So, was US meddling on Vietnam correct? Did it stop the dominos falling and whole SE Asia from becoming communist?
AH discussion: Domino theory correct?
- Thread starter Mister Mister
- Start date
Well, in Cambodia, it arguably sorta worked by having the WORST type of Communists come to power, and then have China attack Vietnam when Hanoi tried to do something about the shitshow on their border.
IOW the Communists were too fucked up among themselves to pose any challenge to anyone else. But none of that was anything planned by the people who came up with the original Domino theory.
Yes, based off the Definition of Domino Theory, it did happen, although much of it occurred before the Theory was created. Also, are we applying this only to true communist states or all Soviet aligned ones?
1) Otl examples of Domino Theory actually happening are as follows:
A) China -> North Vietnam -> Laos, South Vietnam, and Cambodia.
B) Cuba -> Angola -> Namibia and Zimbabwe (pro Soviet, but not Communist).
C) Soviet Union -> Mongolia, North Korea, Warsaw Pact Nations, Yugoslavia, Albania, Afghanistan, and Ethiopia.
2) Countries that Would have fallen to Communism because of Domino Theory without US Support/Intervention:
A) Greece
B) South Korea
C) Taiwan
D) Grenada
3) Summary/Conclusion: Communism in some nations did in fact lead to Communism in other nations in the same geographic area. It should also be noted that the list above does not mention the numerous failed communist insurgencies that took place during the Cold War.
The issue isn't really whether or not Domino Theory is real. It's a matter of A) Is there a limitation to Domino Theory? and B) Is it worth fighting? For matter A, the answer is yes, Communism would not have spread that much further than otl if the US decided to go back to isolationism for the entire later half of the 20th century. As for matter B, it depends. Obviously Vietnam was not worth the cost, nor was US involvement in Latin America. At the same time though, stopping Greece, Taiwan, and South Korea from falling to Communism was probably a net positive.
1) Otl examples of Domino Theory actually happening are as follows:
A) China -> North Vietnam -> Laos, South Vietnam, and Cambodia.
B) Cuba -> Angola -> Namibia and Zimbabwe (pro Soviet, but not Communist).
C) Soviet Union -> Mongolia, North Korea, Warsaw Pact Nations, Yugoslavia, Albania, Afghanistan, and Ethiopia.
2) Countries that Would have fallen to Communism because of Domino Theory without US Support/Intervention:
A) Greece
B) South Korea
C) Taiwan
D) Grenada
3) Summary/Conclusion: Communism in some nations did in fact lead to Communism in other nations in the same geographic area. It should also be noted that the list above does not mention the numerous failed communist insurgencies that took place during the Cold War.
The issue isn't really whether or not Domino Theory is real. It's a matter of A) Is there a limitation to Domino Theory? and B) Is it worth fighting? For matter A, the answer is yes, Communism would not have spread that much further than otl if the US decided to go back to isolationism for the entire later half of the 20th century. As for matter B, it depends. Obviously Vietnam was not worth the cost, nor was US involvement in Latin America. At the same time though, stopping Greece, Taiwan, and South Korea from falling to Communism was probably a net positive.
Last edited:
Well, yes and no.
However the domino theory as formulated by leading circles in the US was nothing but a pretty bad excuse to prop up their pupet regime in South Vietnam.
I think the people who came up with the Domino Theory were using a rather different definition of Communism than what Marx was. Basically, "Governments similar to and allied with the one in the USSR".
You can't really blame them though, even the Communists ignored Marx in this regard.
The "Domino theory" was no scientific theory so it can't be proven right or wrong. It was a view of the world, which said that every government that somehow allied with the USSR was evil and had to be toppled at any cost necessary.
Actually most communists in third world countries were very aware of this part of Marx's writing, hence why the PRC at the start didn't saw itself as a socialist society but a "new-democratic" one. After all, the fourth star in the Chinese flag represents the "progressive national bourgeoisie".
