If US done nothing , would the Communist World collapse from Internal Instability?

Jan 2017
70
North Carolina
#1
I remember 3 years ago I witnessed an argument in a thread.

The whole thing was on about the VIetnam War.

One guy said that it was immorals for US to get involved in Vietnam because it caused so much suffering to the local VIetnamese.Furthermore, he added that the French and US should never had intervened because they got humiliated and beaten,and had they not ever got involved in the country and left Vietnam alone,not only would less deaths take place during the time, the French and Americans would not have suffered such Humiliation and Defeat from intervening in the regiona and causing war there.

Another guy believed that the US was right to intervene there becase communism would have spread.

After a huge heated debate, a mod locked the thread.One the final comments posted before it got locked that caught me interested is a statement bythat Communist states eventually collapse from instability and people will eventually watn to reform the country into a Capitalistic state after seeing the Communist system fail.Its this eventually internal collapse, he argued, is reason why US should never had goetten involved in Vietnam.

I witnessed a similar argument between a Conservative American and a Diehard Libertarian who claimed to have a degree Economics.The Libertarian argues that the Domino Theory is BullShit and that US should never have gotten into the responsibility of stopping the spread of Communism.As both Libertarian and Degreed Economicist,he believes it should be the choice of the people of other countries US intervened in such as Vietnam to decide whether to adopt Communism,that US had no right to prevent them from taking communism up,and that (according to Economic thoery,he does have a degree in Economics afterall) Communists system would eventually fail and people will eventaully bring reforms into Captialism.Thats why the Domino Theory is BullShit he says,and that US should never have stuck its nose in other countries esp. Vietnam.

I hear similar arguments everytime Cold War is discussed especially in the case of Vietnam and the Domino Theory.

Is it that simple? Did the US simply have to outwait the USSR? To the point the US didn't even need to keep on advancing technologically in their military arms?

Because in addition to the claims that so much lives and money was wasted in American intervention throughout the world during the war, I seen libertarian economists even argue that all that money spent into the military industry and scientific R and D for new weapons was a huge waste of millions of $$$$$ that could have been spent on more practical matters such as rebuilding the economy because with the USSR's colossal spending on militarism and neglect of other more important problems, they already heading towards bankruptcy and political instability.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,302
US
#3
Eventually, but for how long would a opporessive region have had millions of people from multiple nations under its thumb? How many countless more would have suffered?
 

caldrail

Ad Honorem
Feb 2012
5,127
#4
Polybius wrote a history around 150bc, and in it, he describes his vision of social Darwinism which I broadly agree with. He maintained that all empires grow, mature, and fade (I see them as a sort of analogy to biological entities in the same way that we and other animals are composed of cells, each unique and comparable to individuals within society). The end of a state is inevitable in his view, and one that at least one recent author agrees with...

In the end, though, all the countless pages of speculation about why the border collapsed, paticularly in the west, amount to one simple fact: the empire grew old. Adapt though it might, its mechanisms for dealing with change gradually became set and atrophied, its military 'immune system' needed more and more help from outside, and finally - faced with new generations of vigorous neighbours, who had borrowed from the empire what they needed to give their political system and their cultures strength and coherence - it died of old age.
The Empire Stops Here (Philipp Parker)
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,600
Caribbean
#6
IMO, the US subsidized communism, starting ca 1929 with Hoover letting Henry Ford build trucks at Gorky, with FDR's recognition of Stalin in 1933 an subsequent building of the USSR's war machine, and with post WW2 world financing programs (which aided Moscow to aid Havana, etc.).

Also IMO, "everyone" knows communism cannot sustain, including (and perhaps especially) communist dictators.
 
Oct 2016
884
Merryland
#7
the consensus seems to be that communist economies fail, and then their governments. Viet Nam and China have adopted a more open economy as the older generation of hardliners died off and the new generation placed more emphasis on keeping power, which meant more stuff for the people, than Marxist ideology. Cuba is a basket case kept alive by touri$m, and Venezuela is collapsing as we speak.

a lot of people (at least the ones I read) say that the USSR went broke trying to keep up with the US military (spending). so presumably the USA helped pressure the USSR into the dustbin.
 

caldrail

Ad Honorem
Feb 2012
5,127
#8
The US subsidised communism? Good grief, America was hardly on speaking terms with the Soviet Union until 1937 (trade would be a different matter - the US always had commercial imperatives) and after WW2 fell out with them over questions of Polish liberty and other threats of Stalinist occupation, not to mention going through a nasty paranoid period of communist purging. Remember that Russia, communism or not, was highly conducive to foreign investment and German subsidisation of pre-war industry (which literally continued apace right up until the invasion of 1941) was far greater than Fords efforts, who wasn't paying money to the soviets for political reasons, but investing in foreign markets to increase his global share of vehicle production. This was one reason why Stalin was so intent on keeping Germany sweet - they needed the economical support to complete their five year plans.
 
Apr 2016
900
Netherlands
#9
I think what really undid the Soviet Union was the attempts to move from a government of oppression to one of Glasnost and Perestroika.

The eastern Bloc had several moments of instability throughout its existence such as the Hungarian revolution of 1956 and the Prague spring in 1968. The SU militarily intervened during those events, crushing the opposition in an early stage.

They didn't do that with the later opposition movements such as the Polish Solidarity movement in 1980.

Once the oppression was eased the opposition gained momentum. Had the Soviet Union continued a policy of Stalinist oppression then it would have probably endured to this day.
 

RoryOMore

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
3,391
USA
#10
I think the theory is that unenlightened (not just Communist) governments will fall of their own internal contradictions, but only if confined within their own borders. If allowed the dynamism of expansion, they can go on indefinitely. The containment theory developed in the late 1940s was intended to counter this possibility of expansion. Simple games theory should have made it clear to the West that just playing defense all the time was not going to work in the long run.
 

Similar History Discussions