Since the end of the 2nd World War every conflict the United States has been involved in with the exception of the 1 Gulf War have been tied to the Domino Theory first used by Truman and further developed and used by President Eisenhower and VP Nixon. A modified version of the Domino Theory is the Basis for Bush's Pre Emptive Doctrine.

Fear of the rapid Soviet/Communist expansion--so very similiar to the fast initial growth of Nazi germany-- gave birth to the idea that if one country were to fall to our idealogical opposites it would set off an unstoppable chain reaction.

Debate Questions

How valid is/was the Domino Theory?

Has the pursuit of the Domino theory made the Democratic world safer?

You can find your answer in the Killing Fields.

If you mean that by operating with an understanding of the implications of the Domino Theory, the democratic world is a safer place, then I will say unequivocally Yes. It has not made the world a safe place, because there are still people here.

Let's see, all of SE Asia was supposed to have gone communistic if S. Vietnam fell.

It fell and all of SE Asia did not go communistic. Therefore, the domino theory was invalid.



S. Vietnam went communistic and remains that way. China was communistic and has remained that way. We're good trading buds with these two countries, so the capitalistic world is safer. I don't see much gain in SE Asia for democracies from the pursuit of the domino theory -- and by that I mean the Vietnam war. The Korean war worked out better, but that one isn't really over yet.

Cambodia is now a constitutional monarchy, with a king for life who does not govern. I guess that falls under a very broad definition of democracy, so chalk up one point for democracy -- not the pursuit of the domino theory.

In it's purest form, invalid, for the reason stated above - China fell, Vietnam fell, but then it more or less stopped. It did not operate like dominoes. However, there is some truth in two related notions:

i) the idea that if some territory is ceded, then the next territory in line comes under more pressure and must therefore then be defended itself with (at least) equal strength if you want to prevent further expansion. In the long term this is probably true.

ii) the idea that the broader the influence of communism is/was, the stronger it would be and the more capable of expansion it would be, therefore you're better off stopping expansion at the outset. This makes sense, though it can be counterbalanced by the idea that the further you are from communism's heartlands the less keen they are to involve themselves.

Both of these ideas rely on the assumption that the constant ongoing goal of communism was expansion. I think that assumption isn't unreasonable for most of the Cold War, though different Soviet leaders had different attitudes.




In practice I doubt it made a whole lot of difference. It is certainly questionable whether the misery of Vietnam and the attendant re-evaluation of the USA in the eyes of the world as aggressive and potentially harmful was worth it. On the other hand it is very hard to say what would have happened otherwise. Vietnam was hard on the communists too. Perhaps it was a deterrent?



I think that the extreme proponents of the domino theory were actually a little nuts. That whole culture of regarding communism as an unimpeachable evil that must be fought whenever it spreads comes close to paranoia. A more measured re-evaluation of teh threat, which was undeniably serious, might have produced a more refined policy, though it would still have needed to be a firm one.

Of course, we didn't really need the mechanized Blitzkrieg of the Third Reich to illuminate the principle of a domino-process.

Genghis Khan put on a impressive demonstration, almost 700 years ago. A bit later, the Europeans swept around the world, blitzing everyone and everything in their path. We call this the Colonial Era, or Imperialism. It was, of course, a wholesale, global-scale, serial military conquest. A world of dominoes.

For an in-depth discussion of the (modern) Domino Theory:
Domino Theory - TheFreeDictionary

For an interesting discussion at the same website that places the Domino Theory within the context of various other conflicts:
World civil war - TheFreeDictionary


If we accept that the Domino concept played a part in getting us through the Cold War without descending into a full-scale nuclear war, then that alone will go a long ways toward justifying the device, almost regardless of other considerations.

Whether Democracy is safer under the Domino construct involves the challenge of assessing societal safety in general, and that appears to be a prize still unclaimed.

Like many policies directed by theory rather than pragmatism, the Domino Theory has worked to the detriment of the Democratic world. The struggle between the Soviet Union and the US to prevent countries from "joining" one side or the other led to the US supporting harsh authoritarian regimes in countries like Iraq, Indonesia, El Salvador, etc...

The Cold War struggle also gave justification for arming and training Islamic extremists in Afghanistan. Bin Laden being the obvious product of that training.

Now many claim that we are pursuing the reverse domino theory, which is really just a Leninist (instead of the actual people rising up to claim democracy, the elites impose democracy on the people) adjustment of Woodrow Wilson's original idea of spreading Democratic Peace.

In the short term I think this may actually make the world more dangerous for Democratic nations. In the November/December Foreign Policy Magazine Think Again section the writers point out that countries in transition to Democracy are much more volatile and thus more likely to fall into civil war or produce radicals. The example they sight is the Foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt during the 1920's during a period of democratization for that country. So by attempting to forcefully spread democracy (a bit of an oxymoron) we may actually be putting ourselves in more danger.

