Why didn't USA move into Laos to block Ho Chi Minh trail?

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

LordTempest

Starmtrooper for hire
62 Badges
May 14, 2009
7.769
7.406
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sengoku
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • March of the Eagles
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Iron Cross
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Pride of Nations
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Deus Vult
  • Darkest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Cities in Motion
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • East India Company
  • Europa Universalis III
I highlighted part for you where you seems to support isolation or Berlin wall in Asia. Maybe you should be a bit more organized how you explain yourself.

Wut? Boy do you have a sense of irony, mate.

I guess domino theory makes sense if you ignore completely local history, traditions, nations and politics.

Perhaps you could tell me how many pro-PRC Communist insurgencies were present in South-East Asia prior to 1949, and how many pro-Soviet ones there were prior to 1917? Thank you.

To me it seems to be an easy way to to propagate to public why your nation have to wage war in some remote jungle. Also it seems to be offering to an incompetent government a simple solutions on complex issue.

And this is incorrect, as has been pointed out repeatedly.

This only makes domino theory to look like even more ridiculous. There is not and never were an unified force to take over whole region which completely cripples your main point. Again, a simple explanation to simple people. US actually lost, and there was no domino effect, which again cripples this logic.

It does nothing of the sort. There were several, well-documented attempts of Communist insurgencies during the Cold War, supported by at least one (and often both) main Communist powers within the region in addition to parties on both sides of the Sino-Soviet divide, whose stated objective was to overthrow the existing regime and replace it with a communist one. It doesn't matter whether these regimes were pro-Beijing or pro-Moscow, they were both communist. Given that the domino theory, as articulated by the US in the 1940's-70's was about halting the spread of communism, it matters not which particular variety or strand of communism these states and parties happened to profess.
 

bz249

Lt. General
29 Badges
Oct 20, 2008
1.667
216
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV
It does nothing of the sort. There were several, well-documented attempts of Communist insurgencies during the Cold War, supported by at least one (and often both) main Communist powers within the region in addition to parties on both sides of the Sino-Soviet divide, whose stated objective was to overthrow the existing regime and replace it with a communist one. It doesn't matter whether these regimes were pro-Beijing or pro-Moscow, they were both communist. Given that the domino theory, as articulated by the US in the 1940's-70's was about halting the spread of communism, it matters not which particular variety or strand of communism these states and parties happened to profess.

Well let's put into the big picture. We are in the middle of the Cold war with Superpower A (the USA) and Superpower B (the Soviet Union) struggling to take control the region. The established elite is supported by Superpower A, if you want equal playing field locking Superpower B is your option. To get the support from Superpower B you have to insert the word "Socialist*" or "Communist" into the name of your movement.

Anti USA=Commie in this setting.

*the Arabic world shows some prime example, with well known Socialist like Nasser or Gaddafi (does it proves the domino theory of Africa?)
 

LordTempest

Starmtrooper for hire
62 Badges
May 14, 2009
7.769
7.406
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sengoku
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • March of the Eagles
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Iron Cross
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Pride of Nations
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Deus Vult
  • Darkest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Cities in Motion
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • East India Company
  • Europa Universalis III
Well let's put into the big picture. We are in the middle of the Cold war with Superpower A (the USA) and Superpower B (the Soviet Union) struggling to take control the region. The established elite is supported by Superpower A, if you want equal playing field locking Superpower B is your option. To get the support from Superpower B you have to insert the word "Socialist*" or "Communist" into the name of your movement.

Anti USA=Commie in this setting.

*the Arabic world shows some prime example, with well known Socialist like Nasser or Gaddafi (does it proves the domino theory of Africa?)

From an American perspective, would containing a movement which is allied with the Soviets and purports to be Communist be any different than containing a movement which is allied to the Soviets and actually is? I mean, there have been plenty of instances of political movements during the Cold War which pertained to be not communist initially, but which were aligned with the USSR and gravitated towards communism over time. (Cuba and Vietnam being the textbook examples.)
 

bz249

Lt. General
29 Badges
Oct 20, 2008
1.667
216
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV
From an American perspective, would containing a movement which is allied with the Soviets and purports to be Communist be any different than containing a movement which is allied to the Soviets and actually is? I mean, there have been plenty of instances of political movements during the Cold War which pertained to be not communist initially, but which were aligned with the USSR and gravitated towards communism over time. (Cuba and Vietnam being the textbook examples.)

