Talk:United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1965–66)

Allegations of brutality

• Just my 5 cents worth:

I was too young to remember what happened, but senior members of the family and friends were witnesses in those times. Far from just saving foreigners, US troops took part massively in the violent repression of the movement for restoration of the constitution.

Main activity reported to me from people who suffered it were massive artillery shelling of the poor residential neigboourhoods and shanty towns by the US troops. No fighting was taking part in these areas except for the shelling, but it forced the majority of the population to avoid taking part in the defence of their constitution. Undoubtedly, this was also the motive for these operations.

-- 84.156.4.191 10:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• and compared to the commies who destroy societies? Ever think of that? Please show stats or other information of how this country was saved by the US in a violent manner from commie intrigues. YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 21:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

• I was stationed at Fort Bragg in 1969-1970. I ran across a document titled the "Dominican Republic After Action Report" authored by a Major whose name I can't recall. I think it was classed "Secret" then. It might be declassified now. It was a short document. Less than 100 pages (around 40, I think), and I remembered thinking when there were complaints about our short-comings during the invasion of Grenada (lack of communication, and units having various missions operating at cross purposes) that nothing had been learned 20 years later.69.221.8.22 05:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• All I can say is "y-y-yup." My own source with firsthand knowledge (a young Marine who took part in the invasion) told of firing into windows of homes at anyone scene holding something resembling a weapon, burying bodies in trenches, and having this all go duly unreported by the press. If what he recounted was true on a larger scale, then this would make what went down in Santo Domingo among the underinvestigated episodes (at least in the English-speaking press) of general carnage and mayhem in U.S. military history. Whiskey Pete 01:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• The US influence by militaty or economical means has been largely documented (Cuba, Nicaragua, Colombia, Chile, Panamá, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Serbia, among others). They justify the actions by the importance of their ends, keeping double standards and doing everything tu fulfill their goal, so firing at houses windows in Dominican republic is something not difficult to believe. Seems that the American Governments covert operations have destroyed more societies than the "commies" through the years. Let all it be on their consiousness but also Wikipedia, so please put those facts into the articles as it will be the memory that will not allow those who suffered to be forgotten. Will824 15:34, 07 February 2012 (GMT-5)

I wasn't aware that ousting a democratically elected government, tearing up a constitution and installing a military dicatorship constituted saving something from "commie intrigues". LamontCranston (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Operation Power Pack → US intervention in the Dominican Republic – Propaganda names should not be used as article titles. Añoranza 11:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as per above Añoranza 15:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• OPPOSE as below along with everybody else ← ΣcoPhreek _{Is Useless}^Nostalgia→ 16:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Rangeley 16:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think Power Pack is propoganda. TheronJ 16:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose As per previously slated reasons many times over. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as numerous people have stated, there is nothing wrong with this title - this is the best title - and the article shold stay here. Johntex\^talk 17:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposed title, "US intervention in the Dominican Republic" is more general than the original title, and is thus less informative: such an article could refer to economic or cultural influence/imposition, or any historical or future military intervention. Yet this article refers to a specific operation. Additionally, I don't see the propagandistic aspects of the current title --Erudy 18:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the US has had multiple interventions in the Dominican Republic. Most of these were a part of the Banana Wars. New title is vague and less informative.--Looper5920 22:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Current title is accurate. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 12:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per all the above --Nobunaga24 00:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose-use "US Intervention in the Dominican Republic 1965" with "Operation Power Pack" defined in the text of the article.

