all anybody has to do is shout "Vietnam" at any US military intervention as a buzzword for American defeat. DanTD 12:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)"

1) Sorry, perception of "many" (5 leaders? 2000 leaders? How many communist leaders did you have with such a limited amount of communist countries? Can we even measure them in parts per million? Or parts per billion?) doesnt constitute true, just because you want to believe it. So point 1 moot.

2) I dont think you "pulled out of" Somalia mate :P I think you were sorta pushed out... (and you started using the word "our" pulling out) I think you should lay off the american hegemony dogma and face up to the fact that the US didnt stop the communists in any real way and despite your stupendous failure there didnt pop up a billion little communist countries all over the world.

To clarify. Your claim that US dominy theory was correct or that their strategy prevailed because the communists presumed ideas to expand communism worldwide supposedly failed seems abit... presumptious...

You're wrong, Npovorpov. Go read some of Che Guevara's speeches, and see for yourself. This "american hegemony dogma" that you accuse me of is a load of crap, and communist dictatorships did pop up all over the globe after we gave up on Vietnam. And in places where they didn't, red armies carried out their own bloody terror campaigns all over the world. And we did pull out of Soamilia, because the anti-war movement kept blaming Clinton for the murders by Al-Qaida puppet Mohammed Farah Aidid, and he didn't want to be seen as being another Johnson. ---- DanTD 14:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DarkNiGHTs 21:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This article has so much bull, it needs some serious work. I've done some, and I'll try and find sources for some of the things. the domino theory is very useful thanks for havifn some information on this! i'm glad you had it helpes me study for my history final friday thanks again climbingal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Climbingal (talk • contribs) 00:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist incidents paragraph

There's a paragraph detailing terrorist incidents by left-wing and Communist groups in the Western world. Though it's well-researched, I think it should be removed. I don't see the relevance to the domino theory - all it proves is that some people wanted Communist revolutions in other countries. These were homegrown groups, though, and they had no obvious connections to existing Communist countries. Korny O'Near 12:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so sure of that. The Red Brigades of Western Europe were linked to the Warsaw Pact, and in the Western Hemisphere, the F.A.L.N. the Revolutionary Action Movement, and F.L.Q. were linked to Cuba. Plus, there's the Communist Party USA, which was always close to Moscow, not to mention the Worker's World Party who are known Stalinists, and created their share of phony anti-war groups, a tactic that both the Revolutionary Communist Party and Communist Worker's Party(both Maoists) are familiar with. Groups like these are no different than the Viet Cong, Khmer Rouge, Sandinistas, or New People's Army. They simply were established in more affluent parts of the world. ---- DanTD 22:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, really what I should have said is, none of these acts of terrorism had any chance of overthrowing a government. The point is not whether Communist governments were interested in seeing Western countries turn Communist (I'm sure they did). The key for this article is whether they were capable of achieving that. In other words, to connect a terrorist attack to the domino theory, you'd have to show four things: (1) that the attack was aided in some way by the success of a Communist uprising elsewhere in the world, (2) that it was intended to convert its target country to Communism, (3) that the attack had some chance of success, and (4) that its ultimate failure was somehow related to U.S. foreign policy. I think all of the attacks listed miss at least two of these, and in some cases all four. Korny O'Near 00:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you read the parts about their support for and by other left-wing terrorist abroad? The paragraph is relevant. It shouldn't have been deleted. ---- DanTD 22:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You mean, the part in your comments? That looks like original research to me. There's nothing in this article (or in their respective articles) tying, say, the Red Brigades or the Weather Underground, both cited in the article, to any Communist regime. Also, as I wrote before, you'd have to at least have some evidence that Communist countries funded these groups with the aim of regime change. Korny O'Near 23:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You could've fooled me.