The point is that any Anti-American movement have to align themselves with the USSR based on the enemy of my enemy principle. But there is no need for the Anti-American movements to coordinate among themselves (hence the domino effect). The only "real" explanation for a domino effect would be the strain release on the Soviet supply efforts after a succesful takeover (since those are piss poor nations with nonexistent infrastructure it is questionable that they would need less support during the peacetime... they would need less military support, but this is where the Soviets excel, so probably they are better of with warring "ally")
 
C

Calad

Guest
Wut? Boy do you have a sense of irony, mate.

So you are childish as well, I guess I have to take your opinion as seriously.

Perhaps you could tell me how many pro-PRC Communist insurgencies were present in South-East Asia prior to 1949, and how many pro-Soviet ones there were prior to 1917? Thank you.

It does not matter, because they all failed. Where they succeeded was because of failed Western politics, like Vietnam, or direct Communist occupation. There was no reason at all Laos and Cambodia to become Communist before US messed them up. And surprise, farmers are Conservative, not Communist by nature. Because French insisted to keep Vietnam under their rule they managed to destroy every single opposition but not the most toughies: Communist party. Had France withdraw with honor like UK did everywhere there would not have been Communist Vietnam.

And this is incorrect, as has been pointed out repeatedly.

Well that's relief, but I just found an evidence this has been pointed correct repeatedly.

It does nothing of the sort. There were several, well-documented attempts of Communist insurgencies during the Cold War, supported by at least one (and often both) main Communist powers within the region in addition to parties on both sides of the Sino-Soviet divide, whose stated objective was to overthrow the existing regime and replace it with a communist one. It doesn't matter whether these regimes were pro-Beijing or pro-Moscow, they were both communist. Given that the domino theory, as articulated by the US in the 1940's-70's was about halting the spread of communism, it matters not which particular variety or strand of communism these states and parties happened to profess.

What you are descripting is a proxy war and another proxy war inside other side. If you want to call this domino theory then fine, but it was not unique situation, just business as usual.
 

Klausewitz

Field Marshal
107 Badges
Jul 16, 2009
6.136
1.441
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • BATTLETECH - Backer
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 Deluxe Edition
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Surviving Mars
  • Victoria 2
With the exception of Indonesia (which IIRC had the largest non-ruling Communist Party in the world outside of France and Italy at one point) these insurgencies were mostly due to agitation from CCP-affiliated members of the local Chinese community.
That is barely one step above the Nazi theory of 'The Jew as the biological carrier of bolshevism'.
It also happens to be paper-thin.
You take three states (Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia) then say it is not true for one (Indonesia) and then pretend that Malaysia and Singapore are two seperate cases, when they are both part of the 'Malayan Emergency'.
So basically you say:
"There was one instance of Chinese communist starting a revolt in South-East-Asia, therefore Domino Therory!"
 

LordTempest

Starmtrooper for hire
62 Badges
May 14, 2009
7.769
7.406
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sengoku
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • March of the Eagles
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Iron Cross
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Pride of Nations
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Deus Vult
  • Darkest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Cities in Motion
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • East India Company
  • Europa Universalis III
I guess I have to take your opinion as seriously.

You don't actually understand what my opinion is as evidenced by your replies so I don't particularly mind whether you take whatever you consider it to be with contempt.

It does not matter, because they all failed.

So essentially what you're saying is that the domino theory was wrong because states took action to successfully contain Communism? Why did they do that? Domino theory!

Again, you don't seem to understand a word of what it is that I'm actually arguing here. Try actually reading my posts, or something.

That is barely one step above the Nazi theory of 'The Jew as the biological carrier of bolshevism'.
It also happens to be paper-thin.

It's several steps above because unlike Nazi propaganda it's factually accurate. Chinese expatriate communities in South-East Asia have a long history of engaging in political activism: long before the KMT had a powerbase in China proper it had one in places like Malacca and Singapore. When the Malayan Communist Party was founded its membership and leadership was disproportionately Chinese, its support-base was drawn primarily from the local Chinese community, the party possessed strong ties to the CCP and its fiercest opponents were the members of the local KMT branches. The history of Communist insurgency in Malaysia and Singapore arguably begins with the Chinese Civil War and proxy-feuding between local supporters of the two factions.