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Please let's choose something different. Añoranza 23:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Get off your high horse. Where is the propoganda in "Power pack"?--Looper5920 23:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Calling yourself "power pack" is exactly the hybris you accuse me to have. Please be civil in the future. Añoranza 23:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wah--Looper5920 23:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I vote its fine, I think you lost concensus here. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You are funny, a consensus build by you and one other guy. Añoranza 04:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

50% was your threshold, right now its at 66% against you. Follow your own rules. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 04:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the name as it currently is, is fine ← ΣcoPhreek _contribs^talk→ 19:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove a tag before a consensus has been found. A consensus is not build by two people against one. Añoranza 11:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The tag only stays for a few days, its been 10. Follow procedure please. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy says remove or ask for assistance. As I had forgotten to list it at requested moves the first time I place it there now. Añoranza 11:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It says to ask for asssitance if you cannot move it yourself. "If, a clear consensus for the page move has been reached" then do XYZ or ask for assistance. However a concensus was not reached in favor of the move. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

How can a consensus be reached if there is no one to build one? Please try to see that it does not make sense to claim that there is no consensus on a page no one visited and wait if the listing helps. Añoranza 13:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The listing itself states, it stays for a few days, not that it stays until a concensus is built. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As I stated I will leave it for 3 days as its already been 10 days, 13 days total is more then a few days as the template itself states. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

3 days is appopriate if in three days several users build a consensus. It is not appropriate if no one decides. Añoranza 13:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You are arguing with what the template says, if you would like to get a certain ammount of time added to it, I am not the one that can help you with that. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think the current title is the best one for the article. It is the most common name and it is the one we should use. Johntex\^talk 14:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I still (10 days later!) oppose a move. It currently sits at 1 for the move and 4 opposed! That's 80% against. ← ΣcoPhreek _OIF 01:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the design as suggested at Wikipedia:Requested moves. There it says a vote should last 5 days or longer if no consensus can be found. Añoranza 15:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Notified all interested parties who had already voted above, that it had to be done all official like. ← ΣcoPhreek _{Is Useless}^Nostalgia→ 16:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• I just read the article on DR history, and it appears that Operation Power Pack is not the only US military intervention in the DR...there was one in the twenties, as well. This, I think, bolsters my comments above: going to the proposed title would change this from an article on the specific operation to American operations in the DR in general. If "Operation Power Pack" really is NPOV (which I still don't see) then we should change the title to US military intervention in the Dominican Republic in 1965 which, I think it has to be admitted, is quite unwieldy --Erudy 18:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say that there is now a very clear consensus to leave the article where it is, would you agree Anoranza? ←ΣcoPhreek→ 15:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Result: No move

It is very obvious, no support for the move. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• I served in the 101st Abn Div & the 82nd Abn Div during this timeframe. While I was not in the Dominican Invasion I find these second and third hand annecdotes very hard to believe. Often in military operations there are individuals that violate policy but the events describes were too broad to be ignored or ascribed to individuals. The 82nd Abn Div had very stringent ROE (Rules of Engagement). They would NEVER fire artillary indescriminately into a civilian neighborhood. I put very little credibility in these rumors>

Missing Quote

This paragraph (second from bottom) is missing a close quote:

At the end, US Senator, William Fulbright, said that the United Stated had displayed bad judgment and an "arrogance of power in interveining in interenal affairs of sovereign country.

Anyone know where the quote ends or have a source for it? Ryan Roos 21:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't Decisive US victory.

Make sound like the guerrilla simply gave up. They was a negotiation, and they were Dominican forces that was fighting on use side, remember it was a civil war. Avfnx 11:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

it was decisive.

YankeeRoman(65.222.151.74 (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

It wasn't decisive, a lot of desinformation is going around on this article, and a lot of it doesn't have even external sources, what's all this?

It was decisive. Who won? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.108.85 (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not decisive? A standard civilian misunderstanding of items like "objective" and "mission". The "mission" was to restore stability and allow free elections. Mission Accomplished. An "objective" was to Stop the spread of communism. Completed. Didn't need a Domincan missile crisis. Another objective was to assist the forces fighting the communists. Completed. The true political objective was to stop communism. Good thing. We see how that worked out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharskjold (talk • contribs) 19:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I added an NPOV tag to the US invasion section, mainly for these last two paragraphs:

By May 14, the Americans resorted to a ruse: established a "safety corridor" connecting the San Isidro Air Base and the Duarte Bridge to the Embajador Hotel and United States Embassy in the center of Santo Domingo, essentially sealing off the Constitutionalist area of Santo Domingo. Road blocks were established and patrols ran continuously. Some 6,500 people from many nations were evacuated to safety. In addition, the US forces airlifted in large relief supplies for Dominican nationals. The fighting continued until 31 August 1965 when a truce was declared. Most American troops left shortly afterwards as policing and peacekeeping operations were turned over to Brazilian troops, but some U.S. military presence remained until September 1966.