Domino Theory can be a partial explanation in some instances, but as it was applied in Asia often led more to a blind spot in policy making rather than insight. The Viet Minh were fighting for liberation from French colonialism and foreign interference in their country, but Domino Theory put the US on the road to antagonism with them because it automatically assumed it was a creation from Moscow or Beijing rather than an organic movement that was popular for very specific socio-political reasons. It also assumed Communist countries were a unified monolith dedicated to the destruction of the United States which, as we saw OTL, was incredibly far from the truth. In my mind, it can explain the development of socialism in some countries that it was imposed on by external forces like North Korea, but in the later stages of the Cold War it was certainly a liability. The success of Indochinese Communist Parties did not seriously affect the potential outcome of communist victories in Thailand, Burma, or Malaysia because local conditions were much more decisive than some vague ‘outside direction’ from the Kremlin itself or from Ho Chi Minh City.
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you mean by "the communist victories in Thailand, Burma, or Malaysia", since those countries didn't have Communist victories. Did you mean to write something like "the pro-western victories"?
I said the outcome of communist victories in Thailand, Burma, and Malaysia meaning like communist parties taking power were not going to be the final outcome in any of those countries simply due to Indochinese communism. Apologies for the unclear word choice, I’ll fix it!
No, the US policy towards South Vietnam was entirely self-defeating. Back Diem to the hilt or cut your losses. Building a perfect liberal democracy through successive military coups and building a national army by sidelining it are fools errands.
The dominos in danger of falling, Laos and Cambodia, fell anyways (and in the case of Cambodia probably only fell due to American meddling). Thailand arguably was never going to fall, but US military aid during the period may have helped further cement that fact.
Last edited:
Mongolia and the Warsaw Pact?
Yep. But something that happened years down the road (the Viet Minh actually was fighting the Japanese beforehand, while Laos and Cambodia fell thanks to their respective communist movements and North Vietnamese meddling).
Yes. Cuba intervened in Angola, but the rest is kind of wrong. See, Namibia was fighting for independence since 1966, while Rhodesia reverted to British rule to later get a majority rule and independence by 1980. And remember the Angolan Civil War only ended in 2002, even though the government in Luanda was from the MPLA.
Yep. The Mongolia thing occured in the aftermath of the Russian Civil War. You could argue the gains of the Warsaw Pact members, Yugoslavia, and Albania (even though the latter two eventually broke with the USSR). Afghanistan and Ethiopia should be reversed though (while Ethiopia has no geographic connection to the USSR).
Technically yes.
It depends if communist movements succeed, obviously.
Just because communist nations grew does not necessarily mean that it was due to the direct intervention and material support of existing communist countries though, as Domino Theory claims. Cuba did not succeed in its revolution because of Moscow.
If you mean as an example and ideological beacon for Third World countries to align themselves with, then yes. If you mean direct and material support to expand international communism forcibly, then not always.
It's incredibly odd to me that one would contend that the most successful Marxist-Leninist revolution in the western hemisphere was achieved wholly without the support of a state founded on Marxism-Leninism that had been actively pushing such revolutions for decades and which then eagerly embraced this same Marxist-Leninist state as fully as any of its clients more overtly established.
For the sake of brevity, let me quote Wikipedia:
The Cuban Revolution propelled Fidel Castro to power on January 1, 1959 but initially attracted little attention in Moscow. Soviet planners, resigned to US dominance over the Western Hemisphere, were unprepared for the possibility of a future ally in the region. According to later testimonies from Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, neither the Soviet Communist Party's Central Committee nor KGB intelligence had any idea who Castro was or what he was fighting for. Khrushchev advised them to consult Cuban communists, who reported that Castro was a representative of the "haute bourgeoisie" and working for the Central Intelligence Agency.
In February 1960, Khrushchev sent his deputy, Anastas Mikoyan, to Cuba to discover what motivated Castro, who had returned from failed trip to Washington, DC, where he was refused a meeting with US President Dwight Eisenhower. According to reports, Khrushchev's aides had initially tried to characterize Castro as an untrustworthy American agent.
Just because the ideological basis for support existed doesn’t mean there actually was direct support - the Soviets were caught completely unaware by the Cuban Revolution and really had no clue what was going on there. Domino theory, and your posts, seem to imply Moscow was watching the entire thing unfold with complete attention and aided the Cuban Revolution in any way they could. Hell, I was initially discussing just arms and ammunition, but the Khrushchev government really didn’t even support the idea of Castro’s government at first either. Reality doesn’t bear this one out...