Would The Thai Domino Have Fallen In The Sixties

[Trevor]

Had he gained a second term in 1964, Kennedy may never have gone into Vietnam above 'advisor' level. The south wouldn't have been able to hold out for long against the aggressive Soviet-supported north. By 1966 or 1967 it would have been all over. History proves that the Lao and Cambodian dominoes were teetering, ready to fall in quick sucession. Then what? Was MacNamara right in warning that the countries from Thailand to Indonesia would turn communist?

The CIA's 1965 coup in Indonesia secured that country for a pro-Western strongman in Suharto. Thailand had a long, vulnerable land border, and was militarily weak. But is there really any evidence that a post-Francophone, Soviet-financed alliance would have penetrated Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore?

My opinion is that Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam would have been pre-occupied with solving their own problems. Cambodia and Vietnam are historical enemies rather than military bedfellows. And the West -- not just the US -- would have poured military support into bolstering the capitalist dominoes. The UN may also have become involved in light of their overwhelming pro-Western stance. It would have been a series of blatant invasions rather than mere Vietnamese reunification.

[samran]

You've been reading the world war 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 series haven't you?

[pgs]

If the US gov't had done as the Sth Viet gov't asked & just supplied weapons & $ instead of sending also troops with (no or limited) jungle warfare experience, it would have probably been over by '65.

Of course, if the earlier version of the CIA hadn't meddled to start with ....

I lived for 10 years with 4 Viets that lived in Saigon through that. The father of one was reasonably high in the gov't in Ha-Noi before the war. When he saw what was happening, he resigned & moved the family south. The stories from them ...

I do expect the 'pro-US' people here to throw in their two bobs' worth, which is OK, but keep it nice.

[Nignoy]

May I make a comment, firstly reference the CIA Coup in Indonesia in 1965,with our mate Suharto, dont remember seeing any americans fighting along side us in the war against indonesia in Borneo in 1962. of course they turned up nearly 4 years later to help consolidate and protect their newly aquired OIL drilling Rights!!Then on to thailand late 1962, the construction of the large Support airbases in Isaan was in its infancy and the US was starting its financial and military domination of a sovereign country, luckily they were not allowed to spread in to Malaysia and Singapore, 2 war torn sovereign countries that successfully conquered any communist threat by 1970 without the US sticking their noses in!!Look at these countries today, Successes in their own right, maybe if the US had stayed out Thailand too it might be a bit different today,Singapore put a ban on US personnel taking R&R on the island because of their negative influence in the late 60,s and so began the real wild times in Patpong, the coming of age of Pattaya and Phuket and jus look at the state they are in now!! Nignoy

[Payboy]

Had he gained a second term in 1964, Kennedy may never have gone into Vietnam above 'advisor' level. The south wouldn't have been able to hold out for long against the aggressive Soviet-supported north. By 1966 or 1967 it would have been all over.

...and the game of golf would have been without the tiger.....

[chownah]

The social structure of Thailand was way way different from what was in French Indo-China. The Thai people liked their gov't inspite of its drawbacks and communism was not really popular from what I have heard.....the US military had a big presence in Thailand and odds are if Vietnam had been sidestepped the US military presence in Thailad would have been strengthened even more to provide the buffer especially since the US military was very very welcomed in Thailand. Also consider that if a communist Vietnam had emerged with a strong Soviet (or Chinese) presence then it would have stiffened the western world's resolve to stop the expansion. Seems unlikely to me that Thailand would have gone communist without some major world conflagration.....

[cooL_guY_corY]

no

[Ulysses G.]

Even Noam Chomsky admits that the U.S. "won" in Vietnam in the long run. It's called Capitalism!

[villagefarang]

You must really be bored.

[ratchabuild]

Had he gained a second term in 1964, Kennedy may never have gone into Vietnam above 'advisor' level. The south wouldn't have been able to hold out for long against the aggressive Soviet-supported north. By 1966 or 1967 it would have been all over. History proves that the Lao and Cambodian dominoes were teetering, ready to fall in quick sucession. Then what? Was MacNamara right in warning that the countries from Thailand to Indonesia would turn communist?

The CIA's 1965 coup in Indonesia secured that country for a pro-Western strongman in Suharto. Thailand had a long, vulnerable land border, and was militarily weak. But is there really any evidence that a post-Francophone, Soviet-financed alliance would have penetrated Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore?

My opinion is that Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam would have been pre-occupied with solving their own problems. Cambodia and Vietnam are historical enemies rather than military bedfellows. And the West -- not just the US -- would have poured military support into bolstering the capitalist dominoes. The UN may also have become involved in light of their overwhelming pro-Western stance. It would have been a series of blatant invasions rather than mere Vietnamese reunification.