In 1966, former President Joaquín Balaguer (Trujillo's 4th puppet president) was elected over Juan Bosch--with the overt support of the US government. Bosch would never regain power. Relative political stability followed as the initially oppressive yet highly politically crafty Balaguer would go on to dominate Dominican politics for twenty-two years.

In particular the items which concern me are the unsubstantiated use of the word "ruse" in the first paragraph, and the phrase "initially oppressive yet highly politically crafty" in the second. It's unclear how the items after the colon in the first sentence of the first paragraph constitute a "ruse". Moreover it's a completely unreferenced statement. The description of Bosch is obviously biased, just on the basis of the word "highly" alone. But there's the question, really, of whether it's important to characterize the nature of his rule at all, at least in this article. It would probably be just as well to say, "Relative political stability (insert reference of some kind) followed during Balaquer's twenty-two subsequent years at the center of Dominican politics." Better still might be the complete excision of the sentence altogether. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 16:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)207.172.183.120 (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe there are citations regarding the "ruse". It may not have been called a "ruse" in the cited works, but the intent of the US forces -- to seal off the Constitionalist area through the use of an ostenisible relief corridor -- is not really disputed.

Also, I believe the Wiki article on Balaguer justifies his description as oppressive and crafty - his first terms being brutal (over 1,000 politically related deaths) and his later ability to obtain and hold onto power without exerting the same violence. I don't think you can call 1,000 political deaths "stability" without qualification.

"Decisive" US military victory? Yes. The Constitutionalists were in a sealed pocket and cut off from all supplies, and the revolution was not nationwide. Like in Panama years later, the US military would have difficulty limiting civilian casualties. Scared 18-year-olds shoot at anything that moves once they get into action.

Finally, regarding the title of the article, the civil war of 1965 would have been notable in Dominican history even if the US had never invaded. It is also true that the US had previously intervened militarily in the DR during WWI. Perhaps the title should be "1965 Dominican Civil War and US Military Intervention". 207.172.183.120 (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with the last proposal. Olegwiki (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nightsticks or bayonets?

A brother jarhead who was deployed to the Dominican Republic in 1965 always claimed they were issued no ammunition at all. Nervous times for someone just coming from a shooting war in Vietnam. Dugong.is.good.tucker (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of photographic and video evidence in the Dominican archives showing the massacre, and believe me, there was plenty of ammunition, not from bayonets, but from automatic rifles and 50-cals. Nemesys571 (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt the chaos and death during the upheaval. My question is: did a platoon or company or brigade of the USMC invade the Dominican Republic with no ammunition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dugong.is.good.tucker (talk • contribs) 01:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Did those 3000 casualties happen from Americans or from civil war?

the article's header insinuates that Americans killed several thousand people (including "civilians") while losing 40. But the overall description of events sounds like a bloody civil war with a lot of the "civilians" actually fighting (and dying) as militants/gangs on behalf of one of the political parties. Meanwhile, there is no indication whatsoever of how much fighting was done by American and other peacekeepers and how many locals died as a direct result of the intervention. 64.9.233.26 (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What does the caption under the photo mean?

It says "Medical Service officers conferring near Santo Domingo in early May ate pepes."

Is it supposed to be "at pepes"? Is "pepes" a place? If so it should be capitalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.126.248.6 (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose that Dominican Civil War be merged into United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1965–66), under the name of Dominican Civil War. The two articles pretty much describe a single conflict, additionally I am in the process of expanding the background section and adding references.Catlemur (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)