Talk:Domino theory

message: I'm deleting the Tunisia political cartoon, because I don't think the cartoon is appropriate for this article - Domino Theory is generally referred to in the context of communism and the Cold War, whereas the Arab World Protests are more aptly described as a revolutionary wave.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.141.31 (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 2011 Arab World Protests

message: I have checked around and failed to find any source that includes China and Korea in the domino theory. The whole point is the countries are next to each other as dominoes are lined up. Since Korea and Vietnam are not next to each other they are not part of the domino theory.
I feel unless you can site a source for the illustration, it should be changed to omit China and Korea.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.53.168.194 (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustration

message: This article is dripping with POV.  This is not a one or two word job but one dripping with POV in every sentence.  If anyone likes the previous one, a lot of work will have to be done on this.  
The main editor of this article appears to be DanTD, who is a rabid anti-communist. His viewpoint appears to completely DOMINO-ate the article, and I agree, it is ridiculously biased. I might upload criticism of the theory if I didn't think he would delete it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.139.53.178 (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Third agree.  This article is one of the most biased articles I’ve ever seen on Wikipedia (the winner of most biased is Ronald Reagan).  Interestingly, this article suffers from the same problems as the Reagan article, namely, it is written from the primary POV of status quo hegemony, and fails to highlight the post-Cold War historical issues that became known post-Pentagon Papers.  The entire article, therefore, requires a rewrite, just as the Reagan article does. Viriditas (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  article 

message: I added a paragraph on the Khmer Rouge and the killing fields.  I found it very surprising there was no reference to it.
There are two thiongs I don't understand in the article. The first is there was no further spread of the ideology in the region, which both critics and supporters alike argued proved their view of the theory was correct. How can this be an argument for the supporters of the theory?
The other is what starts with Many supporters, however, attempt to explain this...". I don't see the connection with the preceding text. Explain what and how? The two paragraphs are about differnt things. And they're both about the view of the supporters, so the 'however' looks odd. DirkvdM 15:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Khmer Rouge communist takeover of Cambodia added 

message: How about writing something about Kennan, containment, and the Truman Doctrine in the background section? I guess that was the background to the Domino theory, only the name wasn't used before Eisenhower. Vints 09:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the X article "containment" not "Domino theory" was introduced Vints 19:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: )  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.129.146 (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kennan, containment, and the Truman Doctrine 

message: I don't understand the reference to the butterfly effect in the beginning of the article. The Domino theory is essentially about one takeover leading to another leading to another in a very visible way. The butterfly effect is about how small variations in a system can produce large variations in the long term in a way that is often not easily foreseen. The only thing in common with the terms at all is that they both deal with cause:effect situations, although in completely different ways. I'm taking the reference out. Smooth Nick 22:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Butterfly effect? 

message: This the second stupidest thing I have ever hear any real life or fiction policy. This is fictional right? (The whole domino theory can't possibly be worthy to call itself a theory)
:Sorry, but there's too much evidence that it's true. Among other facts mentioned in the article, as well as some other points I brought up, Che Guevara vowed to create more communist wars similar to Vietnam in other parts of the globe. Vietnam was viewed by communist leaders as the model for all communist wars. DanTD 23:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong, Npovorpov. Go read some of Che Guevara's speeches, and see for yourself. This "american hegemony dogma" that you accuse me of is a load of crap, and communist dictatorships did pop up all over the globe after we gave up on Vietnam. And in places where they didn't, red armies carried out their own bloody terror campaigns all over the world. And we did pull out of Soamilia, because the anti-war movement kept blaming Clinton for the murders by Al-Qaida puppet Mohammed Farah Aidid, and he didn't want to be seen as being another Johnson. ---- DanTD 14:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What?

message: This article has so much bull, it needs some serious work.  I've done some, and I'll try and find sources for some of the things.
the domino theory is very useful thanks for havifn some information on this! i'm glad you had it helpes me study for my history final friday thanks again
climbingal  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Climbingal (talk • contribs) 00:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:DarkNiGHTs|DarkNiGHTs]] 21:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