This isn't racism -- FFS I've already conceded several times that the KMT were a very important anti-communist force in the region -- it's a matter of historical fact that the PKM was dominated by people of Chinese ethnicity and had close ties to Beijing. It's also a matter of historical fact that the CCP and the PKM had ties and aided other parties in the region, such as the Thai communists during their insurgency, the JRA, etc.

and then pretend that Malaysia and Singapore are two seperate cases, when they are both part of the 'Malayan Emergency'.

True, but one could also lump in together the Malayan Emergency with the Thailand Insurgency, the Vietnam War, the Burmese Insurgency, the JRA, etc and say that they were all aspects of the same conflict. Wouldn't actually negate my argument.

You take three states (Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia) then say it is not true for one (Indonesia)

Chinese members possessed less influence per capita in the PKI because the PKI was, as mentioned, one of the largest communist parties in the world at the time. This isn't to say that the PRC did not have any influence in the PKI at all -- they did, it was just proportionately less than in Chinese-dominated movements like the PKM and I was being intellectually honest in admitting that fact.

So basically you say:
"There was one instance of Chinese communist starting a revolt in South-East-Asia, therefore Domino Therory!"

Because it's not as if I have also made several other posts in this very thread which lay out a more general argument which you're conveniently chosen not to reference, no sir.
 
C

Calad

Guest
You don't actually understand what my opinion is as evidenced by your replies so I don't particularly mind whether you take whatever you consider it to be with contempt.

Im just reflecting your own behavior.

So essentially what you're saying is that the domino theory was wrong because states took action to successfully contain Communism? Why did they do that? Domino theory!

Again, you don't seem to understand a word of what it is that I'm actually arguing here. Try actually reading my posts, or something.

States took action against Communist because they did not wanted to have a revolution, nor armed foreign funded armed groups inside their borders. Had one of these succeed, like in Cuba, would not have caused downfall of the rest of countries. This did not happen in Latin America because states were strong enough be themselves, nor did this happens in Africa.

Domino theory was a justification to mess with other countries did they want it or not. Good strawman to promote fear and weapon industry.

You just seems to be obsessed with Domino Theory. I honestly dont have anything else to add here.
 

gagenater

Field Marshal
20 Badges
May 18, 2004
3.657
224
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
I guess you dont see flaw of your thinking: nations are not herds. Both Laos and Cambodia became Communist because of failed Vietnam war which US extended into other countries. This is why Thailand is not Communist which your model simply cant explain.

Also whole Vietnam war was absolutely unnecessary: Vietnamese national characteristic is build similar way like Canada's: what they are not. Vietnam has opposed Chinese dominion more than 600 years. US could have easily allowed unified Vietnam and then used nationalism against Chinese. Voila and whole domino theory became obsolete! After Vietnam war China and Vietnam had a short border war just to show how unified Communist nations truly were. So again if Communist countries could not tolerate each other what again was the point of domino theory?

The flaw in your argument is assuming that the 'dominoes' in S.E. Asia might fall mysteriously because the countries in that area have something in common with one another. That is neither necessary nor required for the nations of the region to begin to flip towards Communism, because one thing was for certain: The leadership, military, economic and intelligence forces of the Communist world were in fact trying to 'flip' all the dominoes in S.E. Asia. Their efforts went forward without regard for any similarities or differences in the nations of the region for the same reason that the USA tried to 'keep' or flip all their dominoes.

It was a world where there were 2 sides, and only 2 sides - the US and the USSR. If you weren't actively involved in supporting one of those two sides, then inevitably one of them or the other would come looking for your nation and force you to take their side (or at least force you away from the other side) It happened almost literally in every nation on earth that existed from 1945 to 1991. The intolerance between Vietnam and China wasn't obviously apparent until AFTER the US had pulled out of Vietnam. Up until that point, whatever ill will may have existed between the two was subsumed well enough that the Communist North Vietnamese received massive aid and assistance from China. It was entirely reasonable from the US perspective to expect that they would continue to find a way to cooperate with one another to their own mutual benefit.

At different times, the Soviets managed to 'flip' Syria, Egypt, Nicaragua, Cuba, Hungary, Poland, Angola and Yemen. What do those countries have to do with one another? They were targeted for takeover by Communist nations. The US managed at various times to 'flip' Iran, Chile, Dominican Republic, Greece, Turkey, Italy, Nicaragua, Iraq, and Pakistan. What do these countries have to do with one another? They were targeted for takeover by the capitalist nations. You can argue how communist or capitalist any of these places ever became, but the fact of the matter is that they were all forced to choose a side in a conflict far larger than they were.