East Block Support: The Red Brigades primary support came from the Czechoslovak StB and the Palestine Liberation Organization. [1] [2] Soviet and Czechoslovakia small arms and explosives came from the Middle East via heroin traffickers along well established smuggling routes. [3] Logistic support and training were carried out directly by the Czechoslovak StB both in Prague and at remote PLO training camps in North Africa and Syria. [1] [4] Aware of the involvement and fearing retaliation due to their own involvement with the KGB, the Italian Communist Party lodged several complaints with the Soviet ambassador in Rome regarding Czechoslovak support of the Red Brigades, but the Soviets were either unwilling or unable to stop the StB. This was one of several contributing factors in ending the covert relationship that the Italian Communist Party had with the KGB culminating with a total break in 1979. [5]

The Weather Underground describes themselves as "a fifth-column for the Viet Cong and "fifth column" of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army"(check the article on Kathy Boudin for that quote), and when the communist wars in Central America were breaking out during the late-1970's and 1980's, they used to fight on behalf of the Sandinistas, the F.M.L.N. in El Salvador, and other parts of Central America. The Front de libération du Québec, F.A.L.N., and Robert F. Williams' Revolutionary Action Movement were all Cuban-backed.[1] Williams had a falling out with Castro when he realized Fidel didn't know jack about the true nature of race-relations in the Southeastern US. Castro insisted that working-class whites would be on their side, and he knew that wasn't true. ---- DanTD 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's more on Soviet puppet dictatorships backing red terrorists in the west:

External Aid Basically self-sustaining, but during Baader-Meinhof period received some support from Middle Eastern terrorist groups; some ties may still exist. The RAF received logistic support, sanctuary, and training from the German Democratic Republic during the early 1980s. The RAF appears to be developing closer ties to GRAPO in Spain.

That sure sounds like evidence of an attempt by the USSR-Warsaw Pact to back expand communism to me. ---- DanTD 01:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, great; this is the kind of stuff that belongs in the article. If there's no explanation that there was Communist state backing, the whole paragraph just looks like a non sequitur. The second half of the evidence needed, though, is showing that these groups had the goal of Communist revolution in their own countries, and not just more limited goals (e.g., ending the Vietnam War, independence for Puerto Rico, killing their perceived enemies). (Let's forget for the moment the idea that it was only U.S. foreign policy that blocked these groups from achieving this supposed goal.) Korny O'Near 02:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you're unwilling to discuss this on the talk page, but: for a terrorist action to be listed here, there has to be some evidence that it was done with the goal of regime change. The fact that it "sounds like evidence" of that to you is not good enough. In the case of actions in the U.S., the stated goals were much more limited than that, and thus I don't think any of them belong. This is an article about the domino theory, not a generic page about bad things done by Communists. Korny O'Near 18:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you aware of the history of these groups and their origins? Have you listened to their speeches? If you had, you'd realize that they dohave regime change in mind. International A.N.S.W.E.R. isn't the first anti-war front established by the Workers World Party, you know[6], and the WWP isn't the only communist faction to create anti-war fronts that evolved into communist terrorist groups. ---- DanTD 19:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Better yet...[7]. ---- DanTD 19:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
All well and good, but there still needs to be at least a single piece of evidence that any of this terrorism had to do with Communist countries attempting to bring about revolution(s) in the West. Even speculation, as long as it's from a notable source. Anything. (On a technical note, don't use "ref" tags in the Talk page; they're not clickable.) Korny O'Near 20:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Got it about the references. But check this info on the Workers World Party:

Initially the WWP was confined to the Buffalo, New York area, where it had constituted the Buffalo and other smaller branches of the SWP, like Youngstown, Ohio, but expanded in the 1960s. During the Civil Rights Movement the WWP had a youth movement, "Youth Against War and Fascism", which opposed the Vietnam War. Workers World and YAWF were also notable for their consistent defense of the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground along with Vietnam Veterans Against the War and the Puerto Rican Independence movement.

As I had mentioned earlier, the FALN was backed by Cuba. And you do realize that the Soviet Union admitted in 1990 that the Communist Party USA took orders from Moscow, and that the Students for a Democratic Society which spawned the Weathermen originated in a youth faction of the League for Industrial Democracy don't you? ----- DanTD 00:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Find some evidence directly (not indirectly) linking a U.S. terrorist group to a Communist country, and then facts about that group can go into the article. Korny O'Near 01:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
What do you think Cuba is? ---- DanTD 01:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Fine; we can add FALN to the page, with a citation showing that they received aid from Cuba. Korny O'Near 05:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)