message: There's a paragraph detailing terrorist incidents by left-wing and Communist groups in the Western world. Though it's well-researched, I think it should be removed. I don't see the relevance to the domino theory - all it proves is that some people wanted Communist revolutions in other countries. These were homegrown groups, though, and they had no obvious connections to existing Communist countries. Korny O'Near 12:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be so sure of that. The Red Brigades of Western Europe were linked to the Warsaw Pact, and in the Western Hemisphere, the F.A.L.N. the Revolutionary Action Movement, and F.L.Q. were linked to Cuba. Plus, there's the Communist Party USA, which was always close to Moscow, not to mention the Worker's World Party who are known Stalinists, and created their share of phony anti-war groups, a tactic that both the Revolutionary Communist Party and Communist Worker's Party(both Maoists) are familiar with. Groups like these are no different than the Viet Cong, Khmer Rouge, Sandinistas, or New People's Army. They simply were established in more affluent parts of the world. ---- DanTD 22:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, really what I should have said is, none of these acts of terrorism had any chance of overthrowing a government. The point is not whether Communist governments were interested in seeing Western countries turn Communist (I'm sure they did). The key for this article is whether they were capable of achieving that. In other words, to connect a terrorist attack to the domino theory, you'd have to show four things: (1) that the attack was aided in some way by the success of a Communist uprising elsewhere in the world, (2) that it was intended to convert its target country to Communism, (3) that the attack had some chance of success, and (4) that its ultimate failure was somehow related to U.S. foreign policy. I think all of the attacks listed miss at least two of these, and in some cases all four. Korny O'Near 00:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the parts about their support for and by other left-wing terrorist abroad? The paragraph is relevant. It shouldn't have been deleted. ---- DanTD 22:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean, the part in your comments? That looks like original research to me. There's nothing in this article (or in their respective articles) tying, say, the Red Brigades or the Weather Underground, both cited in the article, to any Communist regime. Also, as I wrote before, you'd have to at least have some evidence that Communist countries funded these groups with the aim of regime change. Korny O'Near 23:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could've fooled me.
East Block Support:
The Red Brigades primary support came from the Czechoslovak StB and the Palestine Liberation Organization.     Soviet and Czechoslovakia small arms and explosives came from the Middle East via heroin traffickers along well established smuggling routes.    Logistic support and training were carried out directly by the Czechoslovak StB both in Prague and at remote PLO training camps in North Africa and Syria.    
Aware of the involvement and fearing retaliation due to their own involvement with the KGB, the Italian Communist Party lodged several complaints with the Soviet ambassador in Rome regarding Czechoslovak support of the Red Brigades, but the Soviets were either unwilling or unable to stop the StB. This was one of several contributing factors in ending the covert relationship that the Italian Communist Party had with the KGB culminating with a total break in 1979.  
The Weather Underground describes themselves as "a fifth-column for the Viet Cong and "fifth column" of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army"(check the article on Kathy Boudin for that quote), and when the communist wars in Central America were breaking out during the late-1970's and 1980's, they used to fight on behalf of the Sandinistas, the F.M.L.N. in El Salvador, and other parts of Central America. The Front de libération du Québec, F.A.L.N., and Robert F. Williams' Revolutionary Action Movement were all Cuban-backed. Williams had a falling out with Castro when he realized Fidel didn't know jack about the true nature of race-relations in the Southeastern US. Castro insisted that working-class whites would be on their side, and he knew that wasn't true. ---- DanTD 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's more on Soviet puppet dictatorships backing red terrorists in the west:
External Aid
Basically self-sustaining, but during Baader-Meinhof period received some support from Middle Eastern terrorist groups; some ties may still exist. The RAF received logistic support, sanctuary, and training from the German Democratic Republic during the early 1980s. The RAF appears to be developing closer ties to GRAPO in Spain. 
That sure sounds like evidence of an attempt by the USSR-Warsaw Pact to back expand communism to me. ---- DanTD 01:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, great; this is the kind of stuff that belongs in the article. If there's no explanation that there was Communist state backing, the whole paragraph just looks like a non sequitur. The second half of the evidence needed, though, is showing that these groups had the goal of Communist revolution in their own countries, and not just more limited goals (e.g., ending the Vietnam War, independence for Puerto Rico, killing their perceived enemies). (Let's forget for the moment the idea that it was only U.S. foreign policy that blocked these groups from achieving this supposed goal.) Korny O'Near 02:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if you're unwilling to discuss this on the talk page, but: for a terrorist action to be listed here, there has to be some evidence that it was done with the goal of regime change. The fact that it "sounds like evidence" of that to you is not good enough. In the case of actions in the U.S., the stated goals were much more limited than that, and thus I don't think any of them belong. This is an article about the domino theory, not a generic page about bad things done by Communists. Korny O'Near 18:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you aware of the history of these groups and their origins? Have you listened to their speeches? If you had, you'd realize that they dohave regime change in mind. International A.N.S.W.E.R. isn't the first anti-war front established by the Workers World Party, you know, and the WWP isn't the only communist faction to create anti-war fronts that evolved into communist terrorist groups. ---- DanTD 19:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better yet.... ---- DanTD 19:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All well and good, but there still needs to be at least a single piece of evidence that any of this terrorism had to do with Communist countries attempting to bring about revolution(s) in the West. Even speculation, as long as it's from a notable source. Anything. (On a technical note, don't use "ref" tags in the Talk page; they're not clickable.) Korny O'Near 20:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it about the references. But check this info on the Workers World Party:
Initially the WWP was confined to the Buffalo, New York area, where it had constituted the Buffalo and other smaller branches of the SWP, like Youngstown, Ohio, but expanded in the 1960s. During the Civil Rights Movement the WWP had a youth movement, "Youth Against War and Fascism", which opposed the Vietnam War.  Workers World and YAWF were also notable for their consistent defense of the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground along with Vietnam Veterans Against the War and the Puerto Rican Independence movement.
As I had mentioned earlier, the FALN was backed by Cuba. And you do realize that the Soviet Union admitted in 1990 that the Communist Party USA took orders from Moscow, and that the Students for a Democratic Society which spawned the Weathermen originated in a youth faction of the League for Industrial Democracy don't you? ----- DanTD 00:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Find some evidence directly (not indirectly) linking a U.S. terrorist group to a Communist country, and then facts about that group can go into the article. Korny O'Near 01:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think Cuba is? ---- DanTD 01:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine; we can add FALN to the page, with a citation showing that they received aid from Cuba. Korny O'Near 05:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist incidents paragraph 