Exactly what a nation was like before one of the superpowers decided to intervene in it's affairs is relevant, but far from deterministic in being a useful predictive factor in what might happen next. One of the explicit attractions of communism was that it promised to sweep away all the old ideas and tenancies of a country and replace them with all new scientific communist ideas and policies. And sometimes it worked too. Neither the Americans nor the Soviets were foolish in the way that they chose to back different nations, and oppose one another in them.

TLDR: The dominoes don't fall over on their own - they are pushed. In the cold war era, ALL the countries except the USA and the USSR are dominoes, which may or may not be placed 'in play' at different times. It only takes one side to decide a domino is in the game. After that it's in the game and the other side has to play it, one way or another.
 
Last edited:

Fanstar1

Colonel
67 Badges
May 16, 2015
869
374
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Darkest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Victoria 2
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
TET (the 1st offensive in January) is good success for them, they achieved surprise and capture some whole cities . It was second and third offensive in May and August 1968 that was not as good, but still give US heavy casualties and made Westmoreland lost his Commander in Chief!
Viet cong didn't maintain control of any cities for long (except for NVA and hue, which lasted for a few months). Viet cong suffered massive casualties and their command structure was permanently shattered; the NVA would be the main force after TET
 

Andre Bolkonsky

Gazing up at the blue, blue sky
On Probation
36 Badges
Feb 28, 2002
2.281
3.900
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 Deluxe Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Empire of Sin
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • War of the Roses
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Pillars of Eternity
Tactically, the Tet Offensive was a massive failure.

Strategically, it was a brilliant success. It convinced the American people the Vietnamese weren't going to pack up and go away, so maybe we should.
 

bz249

Lt. General
29 Badges
Oct 20, 2008
1.667
216
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV
Tactically, the Tet Offensive was a massive failure.

Strategically, it was a brilliant success. It convinced the American people the Vietnamese weren't going to pack up and go away, so maybe we should.

I concur... it was a great tactical succes as Fanstar1 mentioned earlier, it made sure that no rival communist force exists in the South. There was no way that the North Vietnamese to lose in a conflict between two Southern faction. ;)
 
C

Calad

Guest
Reading this text is very confusing, please use spaces more.

The flaw in your argument is assuming that the 'dominoes' in S.E. Asia might fall mysteriously because the countries in that area have something in common with one another. That is neither necessary nor required for the nations of the region to begin to flip towards Communism, because one thing was for certain: The leadership, military, economic and intelligence forces of the Communist world were in fact trying to 'flip' all the dominoes in S.E. Asia. Their efforts went forward without regard for any similarities or differences in the nations of the region for the same reason that the USA tried to 'keep' or flip all their dominoes. It was a world where there were 2 sides, and only 2 sides - the US and the USSR. If you weren't actively involved in supporting one of those two sides, then inevitably one of them or the other would come looking for your nation and force you to take their side (or at least force you away from the other side) It happened almost literally in every nation on earth that existed from 1945 to 1991.

This simply not true. Non-alignment movement was also an option and nations from both camps joined there, the best example is Yugoslavia.

Nations that successfully joined Communist camp were either totally occupied (Poland) or already had a solid dictatorship (Libya) and simply joined party. Then some nations had a coup (Ethiopia) that only led a long civil war ended only by collapse of Communism. What makes SE Asia different is huge amount resources US poured over there and then withdraw very quickly, leaving a power vacuum easily to be filled by Vietnamese. Reason why Thailand did not fall was Thailand did not participate in Vietnamese war and society did not became polarized and war torn unlike Cambodia and Laos.

Also nations that joined Communist side either had grievances (Libya again, some African colonies and Vietnam) against old colonial rule and masters, were dictatorship (Middle East) or were very primitive so a small radical (again old colonies) group could easily take it over.