You are obviously on the wrong site I suspect your IQ may be in three figures. Please leave immediately or post about football or beer. No one likes a show off especially those of us with IQs hovering in the 60s

[TAWP]

Aww, play nice. =)

A lot of mistakes was done in and regarding 'nam. One was letting a politician select bombing targets.

[fxm88]

Even Noam Chomsky admits that the U.S. "won" in Vietnam in the long run. It's called Capitalism!

Even Robert McNamara admits that "we were wrong, terribly wrong" in Vietnam.

Even The Yes Men admit that the US Civil War was a great waste of money, because slavery would have been replaced by its infinitely more efficient version: remote sweatshop labor, such as we have today.

[Jingthing]

Read the book we are not supposed to read or talk about (if you aren't in Thailand) for some perspective on that, and based on that, I would say no.

It was a persuasive argument and I think many people still believe it today.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Jingthing

[cdnvic]

If Truman had welcomed Ho Chi Minh's friendly overtures it would not have been an issue to begin with. Instead he deferred to the defeated French who, after living under a foreign occupier for almost five years, set out to re-occupy their old colonies. DeGaulle's arrogance and Truman's lack of vision set the wheels in motion for a bloodbath.

[Ulysses G.]

That's right, blame the Frogs!

[cdnvic]

That's right, blame the Frogs!

I blamed a frog and a democrat.... you must be pleased.

[Ulysses G.]

Actually, I've only voted for a Republican once in my whole life. I am not a real redneck. I just like to play Devil's Advocate.

[britmaveric]

Well if lived up to their deals after WWII, dare say yank govt would have been good mates to Ho Chi Min.

[ProThaiExpat]

Would those more knowledgeable than me comment on who could have been worse than Pol Pot, a reported Communist and the Communist Vietnamese invading to get rid of him!!!

It seems the U.S. is relying more these days on "regional" power solutions than the discredited tactics of the Neocons and their lackey GWB.

[pgs]

Not really much of an excuse. The French controlled Indochine from the mid 1800's. Ho Chi Minh studied in France, where he was introduced to communism.

Nothing like biting the hand that feeds.

Yes, the French did a number of 'wrong things' in the region, but they did no different to any other occupying forces. I won't mention US efforts this round, but the British, Dutch, Spanish, etc all stand guilty for happenings by their forces when ..um.. visiting.

Whilst Viet Nam wasn't a major financial centre like HK or Shanghai, the Vietnamese weren't too badly off before the war. During & after is a different story.

**If you're looking for the relevance, this should have appeared as a reply to post 15

Edited August 9, 2007 by pgs

[DP25]

The odds of Thailand falling to communism in a similar manner to Vietnam or Laos were virtually nil. In Vietnam, the communist movement was deeply rooted in the anti colonial independence movement, and the common man fighting for it was not so much interested in some global communist front that sought worldwide revolution as they were in simply driving the foreign powers out of their country. The South Vietnamese were seen as lackeys of Western powers and the communist movement was seen as the road to true independence. In Thailand, as it had successfully avoided colonization, conditions for the communist movement to be set up as a liberation movement did not exist. Communism was seen as a force of foreign imperialism, seeking to destroy the institutions that had safeguarded Thai independence through centuries of foreign pressure, and a communist movement here would instinctively be seen as anti Thai and would have enormous difficulty in ever gaining widespread support. The only possible way a communist government could ever have taken hold would have been through invasion by the Vietnamese army, which would have been fought by the Thais as well as the United States.

[Ulysses G.]

The only possible way a communist government could ever have taken hold would have been through invasion by the Vietnamese army, which would have been fought by the Thais as well as the United States.

I'm sure that would have scared the sh*t out of the Vietnamese!

[adjan jb]

The Vietnamese are one of the bravest people on planet Earth and I am very ashamed of what my fellow men did to them.

That said, they're going to eat Thailand in the next few years.

[Jingthing]

The Vietnamese are one of the bravest people on planet Earth and I am very ashamed of what my fellow men did to them.

That said, they're going to eat Thailand in the next few years.

Yeah, culturally they are very work oriented but definitely not the best sanuk in the world. Now that they are partnered with the US, they will indeed be a huge success. But Thailand doesn't seem to care so much about that, sufficiency economy, and all that.

BTW, can someone knowledgeable say what Thais are taught in school about the domino theory, whether it was valid, or not? I would guess if taught anything they would be taught that it was valid.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Jingthing

[DP25]

I'm sure that would have scared the sh*t out of the Vietnamese!