message: There seems to have been a similar use of the theory in WW2 propaganda, when successive invasions of Austria, Poland,  the Netherlands, France and Denmark were presented as evidence of a Nazi domino strategy for the rest of the world. ADM (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. I've always felt past experience with the Third Reich, and the Axis in general fueled belief in the domino theory, and gave it credence. The true difference was that the attempted communist takeover of the globe by Moscow, Beijing, and Havana, was never as smooth as those carried out by Berlin and Tokyo. ----DanTD (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazis

message: Some mention should probably be made of the 20th anniversary celebrations of the opening of the Berlin Wall, where 1000 dominoes are to be toppled to symbolise the fall of communism in Europe. Rather ironic, that. -- 118.209.59.168 (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fall of the Wall anniversary 

message: In the "Other applications" section, should the recent protests in the Middle East and North Africa be mentioned? There is already a political cartoon regarding the event; a text description should be added to the corresponding section as well. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 03:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other applications: Arab world protests? 

message: I noticed that there was an image with the caption 'A more recent example featuring the 2010-2011 Tunisian uprising', but there was no information anywhere in the article that mentions this event.  Is the image in the wrong place?  I just find it odd that there is an image so out of place with the rest of the article with no information to go along with it. SudoGhost (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010-2011 Tunisian uprising image 

message: There is a section for arguments supporting the theory, and a section for arguments against the theory. The section for arguments supporting the theory also has a part further supporting the idea that an unsuccessful war (supplying communists with volumes of morale, solidifying their negative views on capitalists through the bloodshed of civilians) actually held back the effect. I think there should be another part for arguments that the domino effect is real, but not all actions intended against it (ie. Vietnam War) is likely to slow it down in the long run. I'm not saying that I know for sure that the Vietnam War did not slow down the effect, in fact, I know very little. I just think the third view deserves some mentioning. Anyone agree? Or disagree? 173.180.202.22 (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the need for a separate section for those - but it might depend on how many people have made such arguments. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Opps, did I imply a section?(I'm never really clear) Sorry I meant just some mentioning, similar to the mentioning of arguments the domino effect was held back in the section mainly about arguments the effect exists. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments for all 3 sides? 

message: In the edit summary where I said "I'm not sure the changes are correct," I was addressing my own changes! 173.180.202.22 (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops 