The intolerance between Vietnam and China wasn't obviously apparent until AFTER the US had pulled out of Vietnam. Up until that point, whatever ill will may have existed between the two was subsumed well enough that the Communist North Vietnamese received massive aid and assistance from China. It was entirely reasonable from the US perspective to expect that they would continue to find a way to cooperate with one another to their own mutual benefit. At different times, the Soviets managed to 'flip' Syria, Egypt, Nicaragua, Cuba, Hungary, Poland, Angola and Yemen. What do those countries have to do with one another? They were targeted for takeover by Communist nations. The US managed at various times to 'flip' Iran, Chile, Dominican Republic, Greece, Turkey, Italy, Nicaragua, Iraq, and Pakistan. What do these countries have to do with one another? They were targeted for takeover by the capitalist nations. You can argue how communist or capitalist any of these places ever became, but the fact of the matter is that they were all forced to choose a side in a conflict far larger than they were. Exactly what a nation was like before one of the superpowers decided to intervene in it's affairs is relevant, but far from deterministic in being a useful predictive factor in what might happen next. One of the explicit attractions of communism was that it promised to sweep away all the old ideas and tenancies of a country and replace them with all new scientific communist ideas and policies. And sometimes it worked too. Neither the Americans nor the Soviets were foolish in the way that they chose to back different nations, and oppose one another in them.

TLDR: The dominoes don't fall over on their own - they are pushed. In the cold war era, ALL the countries except the USA and the USSR are dominoes, which may or may not be placed 'in play' at different times. It only takes one side to decide a domino is in the game. After that it's in the game and the other side has to play it, one way or another.

Again Domino theory is "pushing nations" is very simple way to explain complicated events and politics. Vietnam and China had been on each others throat at least 600 years and Vietnam had no intentions to become a tributary state again. This is obvious to anybody who knows local history, but hey Domino Theory!

Hungary and Poland were never flipped, they were occupied. Syria, Egypt and Yemen joined Communist camp because of Israel and old exploitative colonial rule. US actually supported Castro until he nationalized everything. Angola had a war of independence and only USSR was willing to provide arms. Chile never flipped and had s coup. Iran was flipped twice and US managed to destroy democracy which worked so well, after revolution Iran did not flip Soviet side... honestly I could keep doing this for a very long time. These nations were not targeted, that is another very simple way to explain events. Domino Theory was a casus belli for US to do anything it wants anywhere, because you dont know who will flip next!
 

Cavalry

Field Marshal
8 Badges
Jul 24, 2001
5.295
1.352
Visit site
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
We can discuss to understand more, but probably all the options has been considered by the US.
The other 2 questions are
- Why the US didn't invade the North?
- Why the US didn't use nuclear in Vietnam?
 

Klausewitz

Field Marshal
107 Badges
Jul 16, 2009
6.136
1.441
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • BATTLETECH - Backer
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 Deluxe Edition
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Surviving Mars
  • Victoria 2
- Why the US didn't invade the North?
It solves no problem.
It only shortens the supply line from China, extends the combat zone into areas that were VC loyalists even under the French and does nothing to cut of the Ho Chi Minh path.
It solves very few problems while inflicting many much more serious ones.
- Why the US didn't use nuclear in Vietnam?
Soviet Union.
 

JodelDiplom

Field Marshal
22 Badges
Apr 5, 2013
4.512
18.698
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Deus Vult
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
How many independent states existed in South America in 1808? Zero.
How many independent states existed in South America in 1828? Ten or eleven, depending on definition.

How many communists states existed in Eastern Europe in 1982? Eight or Nine, depending on definition.
How many existed in 1992? Zero.
The reason Spanish colonies sought and won independence was that Spain was unable to resist their efforts at that time. There was no domino effect, as the prime reason for them seeking independence was Spain and not something happening in the respective neighbor colonies.

The reason the soviet satellites all broke free and shook off communism was that Gorbachev had vouched to not intervene in the satellites' internal reform processes. Here, again, no domino effect - east Germany didn't have its peaceful revolution because of anything that happened in Poland. The causes were domestic and would have played out much the same way had poland remained communist. Same in the other countries. They all had their reasons to protest against the local regimes, and the reason they did go ahead with it was Gorbachev's policy not stuff happening in the neighbor countries.
 

LordTempest

Starmtrooper for hire
62 Badges
May 14, 2009
7.769
7.406
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sengoku
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • March of the Eagles
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Iron Cross
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Pride of Nations
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Deus Vult
  • Darkest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Cities in Motion
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • East India Company
  • Europa Universalis III
he reason Spanish colonies sought and won independence was that Spain was unable to resist their efforts at that time. There was no domino effect, as the prime reason for them seeking independence was Spain and not something happening in the respective neighbor colonies.

So the fact that people like Bolívar, et al. went from colony to colony stoking the fires of independence had literally no impact on events whatsoever? Good to know. :rolleyes:

The reason the soviet satellites all broke free and shook off communism was that Gorbachev had vouched to not intervene in the satellites' internal reform processes. Here, again, no domino effect - east Germany didn't have its peaceful revolution because of anything that happened in Poland. The causes were domestic and would have played out much the same way had poland remained communist. Same in the other countries. They all had their reasons to protest against the local regimes, and the reason they did go ahead with it was Gorbachev's policy not stuff happening in the neighbor countries.