I think the Vietnamese would have had a tough time. Conquering and holding another country is a much harder than a civil war or driving out a foreign power. Also, the terrain here is different. The Vietnamese need jungle canopy to avoid American air power. East of Bangkok there are wide open plains where the Vietnamese divisions could have been massacred by the American air force. I think it would have been difficult for them to reach the capital if America fought.

[adjan jb]

[quote name='Jingthing' date='2007-08-09 19:32:08' post='1465611'

BTW, can someone knowledgeable say what Thais are taught in school about the domino theory

As I am an adjan I'm quite knowledgeable : They are taught it's a game

[IMA_FARANG]

Had he gained a second term in 1964, Kennedy may never have gone into Vietnam above 'advisor' level. The south wouldn't have been able to hold out for long against the aggressive Soviet-supported north. By 1966 or 1967 it would have been all over. History proves that the Lao and Cambodian dominoes were teetering, ready to fall in quick sucession. Then what? Was MacNamara right in warning that the countries from Thailand to Indonesia would turn communist?

The CIA's 1965 coup in Indonesia secured that country for a pro-Western strongman in Suharto. Thailand had a long, vulnerable land border, and was militarily weak. But is there really any evidence that a post-Francophone, Soviet-financed alliance would have penetrated Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore?

My opinion is that Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam would have been pre-occupied with solving their own problems. Cambodia and Vietnam are historical enemies rather than military bedfellows. And the West -- not just the US -- would have poured military support into bolstering the capitalist dominoes. The UN may also have become involved in light of their overwhelming pro-Western stance. It would have been a series of blatant invasions rather than mere Vietnamese reunification.

You could spend hours debating what and when but you would probably never find an answer to that question. Frankly I don't think it would have happened.That is the old "domino theory" that was used by the U.S. to justify intervention to "aid" the so-called democratic government in South Vietnam.

Here's something not widely known. After WWII, while it was still French Indochina, the Vietnamese headed by Ho Chi Minh approached the U.S. government to act as an impartial arbitrator for peace talks between the French and the Vietnamese in the event that they occured. The U.S. was considered a impatial and trusted arbitrator by the Vietnames. The French however persuaded the then Eisenhauer government that they should back the French in military efforts in French Indochina and any possiblity of a negotiated settlement in French Indochina was lost. This was about the 1953 to 1954 period. The documents are declassified now, so it is becoming public knowledge.

Just goes to show you never know what a decision made now will be the cause of in the future.

[adjan jb]

Here's something not widely known. After WWII, while it was still French Indochina, the Vietnamese headed by Ho Chi Minh approached the U.S. government to act as an impartial arbitrator for peace talks between the French and the Vietnamese in the event that they occured. The U.S. was considered a impatial and trusted arbitrator by the Vietnames. The French however persuaded the then Eisenhauer government that they should back the French in military efforts in French Indochina and any possiblity of a negotiated settlement in French Indochina was lost. This was about the 1953 to 1954 period. The documents are declassified now, so it is becoming public knowledge.

Uncle Ho declared Independance in 1946 in Hanoi. In the speech he gave that day, there were a few discreet (but clear) calls to the US. I remember that he made some references to the American Declaration of Independance.

[TAWP]

You could spend hours debating what and when but you would probably never find an answer to that question. Frankly I don't think it would have happened.That is the old "domino theory" that was used by the U.S. to justify intervention to "aid" the so-called democratic government in South Vietnam.

Here's something not widely known. After WWII, while it was still French Indochina, the Vietnamese headed by Ho Chi Minh approached the U.S. government to act as an impartial arbitrator for peace talks between the French and the Vietnamese in the event that they occured. The U.S. was considered a impatial and trusted arbitrator by the Vietnames. The French however persuaded the then Eisenhauer government that they should back the French in military efforts in French Indochina and any possiblity of a negotiated settlement in French Indochina was lost. This was about the 1953 to 1954 period. The documents are declassified now, so it is becoming public knowledge.

Just goes to show you never know what a decision made now will be the cause of in the future.

Small note: this happened 1950, when Truman still was the president. Dwight D. Eisenhower didn't take office until 20th of January, 1953.

[Ulysses G.]

The Vietnamese are one of the bravest people on planet Earth and I am very ashamed of what my fellow men did to them.

That said, they're going to eat Thailand in the next few years.

I was being sarcastic ajarn. I meant that they were NOT scared of Thailand.

Maybe you got that already, but as you are not a native speaker of English and from your response, I am not sure.