In the long term of course more truly Democratic states in the world would make the world safer, but the question should be whether democracy can be successfully started in an undeveloped country by an external power, or whether it has to be the result of an internal struggle. I myself think it has to be the result of an internal struggle.

How valid is/was the Domino Theory?

People assert this theory within the confine's of Communism. The Soviet Union did not fall because Vietnam did not expand to other nations, but because the United State's exceeded it's own domino effect. This theory is proven not from the Soviet Unions fall but because of the United State's expansion of influence. This began when the United States declared independence. Fast foward a few hundred year's and you can see the domino effect. If the United State's did not split from England who know's how history would have panned out, but the domino effect is clear from the establishment of the US to today.

Has the pursuit of the Domino theory made the Democratic world safer?

If the US was still under control of a King in a far off land Democracy would most likely be a far cry from what it is today.

Nice idea, but the 'democracy domino theory' ignores the fact that many European democracies (the UK, France, prewar Germany, Switzerland & the Scandinavian countries) became democracies without any US influence whatsoever - and in fact became democratic at a time when the US was entirely irrelevant to Europe. It also ignores the detrimental effect that US influence has had on democracy in South American countries and Iran. Equally I could argue that the US is in itself part of the domino effect of the traditional democractic / parliamentary values of Great Britain spreading out across the world via colonialism. I'd like to believe it but.....

In other words it was just Great Britian........

You could be right but I believe it was a combination of the two.



I assume you are reffering to this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1925236.stm

Or perhaps this?

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/arch...2/27/2003100277

And this?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0822/p08s01-wome.html

In the end it's not really about the US directly effecting other countries. It's more of the population of other countries being effected by Democracy itself.

http://directaccessdemocracy.org/DAD_history.htm

You are misusing the Domino Theory concept. The concept was created as part of the US containment strategy stance during the Cold War. It was used to justify US intervention in situations which did not directly effect US security.

The idea that the US won the Cold War because it successfully spread democracy around the world is simply incorrect. In fact the US supported various dictatorships around the world in order to prevent communism from spreading.

The "Second Wave" of democratization occurred after the fall of the Soviet Union, when dictators found that they could no longer depend on the USSR or the US to supply them with resources in return for their allegiance, or at least for not allying themselves with the other side. Also it wasn't democracy so much as the inherit flaws in socialist command economies that led to this event occuring.

To say that democracy exists in the world today because of the Founding Father's decision to form a Republic instead of a monarchy is another exaggeration. First of all modern representative democracy can be traced back to Ancient times, most notably to the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece. In the modern era, The French Revolution was the initial spark, while England's Glorious Revolution, was the more moderate and long lasting development. Democracy in the US was in fact a result of these two events.

If the US hadn't split from England, we would still be a democracy, since last time I checked, Canada, Austrialia, and the United Kingdom itself are all democracies.

Vampiel

I certainly agree that democracy is the 'best' form of government, the stablest and most productive countries in the world are all democracies. But the domino theory includes a geographic element, whereby one country goes democratic, then its neighbours go democratic and then their neighbour go democratic. I just can't really think of a situation where this has happened.



Well really I was referring to the US support of Pinochet's coup against Allende in Chile or the Contras Affair or the US & UKs 'Operation Ajax' where we ousted the democratic Iranian government to put in place a despotic King (Shah) in 1953. It is hard to argue that there is a 'domino effect' going on started by the US (or Europe) when we (in general) have often acted to remove or forestall democracy. That democracy may eventually prevail seems to be more a credit to the democratic system itself than to any of the countries championing it.

How valid is/was the Domino Theory?

Has the pursuit of the Domino theory made the Democratic world safer?

Well, to the first I can't say I'm convinced. Maybe if a democratic Iraq then alters the rest of the ME so that the entire place becomes democratic then I would say that there is some credence to the 'democratic' domino theory. However, I have yet to see something similar happen in Central Asis around Afghanistan...as for the Communist domino theory - I think the spread of communism had a lot more to do with Russian & Chinese military might than anything else.

And made the world safer? Who knows how things might have gone differently. The collapse or general moribund state of communist economies suggests that allowing communism to spread unchecked could have eventually led to widespread global economic collapse. Capitalism has survived where communism has failed, so containment of communism, in retrospect, has probably done more good than harm.

In light of all the things the domino theory would have to account for is in the shadows vs. being in the 100% understood level, it would be flawed on the point alone. I think basically its nothing more then a killed or be killed reaction in a more flashy level really. I think its not working in terms of current conflict the u.s is involved in, and in terms of the cold war, i dont think this idea held any real impact on it overall. i feel it was nothing more then internal for russia in how it did not see us in our graves, as in meaning they would last longer not that i support war or something, i doubt many would get the reference there though... also one could use the current scene in europe and most the world after the fall of the nazi dynasty or so on. On the most base part of it, it would be like being north korea, in that they dont really get much support in terms of power in most the world, vs. america that just has much more power, so one could look at it as a resource war of a different kind i guess.