I swear, It's like people don't actually know what the domino effect actually is. The domino effect is simply a law which states that the chances of something happening in one state are greatly increased if something similar happens in another nearby state, where the number of nearby states increases the strength and likelihood of something happening. Nobody is seriously suggesting that EE dissident movements literally would not have existed at all were it not for, say, Solidarity. The success of one movement empowers other movements which empowers others who empower yet other and so on ad infinitum. Defiance encourages more defiance, and Defiance in Danzig can encourage it in Prague and Leipzig.
 

gagenater

Field Marshal
20 Badges
May 18, 2004
3.657
224
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
Reading this text is very confusing, please use spaces more.

You are correct - I started with a short pithy statement, then expanded from there, and it wound up too long and unwieldy. I broke it up into the constituent paragraphs - you don't need to go back and re read it - no info was added or taken away - just spaced out.



This simply not true. Non-alignment movement was also an option and nations from both camps joined there, the best example is Yugoslavia.

Non alignment was only an option for nations that were strong enough to resist the attempts by the two superpowers to use them in their conflict, and/or too irrelevent for one of the two superpowers to want to 'put in play'. The best example IMHO isn't Yugoslavia, although it's not a terrible one. It was pretty solidly in the communist camp. It wasn't directly beholden to the USSR for it's existence, and had some independence from the USSR, but was more or less voluntarily on the soviet side in most things. It was definitively NOT in the camp of the USA. The very best example from the whole cold war era was probably India. Both the US and the USSR made very considerable attempts to get India on to it's side in the conflict. However India was successfully able to avoid even the appearance of favoring one of the sides. It was aided by a rapid strengthening and organization of political institutions after it gained it's independence, and by the chaotic situation with the de-evolution of Pakistan and East Pakistan (Bangladesh) The rapid consolidation of domestic political institutions meant that the cost to the USA or USSR to destabilize the nation of India, and then push it into their camp rapidly became quite high only a short time after India became independent. Both countries preferred 'quick and easy' wins, because although they had vast resources, they were finite, and they preferred to get hte most bang for their political buck. The uncertainty with respect to Pakistan and East Pakistan prevented either side from jumping in 'full strength' right after independence because neither side wanted to be caught up in the midst of a civil war where neither side was one of their partisan supporters.

Nations that successfully joined Communist camp were either totally occupied (Poland) or already had a solid dictatorship (Libya) and simply joined party. Then some nations had a coup (Ethiopia) that only led a long civil war ended only by collapse of Communism. What makes SE Asia different is huge amount resources US poured over there and then withdraw very quickly, leaving a power vacuum easily to be filled by Vietnamese. Reason why Thailand did not fall was Thailand did not participate in Vietnamese war and society did not became polarized and war torn unlike Cambodia and Laos.

Of course - Just like the USA, the USSR preferred easy targets, either because they were already militarily occupied for unrelated reasons, or because they were already 'leaning' towards their side. The arguement that having a 'solid dictatorship' is a reason why a nation went to the Soviet side is clearly incoherent. Both the USA and the USSR were perfectly happy to back dictators provided that those dictators were willing to 'pledge allegiance' to their side. The USA was not interested in backing Democracies - it was interested in backing places that would resist the USSR.

Also nations that joined Communist side either had grievances (Libya again, some African colonies and Vietnam) against old colonial rule and masters, were dictatorship (Middle East) or were very primitive so a small radical (again old colonies) group could easily take it over.

You mean just like the ones that the USA backed right? Again, neither the USA or the USSR expended their international military, political, and economic resources in a stupid way. They expended them in ways where the local conditions would magnify their effects most effectively. The USSR would have been stupid to put a vast effort into flipping a state like Italy towards it. In the immediate aftermath of WWII, they did make a concerted attempt, but by the mid 1960's it became very obvious that it wasn't going to succeed, so they moved on towards places where their efforts would be more likely to succeed at less effort. Exploiting local grievances, easy to manipulate dictators, and weak poorly organized states is what the cold war was all about.



Again Domino theory is "pushing nations" is very simple way to explain complicated events and politics. Vietnam and China had been on each others throat at least 600 years and Vietnam had no intentions to become a tributary state again. This is obvious to anybody who knows local history, but hey Domino Theory!

