Monday in class when Shanil and Ed presented, one of my favourite moments was they mentioned the domino effect and showed this image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Domino_theory.png. I had never heard of the domino effect in terms of communism, so I decided to look up some information on it.
As it turns out, Eisenhower coined the term domino theory as justification for the Vietnam War. As the image shows, if Vietnam fell to communism, Laos would be next, and then Cambodia, an then Thailand… All the way to India—a major trading country with the US (more so now than in the Vietnam era, but nonetheless). Eisenhower even argued in 1954 that Communists would have a geographical advantage that would enable them to take over Japan, the Philippines, and even Australia.
Clearly the domino theory is applicable in terms of the Vietnam War; after 1975, South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were all “taken over” by Communism. Supporters of the domino theory claim that the US’s intervention in Indochina kept Communism from spreading further. Of course, at the same time Communism did not take hold in Thailand or Indonesia as Eisenhower predicted it might. Critics of the theory say that Communism was not a world force, and would not be able to spread beyond some fractured countries (after all, with both Laos and Cambodia, Vietnam had ambitions in those countries and outright attacked them until they could no longer defend themselves).
Personally, I think the domino theory is a bit too dramatic. Eisenhower used it as justification for Vietnam, and I have trouble imagining anything that could justify that war. When Germany first came under Nazi control, there was no domino effect. It took very aggressive actions on the part of the Germans before Poland came under Nazi control, and even afterwards Nazism would not have spread without some very deliberate and forceful work. (it’s not the perfect example, but it works.)
Any thoughts? Does the domino theory have any validity? Can you think of better examples than mine (I’m pretty sure you’ll be able to)?
Monday, February 2, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Vonnegut's Soldiers
I have only really liked three pieces of literature (not including poems) that I have read over my Greenhill Upper School career for my English classes. One was Elie Weisel’s Night. I stayed up until two in order to finish it. One was Death and the King’s Horseman, a play I read last year. Most of you probably didn’t like that one very much at all but for some reason it appealed to me. I can definitely add Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five to this list.
Not only was this book weird and quirky, it jumped around to the point of being incomprehensible. It was easy to hate Billy Pilgrim, with his cowardice and un-warlike attitude and physique (or so I imagined him). The end was frustrating and empty. I still loved the book—especially the part at the end when Derby is arrested and shot for stealing a teapot in the ruins of Dresden.
One of my favourite quotes out of the book was from the woman who served the American captives in Dresden before the bombing. On page 159, she comments on how unlike soldiers the three men in front of her appeared. When they respond, she says, “All the real soldiers are dead.” I thought this was one of the most revealing quotes about Vonnegut’s war story. Billy represents so many soldiers in WWII who are not the “ideal” soldier: the built, strong young man, and this woman is right. Most of the stereotypical soldiers have been killed, either because they are brave or because they are stupid—depending on your viewpoint.
The soldiers who do remain are weakened, and nothing like those in the Iliad. There is no place for Achilles, Agamemnon, or even Paris in this sort of a novel. I think Vonnegut is pointing out that war isn’t nearly as great as the classics would have you believe, and I think he proves it though Billy’s situation.
Kurt Vonnegut had several lines equally strong as this one; any other favourites, or ones you really thought didn’t belong?
Not only was this book weird and quirky, it jumped around to the point of being incomprehensible. It was easy to hate Billy Pilgrim, with his cowardice and un-warlike attitude and physique (or so I imagined him). The end was frustrating and empty. I still loved the book—especially the part at the end when Derby is arrested and shot for stealing a teapot in the ruins of Dresden.
One of my favourite quotes out of the book was from the woman who served the American captives in Dresden before the bombing. On page 159, she comments on how unlike soldiers the three men in front of her appeared. When they respond, she says, “All the real soldiers are dead.” I thought this was one of the most revealing quotes about Vonnegut’s war story. Billy represents so many soldiers in WWII who are not the “ideal” soldier: the built, strong young man, and this woman is right. Most of the stereotypical soldiers have been killed, either because they are brave or because they are stupid—depending on your viewpoint.
The soldiers who do remain are weakened, and nothing like those in the Iliad. There is no place for Achilles, Agamemnon, or even Paris in this sort of a novel. I think Vonnegut is pointing out that war isn’t nearly as great as the classics would have you believe, and I think he proves it though Billy’s situation.
Kurt Vonnegut had several lines equally strong as this one; any other favourites, or ones you really thought didn’t belong?