message: Yes, the most prominent example of a domino theory being widely argued in foreign policy was with regard to the spread of communism in Southeast Asia in the 1950s at the time of the decolonization of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. But the descriptive analogy (and it is simply an analogy with all of the caveats) is more broadly understood by policy makers. For a good discussion, see The Irony of Vietnam: The System Worked, by Leslie Gelb and Richard Betts, starting on page 197, National Security Goals and Stakes:
"two generations of presidents and high officials had lived through or were reared on the dominoes of the 1930s...if aggression is tolerated in small, out-of-the-way places, aggressors will be emboldened to attack larger, more vital places...a straight line from the Japanese takeover in Manchuria in 1931 to the invasion of China to the attack on Pearl Harbor...the same straight line from Italy's attack on Ethiopia in 1935 to German reoccupation of the Rhineland to the anschluss of Austria to the rape of Czechoslovakia at Munich to general war in Europe...These were not simplistic analogies, not mechanical formulae. It is in the nature of power to want to keep thing from getting out of control, and control in diplomacy operates on the margins... Taken to extremes, such analogies break down. Used cautiously as operating principles of politics, they are sound. It should not be forgotten that the domino principle was easy to understand and to explain to the American people...The analogical force of historical, current, and psychological-legal dominoes blotted out—more, made irrelevant—the peculiarities of Vietnam."
71.190.76.5 (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domino theories describe more than Southeast Asia/Viet Nam 

message: The Arguments Against section has no sources and very few arguments.  It is dominated by a discussion of Communist politics in Indochina which has little relevance.  
Critics of the theory seem to conflate it with what could be called the Puppet Master Theory - that everything was being controlled from Moscow or Beijing.  But I think that is different.  A row of dominos is not a monolith.
Most of this section could be deleted without loss to the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The theory was never exclusive to Indochina. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  15:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments Against 

message: Domino Theory wasn't a secret worry; even presidents publicly indicated worries about how loss of Tonkin might essentially doom countries from Japan to Malay to India all becoming Communist-controlled.
One thing I haven't seen much of is contemporary analysis of the idea, and of the American fascination with the idea, from Soviet and Chinese theorists of the time.  Surely there must have been some consideration; even if they themselves doubted it to the point of considering it preposterous (and I don't know that they did, at least until the Sino-Soviet split), they must have considered it in light of estimating how the United States and to a lesser degree its allies might act in various circumstances, and whether and how to exploit it in propaganda.
Have Soviet and Chinese archives offered anything on this?
98.248.37.55 (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary Communist analysis thereof? 

message: Did I mention this source for Fidel Castro's support communist factions of Quebec Separatists and the Black Liberation Front?TIME. "The Monumental Plot", in TIME, February 26, 1965, retrieved May 22, 2009 I know I've added other references here. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  22:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuban support for FLQ and Black Militants 

message: This sentence wreaks of pure revisionism:
"The domino theory failed to take into account the character of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong struggle in the Vietnam War. By assuming Ho Chi Minh was a pawn of the Communist giants Russia and China, American policymakers failed to see that the goal of Ho and his supporters was limited to Vietnamese independence, rather than the spread of global communism."
First, Ho Chi Minh was a puppet of "Communist giants" such as the USSR and Red China. Second, the goal of Ho and his supporters was an all-communist Indochina, due to his support for the Pathet Lao and Khmer Rouge, not to mention his direct invasion of Laos in the late-1950s. If anything his goal was the spread of regional communism. The predecessors of the South Vietnamese government were just as interested in Vietnamese independence, if not more so. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  16:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ho Chi Minh was more of a communist than a nationalist 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Domino theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021040535/http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/6186/Stalin_and_Eastern_Europe.pdf to http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/6186/Stalin_and_Eastern_Europe.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051126071737/http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Che-Guevara-Gott11aug05.htm to http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Che-Guevara-Gott11aug05.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Eisenhower "Domino Theory" speech from April 7th, 1954 is a dead link. Not sure if it needs modifying, but I'm not really a Wikipedian and can't find a different link. (Feel free to delete this off of your original post, I couldn't figure out how to create a new one.) 152.13.33.31 (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up; I've fixed it now. Cheers! YoPienso (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Hi, I think this article needs to be revised as it is not neutral; it's states as a fact that communist or socialist are a threat and then it starts to show points of views about if this Domino effect happens or not, or when...
it says about Noam Chomsky opinion on this: he believes that the domino theory is roughly accurate, although he put a more positive spin on the threat,
That is so blatantly biased that it equals socialist or communist government to a threat(for who? clearly U.S. control of foreign countries economies, which is, obviously, illegal)
The subject of the article should be about a doctrine of the U.S. government to illegaly 
overthrown or invade other countries governments by commiting crimes against humanity and genocide (see Operation Cóndor)
If I get any help I would make some changes here.
Thanks!
Agustin6 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The victims of these nations would disagree with you on that, and Chomsky's support for these nations is worth noting. If you want to maintain neutrality, I suggest reviving the chapter on the Case against the Domino Theory. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  14:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The victims of all these communist dictatorships. What did you think I meant? Also, Chomsky is a big supporter of revisionist history, including that of Latin America. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  22:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's 100% untrue. It has in fact been entirely in reaction to communist insurgencies in these countries. The alleged "latinoamerican socialism" as you put it was backed by the former Soviet Union. Cuba was a Stalinist, and so was Che Guevara who imposed communist guerilla wars upon Latin America, as well as Africa, and other parts of the third world. Noam Chomsky wants the world to believe these people are legitimate organizations benefiting the people, instead of the Bolshevik thugs they are. The only communist dictatorships he didn't support, were the USSR and "People's Republic" of China.---------User:DanTD (talk)  00:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