600 years except for the ones immediately prior to the Vietnam war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China–Vietnam_relations#Cold_War

After the war (edit by me WWII), 200,000 Chinese troops under General Lu Han were sent by Chiang Kai-shek to Indochina north of the 16th parallel, with the aim of accepting the surrender of Japanese occupying forces. These troops remained in Indochina until 1946.[16] The Chinese used the VNQDD, the Vietnamese branch of the Chinese Kuomintang, to increase their influence in Indochina and put pressure on their opponents.[17] Chiang Kai-shek threatened the French with war to force them to negotiate with the Vietminh leader Ho Chi Minh. In February 1946, Chiang Kai-shek forced the French colonists to surrender all of their concessions in China and renounce their extraterritorial privileges, in exchange for withdrawing from northern Indochina and allowing French troops to reoccupy the region.[18][19][20][21]

Along with the Soviet Union, Communist China was an important strategic ally of North Vietnam during the Vietnam War. The Chinese Communist Party provided arms, military training and essential supplies to help the Communist North defeat Capitalist South Vietnam and its ally, the United States, between 1954 and 1975.[22] However, the Vietnamese Communists remained suspicious of China's perceived attempts to increase its influence over Vietnam.[1]

Vietnam was an ideological battleground of the Sino-Soviet split of the 1960s. After the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, Chinese Premier Deng Xiaoping secretly promised the North Vietnamese 1 billion yuan in military and economic aid, on the condition that they refused all Soviet aid.

During the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese and the Chinese had agreed to defer tackling their territorial issues until South Vietnam was defeated. These issues included the lack of delineation of Vietnam's territorial waters in the Gulf of Tonkin, and the question of sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.[1] During the 1950s, half of the Paracels were controlled by China and half by South Vietnam. In 1958, North Vietnam accepted China's claim to the Paracels, relinquishing its own claim;[23] one year earlier, China had ceded White Dragon Tail Island to North Vietnam.[24] The potential of offshore oil deposits in the Gulf of Tonkin heightened tensions between China and South Vietnam. In 1973, with the Vietnam War drawing to a close, North Vietnam announced its intention to allow foreign companies to explore oil deposits in disputed waters. In January 1974, a clash between Chinese and South Vietnamese forces resulted in China taking complete control of the Paracels.[1] After its absorption of South Vietnam in 1975, North Vietnam took over the South Vietnamese-controlled portions of the Spratly Islands.[1] The unified Vietnam then canceled its earlier renunciation of its claim to the Paracels, while both China and Vietnam claim control over all the Spratlys, while both controlling portions of the island group.[23]

History is instructive, not deterministic. The UK and France had fought against each other for 900 years before they fought together in WWI, and as late as 1900 they still thought of one another as rivals. World War II was a major turning point in international relationships across the entire world. Places that had fought one another 'forever' were now strong allies. Places which had 'always' been friendly with one another were now declared enemies. In 1961 when US involvement in Vietnam began to escalate in a major way it was blindingly obvious that China had allied itself with the Communist government of Northern Vietnam. Indeed, HO Chi Minh personally owed his position as a leader in the government of North Vietnam to China.

Hungary and Poland were never flipped, they were occupied. Syria, Egypt and Yemen joined Communist camp because of Israel and old exploitative colonial rule. US actually supported Castro until he nationalized everything. Angola had a war of independence and only USSR was willing to provide arms. Chile never flipped and had s coup. Iran was flipped twice and US managed to destroy democracy which worked so well, after revolution Iran did not flip Soviet side... honestly I could keep doing this for a very long time. These nations were not targeted, that is another very simple way to explain events.

I didn't say how or why any of the particular countries flipped. Merely that they did. The exact reasons why Syria, or Egypt or Yemen joined the communist camp are irrelevant. Of course they had their own individual motivations. Iraq had all the same motivations, and yet it picked to side with the capitalist powers, for different reasons. What's important in the context of the cold war is that they picked a side, and the side they picked encouraged and aided them in picking it.