Im not misusing the Domino concept. Just because the "concept" was created during the cold war doesnt mean it did not exist before that.



The Soviet Union fell because of alot of factors. One being ethnic tensions another being economic problems. The main reason the Warsaw Pact fell apart is because of these two factors. Their economic problems where also impacted by Reagans weapons contest. Russia would still be a communist nation to this day if it were not for Gorbachev's sweeping reforms. Communism works, it just doesnt work as well as Democracy, specifically using capitilism. If you mix Communism with some forms of capitalism then the system begins to work better for example, China. Of course then it's no longer Communism and the Soviet Union, China, Korea or any nation was never really Communist. And why do you believe some of those countries chose a more Democratic system? Because they wanted to make Russia mad? Or is it because they can see that it works on the other side of the world?



And here we are guessing what would have happened if the United States did not form a Republic. It's not that the US invades a country, it's not really the US at all.

It's the example of a country that elect's it's leader's using a system that works better than their own. It's people watching or hearing rumors that this other nation is choosing who leads them and defeated the great British Empire with this system. Imagine the impact of that. The worlds greatest power defeated by this new "Republic" that chooses who they want to lead them and have all of these "rights" that the leader cannot take away. The physcological impact must have been overwhelming to overcome for the leaders at the time. Is it a coincedence that alot of other countries followed, or perhaps it was the simple fact that the US existed causing other countries to follow?

A command economy is effective in aiding agrarian states make the transition to an industrial society. It forces capital to be shifted from agriculture to industry.
That is what happened in both the Soviet Union and China. But the command economy is not sustainable for two reasons, it depends on strict repression of the masses and does nothing to develop a consumer market. As the standard of living in these countries rises the general population begins to call for economic and political liberties. This is what happened in the USSR and is what is happening in China. So communism does not work in the long term. Even if there was no United States for the citizens to compare their lives to, these countries would eventually discard communism, once they reached a certain economic level.

But is also important to acknowledge that pure capitalism does not work either. The United States's economy is very much a mixture of capitalism and government intervention and support.

I agree with you that Capitalism without (though minor) government intervention will not result in an effective system. So we are in agreement but let's just call it Capitalism to simplify it.

Communism can be just as effective as Capitalism given it is run properly. The USSR was not a true Communist nation, and that is what I am explaining. Take Nazi Germany for example. Complete control over the market's and industries can be streamlined extremely efficiently if run properly. I agree that the true form of Communism is not a realistic sytem that will eventually fail. Capitalism depends on the individual and so does the crude form of Communism that the USSR implemented. If the individual does not make effective decisions it will fail. The difference being Capitalism relies on the population making the decision which in turn rests on millions of people as opposed to Communism (at least the USSR product of Communism) relies on a few people. If the USSR took on the economics of Nazi Germany that still completely controlled the markets but implemented incentives to work harder than the next guy it would have been extremely efficient given the few individuals that controlled the economy did not blunder.

In short it come's down to the people vs. the people in power. If the people in power can effectively run an economy it can exceed a capitalist enviroment, but it can also dramatically fail as to where a capitalist enviroment will only fail if the population as a whole fails.

This only backs up my assertion of the Domino effect that Democracy has seeing as to how they can see a viable alternative (in the western nations and in the beggining of the modern age the US) to their current system. It's not an invasion that will necessarily bring it eventually but more of a draw toward the system from the common human. It's more than just Democracy but a mix of Democracy and Capitalism. People want to be able to affect their own government (Democracy) and their own well being (Capitalism). It's human nature. When a powerful nation arises with these ideals that is more efficient than their own system it set's off a Domino effect not only because they see an efficient system but also because that system give's them a voice.

This is the major difference in history that the world has never seen before. Awareness to the majority of the world population brought from the free flow of information. History repeats itself but history has never seen itself like it does today (i.e. humans have never been able to see the planet and it's history before).

Vampiel, you are misunderstanding the term "Domino Theory," I think. It is a specific phrase used to describe a specific phenomenom: the expansion of Communism. Using it to describe the spread of low-intensity democracy is like me using the phrase "red menace" to describe the rise in the popularity of the Republican party.

Now, the term has been modified, but the questions of this debate are concerning SPECIFICALLY the validity of the term as a theory regarding communism during the Cold War, and in current policy regarding the spread of the Fundamentalist Islamic ideology.



Lets try and stick with what Christopher was asking us.

How valid is/was the Domino Theory?

It wasn't; period. The idea of containment was fundamentally flawed; based on a poor misreading of the true nature of communism's goals. Communism didn't expand forcefully (even if certain Communist-leaning states did), so the Domino effect was a backwards understanding of how that expansion would progress.