text: 1)Noam Chomsky has sided with almost every communist terrorist group ranging from the Greek Communist Party to the Khmer Rouge 2)Post-colonial Cuba was never in danger of being erased from the map, and I'm right about Cuba, and their puppet regimes and communist terrorist groups in other countries. All that crap about Cuba only being a socialist and Che being some kind of liberator is straight up communist propaganda. 3)Hugo Chavez was a Fidelista, and so is Nicolás Maduro. 4)Oliver Stone is a communist sympathizer. The man came back from Vietnam and made it his lifelong duty to trash everything we were trying to do against communist tyranny, so it should be no surprise if he made some movie lionizing Venezuela's current regime. Let's not forget that Venezuela backed known communist terrorist such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia and his puppet Fidel Castro straight up took over Grenada, which is was caused us to invade the country in 1983. 5)As for Argentina, the best thing you can say is that we didn't support that regime when they invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  05:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

text: That's nice, but without reliable secondary sources, Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for you to self-publish your original research ruminations about the illegality of U.S. intervention. Similarly, without reliable secondary sources making the connection, the material you added on the subject of Operation Condor is WP:UNDUE and violates WP:SYNTH. Please familiarize yourself with these and other Wikipedia content policies before making further edits like this.--יניב הורון (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Yes I can, for the same reasons I can say fascism is a threat. Caving into holocaust denial in the hopes of appearing neutral is just as idiotic. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  14:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And you're living with the false assumption that Latin American communist terrorist groups were merely socialists. You say socialism is about abolition of privileges, but communism replaced economic privileges with privileges based on political status. I'm not mixing Soviet ideology with communism in Latin America, Soviet and Maoist ideology is actually part of it. The majority of communist terrorist groups in Latin America were backed by Cuba after 1959, and Cuba was a Soviet puppet (and still is, despite the fall of the USSR). The exceptions are groups like the Shining Path in Peru, which is Maoist. No reasonable person can claim that nations like Norway are genocidal, but guess what; The USSR was, the "People's Republic" of China was the so-called "Socialist Republic" of Vietnam was, the Khmer Rouge definitely was, and the "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" was. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  03:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

text: The category from your country is right here (:Category:Communist parties in Argentina) The rest in South America are here. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  14:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously didn't read about their activities. All communism has ever been useful to are the leaderships of communist parties. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  13:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a pity that a discussion about the content of the article is dominated by mindless shouting. Bever (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not neutral 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The de:article at the German Wikipedia may serve as an example to enhance this article. Bever (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I will take a look. Viriditas (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  German article 

message: The article section "Arguments in favor of the domino theory" currently states: "The primary evidence for the domino theory is the spread of communist rule in three Southeast Asian countries in 1975, following the communist takeover of Vietnam"
but the domino theory was well before 1975 (unless you want to make a pedantic point that's a good point but nobody wants to make, that prior to 1975 it was the domino hypothesis, and the spread of communist rule as predicted by the hypothesis proved the domino theory :)
In any case, I think the primary argument in favor of the domino theory is the stated goals of Marxist socialism. Lede from the Comintern article: "The Communist International (Comintern), also known as the Third International (1919–1943), was an international organization that advocated world communism. It was controlled by the Soviet Union.[1][2][3] The Comintern resolved at its Second Congress to "struggle by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the state".
There are many other sources for that same idea. That coupled with the obvious notion that it's easier to influence or subvert a neighboring country than a geographically isolated one. 108.185.102.135 (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  primary evidence: Comintern (Third International) 

message: I found the following sources (here, reformatted properly in citation templates) dumped in a nonstandard "Literature" section, but none of them were actually cited in the article. Maybe they will be useful later, but they serve no purpose being in there right now. If they were meant to be a "Further reading" section, these honestly are not very helpful, and at least one of the entries was not appropriate for such a section anyway, since it is not in English (we can certainly cite non-English sources as inline reference citations, but they are not useful as "Further reading" recommendations for users of en.wikipedia).
* 
* 
* 
* 
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unused sources