Chile under Allende, was perceived by the US as becoming to close to siding with the Communist camp, so they backed a coup and installed Pinochet. That's the coup I am talking about. The US and UK couped Iran in 1953, because they were about to nationalize the assets of the Anglo-Iranian oil company (aka BP). This kept Iran in the capitalist camp until the Iranian revolution of 1979. This was a spontaneous local reaction to the US backed government, and once there was an instability to exploit, the USSR was quick to fill the void. Iran did in deed 'flip to the soviet side' afterwards. They were and still are declared enemies of the United States. When Iran invaded Iraq shortly afterwards, the US backed Iraq, and the regime of Saddam Hussein, to ensure that the Iranians couldn't win with massive under market cost loans, and military intelligence. The Soviets backed the Iranians, with large sales of munitions at discount prices,diplomatic cover in the UN, and various intelligence information. Neither the leadership of Iraq or Iran was 'committed' to the capitalist or communist way of life. Both the USA and the USSR were completely aware of this. None of them cared, because they were all able to advance their own objectives through their actions.

Domino Theory was a casus belli for US to do anything it wants anywhere, because you dont know who will flip next!

Yes, of course it was. That's not even worth debating. The US was never claiming that it was doing anything that wasn't 'what it wanted to'. The US had as it's stated and declared objectives to check, and if possible reverse the spread of communism, and communist allied states during the cold war era. It did anything it wanted to anywhere it wanted to when it thought it could advance those objectives. The USSR had as it's stated and declared objective to spread communism throughout the entire world. It did anything it wanted to anwhere it wanted to when it thought it could advance this objective. What happened in or to any particular nation during that time period can almost always be explained by the active presence of one of these two nations seeking to advance it's agenda. Even when both powers appeared to be absent, as in the case of India, the major events and decisions of that nation and it's leadership were always conducted with a clear eye towards how it would be perceived and used by the two super powers.
 

Henry IX

Lt. General
37 Badges
Feb 6, 2012
1.459
2.455
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Steel Division: Normand 44 - Second Wave
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 -  Back to Hell
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
Domino theory comes in two forms - a 'weak' more academic form, which I would argue is significantly correct and a 'strong' popular form, which is almost certainly incorrect.

The weak version takes the form of: A failure to contain communism in a given nation makes it easier for communism to spread in neighbouring nations because the communists in the neighbour will be encouraged and emboldened by the success of the first nation's revolution and additionally it will be easier to supply and reinforce the neighbouring party through the common boarder.

The strong version takes form of: A failure to contain communism in a given nation will cause the fall of their neighbours in an unstoppable cascade that will result in Communist victory in the whole region.

Most of the arguments against domino theory in this forum use a variation of the strong version and most defences of it use the weak version.

My issue with the U.S. actions in the Vietnam war are not related to the goal (Vietnam going communist was always going to put pressure on its neighbours) but rather to the method that was chosen - military intervention to support an unpopular and incompetent regime. Even if you subscribe wholeheartedly to domino theory there remains a range of methods that can be used to contain communist revolutions that do not depend on massive commitment of military forces.

As for the OP the problem for the U.S. was that the South Vietnamese regime was fundamentally viewed as illegitimate by a very significant proportion of the Vietnamese population. No matter what military strategy they adopt they are shackled to corpse of the South Vietnamese government and they will face an ongoing insurgency until such time as the American public gets sick of casualties and cost and they withdraw, at which time the communists win. The only way to win the Vietnam war was to not play, or at least to change the rules.

Sadly the Americans in Vietnam had a serious lack of understanding of the conflict and the country and so badly misunderstood what was required to win, in stark contrast to the British in Malaya who had a deep understanding of the country and so were able to craft a strategy that contained and crushed the insurgency at a fairly low cost.
 

Kgw

Colonel
27 Badges
Mar 26, 2001
824
3.549
Visit site
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Surviving Mars
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
So the fact that people like Bolívar, et al. went from colony to colony stoking the fires of independence had literally no impact on events whatsoever? Good to know. :rolleyes:
If you want to call it "Bolivar effect" instead of domino, I'd accept it. And then it's not a domino, but a person after it.
It's difficult to explain Spanish America independence movements in a few lines. But let me just tell that the pre/crypto independentists "Preservers of Ferdinand VII's rights" Juntas were born simultaneously in the different parts of the continent. (Mexico, Argentina/La Plata, Caracas…) They didn't have ONE spark that Spain could've put down. In fact, sometimes, Spanish forces did end the rebellion in some places (Perú, High Peru -Bolivia-, Paraguay). Even they ended the war at Colombia, Venezuela, Chile and Mexico for once (in Venezuelan and Mexican cases, more than once).

Or, as someone said: "Correlation means no causation".