In a more contemporary setting, it perhaps has a bit more credibility perhaps, but I still have my doubts. It seems that nobody has ever stopped and asked WHY countries are turning to fundamentalism; and until that happens there is no reason to try and stop it; because solutions will either be ineffective or only short-term.

Has the pursuit of the Domino theory made the Democratic world safer?

Not even close, see the reasons above.

I have to disagree. I have been to Mr. George Washington's final home a few times myself...they often have really nice little festivals there...they also give a tour of his home. He is quite popular to this day..there is always a line of people to just take a little guided walk through his beautiful house overlooking the Potomac. And it is not surprising...he is considered the father of this country..but that was not all he was considered to be the father of in his time..he was also called the father of liberty..and he has gifts from leaders and political figures the world over displayed in his home to prove this title too.
I think perhaps even tho. America did not directly intervene she unquestionably did influence.




Hm. I think communism in the real world sense..not how it is all written about in books.. was implemented and did expand by force. I can't think of one real life real world communist expansion or as you have termed it communist goal that occurred without force..if you can please offer it up. In fact I can't think of any form of govt that exists and has expanded itself without the use of force. Government isn't a natural occurring organic in structure thing...it doesn't just grow.

The Soviet Union was never communist. I know many of you might think "oh look, he's just a commie apologist", but it's the truth.


Marx and Engels developed the theory that, in order to reach communism, you need a transitional stage called "the dictatorship of the proletariat". This is a society run by the proletariat (the exploited in the capitalist society).
The dictatorship of the proletariat is not really a dictatorship in the traditional sense of the word, but a democracy (majority rule).


From here, the the workers would advance to communism.


After a while, Lenin came into the picture. He claimed that a "vanguard party" should protect the masses. The communist party was to defend the workers. This is generally called marxism-leninism.


However, most marxist-leninists today see that the party needs to be subjected to the people, not the other way around.


The Soviet Union, among other so-called "communist countries", have actually been socialist.



Let me quote the Soviet constitution:


"1936 Constitution of the U.S.S.R.
Adopted December 1936

Chapter I
The Organization of Soviet Society
Article 1. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of workers and peasants.

Article 2. The Soviets of Working People's Deputies, which grew and attained strength as a result of the overthrow of the landlords and capitalists and the achievement of the dictatorship of the proletariat, constitute the political foundation of the U.S.S.R.

Article 3. In the U.S.S.R. all power belongs to the working people of town and country as represented by the Soviets of Working People's Deputies.

Article 4. The socialist system of economy and the socialist ownership of the means and instruments of production firmly established as a result of the abolition of the capitalist system of economy, the abrogation of private ownership of the means and instruments of production and the abolition of the exploitation of man by man, constitute' the economic foundation of the U.S.S.R.

Article 5. Socialist property in the U.S.S.R. exists either in the form of state property (the possession of the whole people), or in the form of cooperative and collective-farm property (that of a collective farm or property of a cooperative association).

Article 6. The land, its natural deposits, waters, forests, mills, factories, mines, rail, water and air transport, banks, post, telegraph and telephones, large state-organized agricultural enterprises (state farms, machine and tractor stations and the like) as well as municipal enterprises and the bulk of the dwelling houses in the cities and industrial localities, are state property, that is, belong to the whole people.

Article 7. Public enterprises in collective farms and cooperative organizations, with their livestock and implements, the products of the collective farms and cooperative organizations, as well as their common buildings, constitute the common socialist property of the collective farms and cooperative organizations. In addition to its basic income from the public collective-farm enterprise, every household in a collective farm has for its personal use a small plot of land attached to the dwelling and, as its personal property, a subsidiary establishment on the plot, a dwelling house, livestock, poultry and minor agricultural implements in accordance with the statutes of the agricultural artel.

Article 8. The land occupied by collective farms is secured to them for their use free of charge and for an unlimited time, that is, in perpetuity.

Article 9. Alongside the socialist system of economy, which is the predominant form of economy in the U.S.S.R., the law permits the small private economy of individual peasants and handicraftsman based on their personal labour and precluding the exploitation of the labour of others.

Article 10. The right of citizens to personal ownership of their incomes from work and of their savings, of their dwelling houses and subsidiary household economy, their household furniture and utensils and articles of personal use and convenience, as well as the right of inheritance of personal property of citizens, is protected by law.

Article 11. The economic life of the U.S.S.R. is determined and directed by the state national economic plan with the aim of increasing the public wealth, of steadily improving the material conditions of the working people and raising their cultural level, of consolidating the independence of the U.S.S.R. and strengthening its defensive capacity.

Article 12. In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honour for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat."

The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."



As you can see, the proper name for the so-called "communist states" is actually is "socialist states", not "communist states".