Monday, January 19, 2009
The Turning Point of War
One of the most central conflicts of Killer Angels is the disagreements and miscommunication between the two main Confederate officers, Lee and Longstreet. Because their views of the situation differ so greatly, they have trouble managing the army successfully. Longstreet believes in defensive tactics and protecting his men, while Lee fights in a more traditional, Napoleonic manner. In many ways, this conflict reflects how the progression into modern warfare affected the Civil War itself.
As technology advanced and distance weapons became more accurate, infantry slowly became obsolete. Pickett’s Charge, at Gettysburg, was the last great infantry charge—and it was a failure. The Union forces were too strong, and they had the advantage. The North simply sat and fired cannons and rifles as the South advanced right into the shots.
Though Lee is clearly a brilliant military strategist, he is also outdated. He thinks in terms of old-style warfare, but those tactics are ineffective against newer technology. The Napoleonic tactics also give him a sense of pride; this pride is the root of his ‘downfall’ at Pickett’s Charge. Longstreet, on the other hand, believes in defensive tactics and preserving his men as best as possible. The differences between the two are striking, but in the end Lee’s superiority in position means that his plan will be the one they use—to the detriment of the Confederate forces.
As technology advanced and distance weapons became more accurate, infantry slowly became obsolete. Pickett’s Charge, at Gettysburg, was the last great infantry charge—and it was a failure. The Union forces were too strong, and they had the advantage. The North simply sat and fired cannons and rifles as the South advanced right into the shots.
Though Lee is clearly a brilliant military strategist, he is also outdated. He thinks in terms of old-style warfare, but those tactics are ineffective against newer technology. The Napoleonic tactics also give him a sense of pride; this pride is the root of his ‘downfall’ at Pickett’s Charge. Longstreet, on the other hand, believes in defensive tactics and preserving his men as best as possible. The differences between the two are striking, but in the end Lee’s superiority in position means that his plan will be the one they use—to the detriment of the Confederate forces.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Inherent, yes; inevitable, no.
Monday in class we debated about whether warring/warfare is inherent in human nature, and our debate spread into the other question Mr. Crotty asked of us: is war inevitable?
I think they are two different questions, and I have two very different answers. I believe (contrary to my unfortunate position in the debate) that war IS an inherent part of human nature. Humans are by nature greedy, afraid of differences, and paranoid. These three factors are in my opinion the root causes of war. (If I missed any, please suggest others… I probably did.)
Examples are easy to find. European colonialism in Africa was caused by greed. World War II was started by the Germans (yes I know I’m oversimplifying things) because Hitler needed a scapegoat and it was easy to get the Germans to fear the Jews’ differences. Paranoia starts wars of preemptive strikes, such as some of the more recent “wars” America has been involved in.
May I add that the “pacifists exist” point is a relatively poor one. War begins with fights, and even pacifists probably get angry about something.
So what about this inevitability factor? Will it continue until the end of time, or at least the end of ants and humans? Not necessarily. Yes, history does state otherwise, but the world is constantly changing. I don’t think we can continue to live the way we have for the past few thousand years—especially in terms of what has changed from tribal relations to foreign policy. Nuclear power has changed everything, and we have the capability to blow ourselves and everyone else up if the wrong leader gets the wrong idea in his head at the wrong instant. Sooner or later, someone will have to realize that something must be changed, and war will be the first thing to go.
What do you think? Is my opinion possible? Can war be overcome if it is a part of human nature? Or is it simply highly improbable?
I think they are two different questions, and I have two very different answers. I believe (contrary to my unfortunate position in the debate) that war IS an inherent part of human nature. Humans are by nature greedy, afraid of differences, and paranoid. These three factors are in my opinion the root causes of war. (If I missed any, please suggest others… I probably did.)
Examples are easy to find. European colonialism in Africa was caused by greed. World War II was started by the Germans (yes I know I’m oversimplifying things) because Hitler needed a scapegoat and it was easy to get the Germans to fear the Jews’ differences. Paranoia starts wars of preemptive strikes, such as some of the more recent “wars” America has been involved in.
May I add that the “pacifists exist” point is a relatively poor one. War begins with fights, and even pacifists probably get angry about something.
So what about this inevitability factor? Will it continue until the end of time, or at least the end of ants and humans? Not necessarily. Yes, history does state otherwise, but the world is constantly changing. I don’t think we can continue to live the way we have for the past few thousand years—especially in terms of what has changed from tribal relations to foreign policy. Nuclear power has changed everything, and we have the capability to blow ourselves and everyone else up if the wrong leader gets the wrong idea in his head at the wrong instant. Sooner or later, someone will have to realize that something must be changed, and war will be the first thing to go.
What do you think? Is my opinion possible? Can war be overcome if it is a part of human nature? Or is it simply highly improbable?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)