Humanities desk
< March 10	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 11[edit]

Other cases where the U.S. engaged in military action to prevent countries from falling to Communist rule?[edit]

Other than in South Korea (during the Korean War), Taiwan (during the First Taiwan Strait Crisis), and South Vietnam (during the Vietnam War; in this case the U.S.'s effort was ultimately unsuccessful with the 1975 Fall of Saigon), which other cases were there where the U.S. engaged in military action to prevent countries from falling to Communist rule? Futurist110 (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about Operation Cyclone? <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 05:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not direct military action but close enough. So, Yeah, it definitely works for this! Futurist110 (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify–Operation Cyclone, while not a direct U.S. military intervention, was definitely an EXTREMELY massive (non-military) U.S. effort to prevent Afghanistan from falling under Communist rule. Futurist110 (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United States invasion of Grenada might qualify. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 06:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But that specific invasion was more due to the U.S.'s fear of a repeat of the Iran hostage crisis rather than due to the U.S.'s fear of Communism, no? Futurist110 (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As might Bay of Pigs Invasion. Though both the Grenada and Cuba situations were aimed at removing an already-communist government. The Grenada thing worked, while the Cuba thing was a miserable failure. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 06:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bay of Pigs attempt, while unsuccessful, definitely works for this! Futurist110 (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear up something, for a few years before the 1983 invasion, Grenada was ruled by a leftist government that irked the U.S. quite a bit, but was not considered a danger to U.S. interests. However, when Maurice Bishop was assassinated and replaced by an even more extremist bunch, there was fear that a Cuban-style move to the Soviet orbit was on the way, prompting the U.S. intervention. The fate of the American medical students at St. George's University was just a pretext; this was definitely a "prevent communism" type of action. Xuxl (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly; I'll have to read up more on this. Was having such a small island end up in the Soviet sphere of influence really that threatening to US interests, though? The story with the safety of the medical students does make sense, when one thinks about it. As in, that this invasion was a preemptive move to eliminate the risk of another Iran hostage crisis occurring later on. Futurist110 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For years, I've wondered why Jacobo Arbenz included communists in his coalition. Dwight Eisenhower was not particularly gung-ho about conducting military interventions, but in the context of the United States in 1954, a Western Hemisphere government including communists was like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Of course, the communists were not in any position to take over in Guatemala (though some propaganda at the time apparently pretended that they were)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Árbenz did not fill any cabinet-level positions with members of the Guatemalan Party of Labour (PGT). While the PGT fraction in parliament supported his policies generally, it is not clear one can say they were included in the coalition. The 1954 coup d'état may have been inspired more by the lobbying of the United Fruit Company, with the spectre of communism serving as a facile guise. --Lambiam 09:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the Communist connection was mostly a pretext for those who directly organized the coup. However, the article which you linked to says that the party "gained prominence during the government of Col. Jacobo Arbenz". If Eisenhower would not have have authorized a covert action on behalf of United Fruit, but did authorize the covert action on the basis of getting rid of a communist-friendly Western Hemisphere government, then Arbenz's coalition with communists was very costly... AnonMoos (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly was the specific role of Communists in the Jacobo Arbenz government? Futurist110 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: — I was questioning the appropriateness of the term "coalition" for the relation of the Árbenz administration with "communists". If Árbenz did not have a coalition with communists, Guatemala's ordeal was not induced by him miscalculating its cost. --Lambiam 08:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the exact nature of the Communist role, it was more than enough to attract negative attention in the United States. I'm not saying that Árbenz remotely "deserved" anything that happened, but it's curious to me that he didn't take simple steps which might have mitigated the risk of U.S. intervention... AnonMoos (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without engaging in direct military hostilities, the US definitely put its muscle behind efforts to keep Italy and Greece out of the hands of the Reds. See Operation Gladio for one example. I personally find the idea of the stay-behind operations kind of touching, in principle, how can you not choke up at silendo libertatem servo? but in actual operation they may have become the thing they hated. You may find links to examples of that when reading about the years of lead. --Trovatore (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; will take a look at your links! Futurist110 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, without US military aid – a form of intervention – the leftist National Liberation Front, dominated by the KKE, would have won the Greek Civil War. Some Greeks and Turks will choke up by the thought of stay-behind operations in Turkey and the personal as well as social losses they entailed. --Lambiam 09:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I definitely know that the Greek Civil War was a close call! Futurist110 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further indirect action was CIA activities in Nicaragua in support of the Contras, and United States intervention in Chile against President Salvador Allende. Alansplodge (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Against the Contras, certainly, but was Salvador Allende actually a Communist? Futurist110 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our article says he was a "Marxist". Can you be a Marxist without being a communist? Maybe, depending on your definitions of the two terms, but it's a distinction I would not have expected to be convincing to cold-war US policymakers, even if they believed it, which they likely would not have. I think Castro claimed, before seizing power, that he did not intend to impose Soviet-style single-party communist rule, which of course was exactly what he did. --Trovatore (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the Angolan Civil War, the U.S. provided financial and materiel support to UNITA against the ruling communist MPLA (or is this the UDA, or is it the IRA, I thought it was the UK...) --Jayron 32 13:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UNITA and even more so to FNLA. Farawayman (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And Congress was concerned enough that the U.S. would be dragged into another Vietnam-like quagmire that it prevented President Ford from supporting UNITA. [1]. Xuxl (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, the U.S. Congress allowed President Ford to support UNITA with money and weapons but not with troops? I'm trying to reconcile your comment here with Jayron32's comment above here. Futurist110 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article in question? The U.S. had supported UNITA and previously the FNLA with money and weapons (and probably a small number of covert "advisors") however, when Ford sought to expand this aid, he was denied by Congress. There was never any U.S.-based ground troops in Angola; in terms of "boots on the ground" the main foreign forces in Angola at the time were South African; it was the South African withdrawal in 1976 that precipitated Ford's request to Congress to amp-up American funding of UNITA; while Ford didn't ask for ground troop authorization at the time; there was genuine fear that he would soon, and Congress nipped that in the bud. Also note that the Angolan Civil War is a confusing mess of a war, in many ways similar to the Syrian Civil War in current times; it was not merely a war between two different sides, but there were multiple groups all vying for power, and the way foreign powers were involved didn't always mirror their international alliances; China and the U.S. for example both supported UNITA, even at a time when China was seen as a communist "enemy" of the U.S. --Jayron 32 12:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did read that article, but only an hour or so after I made that post. Anyway, thank you very much for this information! Very interesting! Futurist110 (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United States Antarctic Service Expedition[edit]

Bit of confusion here. It says on the main page they built West Base and East Base during this expedition. But the Little America article says Little America III was built during this time. Is West Base the same as Little America III? Did they build 3 bases during the expedition? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems so. See: [2] --Amble (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Former Shi'a-majority territories and/or regions?[edit]

Are there any territories and/or regions that used to be Shi'a-majority but no longer Shi'a majority are right now? Futurist110 (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Fatimid Caliphate? --Amble (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the population of Egypt under the Fatimids were not Shi`i. Before the Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam, Shi`ites were usually a minority in most areas of the Islamic world, though Zaidiyyah prevailed in some smaller areas (such as North Yemen). AnonMoos (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]