23A035 Dominoes by Jim Davies, 8/29/2023

Six decades ago the FedGov formed something it called the "Domino Theory" to "justify" its intervention in Vietnam. The theory held that if Communism won there, it would win anywhere in the Pacific Rim or elsewhere, and then where would we be? - better by far to throttle it while young.

It was dead wrong, because Communism is a completely unsustainable system; they would have known that if they'd read Ludwig von Mises' 1923 book, Socialism. But they hadn't, and in any case they didn't care; they wanted their war and they got it. Didn't work out too well - except for the makers of war equipment.

There is something, however, in the theory that one major event in history leads to another, as if dominoes are falling. Below is shown how that happened since 1900. My perception is that although the progression does seem inevitable, it's not. It can be cut off completely at any time. So far, it hasn't been.

First came WW1, not because Europeans hated each other but because their governments had woven a web of alliances; when Czar Nicholas II of Russia ordered an attack on Austria, Germany and France had to join the fray. That much was a near-inevitable domino-fall; but if the BritGov had not chosen to join it would have been much shorter and if the USGov had not later arrived to break the stalemate it would have lasted longer yet. (Or maybe not; did the expectation of US help prolong it?)

Domino #2: the terms imposed on Germany were savage and created the motive for WW2. Were they inevitable? Politically, yes. Clemenceau would have been tossed out of office if he'd not insisted that WW1 had been Germany's fault, and so might Lloyd George.

Hence Domino #3, when a recovered Germany under a popular new Leader set out for revenge in 1939. Could that have been avoided? - I say, yes. Chamberlain blundered. Nazis and Bolsheviks would probably have fought each other, but the War as it took place was needless.

It brought in the US for a second time, however, and the resulting victory cemented America's position as the dominant power, displacing Britain, which was why FDR was so keen to take part. Domino #4: US supremacy, with us to this day, with only Russia resisting (and China, inscrutably.)

The fate of Domino #5 awaits us now: will the USGov persist in prolonging the hopeless Ukrainian attacks on Russia, which could so easily lead to a nuclear holocaust, or will the Uke proxies give up and request a peace agreement with Moscow? Stay tuned for the next exciting episode.

Notice, though: every single step in this dreadful sequence, whether "inevitable" or avoidable, played out because governments existed.

Domino#5 is poised because the US-led 14 governments in NATO in 1990 did not disband, but morphed from a defensive to an offensive alliance and doubled their membership, so posing an obvious, existential threat to Russian independence. Had those countries dispensed with their governments (or even, just some of them) that could not have happened.

Domino #4 would never have fallen if America had been anarchist, for there'd have been no FDR to manipulate a strongly non-interventionist public into war.

Domino #3 would still be upright if there had been no government in London to interfere with the German recovery of what had been stolen in 1919.

Dominos #2 and #1 fell only because there were rival governments in Europe who had been so mad as to weave the MAD system of alliances; had they (or even just some of them!) not existed, the Continent would have continued to add wealth to its living standards in peace, and Russia would have continued on its path towards first democracy, perhaps, then quite possibly anarchism - given the strong tradition of anarchist thinkers like Tolstoy. The horrors of 70 years of Communist savagery would never have crawled out of the slime.

So, yes, there is a strong element of inevitability in history. But only because governments exist.

I'd like to change that.