Jump to content

We need to talk about Cuba


maarsen

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

I said the comments were a message of sympathy to the people of Cuba, and exiles didn't matter. dmc515 then posted Obama's message.

That's true.  I obviously stand by my original statement, but let's have a detente here.  The statement was politically stupid.  If you don't get why, I can't help you.  Trudeau knew it was politically stupid, that's why he walked it back two days later.  Further, if you don't get why it was morally ill-advised, which subsequently means you're unable to confront Castro's inexcusable actions, I don't wanna fight anymore.  I don't care, and the whole damn thing is ironic because I'm usually inclined to argue against the injustices of American imperialism, but with this board sometimes...  So, it is incredibly weird to me that apparently a lot of people around here perceive as if I'm the defender of the United States Government.  I'm a liberal academic that nobody cares about.

@Kalbear, thank you.  Really.  I have not read much after your post.  I tried to qualify as best I could in the original thread.  Anyway, looks like the shutdown is happening!  Time to get crazy!

It's just really silly to me.  It seems there's palpable anti-american sentiment around here.  That's fine.  Go ahead - from Pahlavi to Bishop and beyond.  Go do the drum circle like y'all are eager undergrads that just took your first IR class.  I was totally the same way for quite awhile.  Now, I just find it banal and tired, but it's certainly justified. 

I really don't want to interrupt this thread, because I think it's beautiful.  I feel my involvement and opinions will only lead to animus, and I don't want that to happen.  I have some opinions on economic development and democratization, but they can wait.  Continue talking about how awesome Cuba is.  That's been the reports I've heard as well.  Please continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pointing to a countries low GDP while its under sanctions from the hemispheres Superpower only illustrates that the superpower has effective bully capability, its not proof that the tiny nation is a failure.. Were the U.S. to impose its wrath and sanctions on any other small W.Hemisphere country for over 50 yrs, its certain we'd see this same stunted development there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

I think you are missing a giant point. dmc515 said this about Trudeau's comments: 



No, I saw that. I just don't see why Cuban exiles don't matter. Not in a purely practical electoral sense, no, but is that really what we want from our politicians? Saying only the things that they think will win them elections? Plus Cubans living in Cuba also don't vote in Canadia elections, so why do they matter for Trudeau's message then?

In any case, what you said was:
 

Quote

Their leader, beloved by the vast majority of people in the country (Cuban exiles in Florida really don't count) died.

 

and that just seems really dismissive. Like their opposition to Fidel doesn't matter because they left. Even if they left because opposition to Fidel wasn't tolerated in Cuba which is kind of a huge part of why people are uncomfortable with praise of Castro. It's sidelining a huge part of the discussion. If that's not what you were going for, then sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to get other sides on this, i’m wondering how people think Cuba/Castro should have dealt with the US’s constantly funding coups, sending assassins, planning/occasionally enacting invasions. Like honestly, everyone says ‘police state is wrong’ and, given any alternatives, it is. But unlike getting the trains to run on time, what Castro/Cuba was fighting here was not a rising populist movevent of a shade you don’t like, but rather a very real superpower trying in very real ways to kill you, destroy your government and get it’s colony back.

And even supposing you were okay with just giving up and dying, you can look around the world at the suffering endured by the people’s living under the thumb of other puppets the US put in place through the same means. Brutal thuggish dictators, like the Shaw, like Marcos, like Saddam, like Pinilla, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_supported_by_the_United_States

Or just look at your own Cuba from the time the US held the leash. THAT’s the alternative. Remember, this is Apartheid South Africa’s biggest apologist/supporter. This is the nation following the Dulles blueprint. This is the actual, real life alternative. 

So, beyond having a chuckle at the idea that authoritarianism is the cause for the US’ stance on Cuba, I’m asking for real answers in terms of what Castro should have done differently. As is I’m pretty amazed he managed to not get assassinated/overthrown, and those to me seem like the only alternatives available to him. What am I missing? What should he have done? How would you have handled it better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holding free elections with genuine alternative parties who were not hassled, attacked, or silenced for dissent, run fairly and above board with international observers, could have likely led to Castro winning in a way that would have gained substantial international support as a democratically elected government, pressuring the U.S. to deal with the Cuban government as a democratically elected representative of the Cuban state rather than a regime. Naturally, the U.S. would also publicly deny the results despite all evidence to the contrary, but it's worth recalling that there was a distinct equivocation on the part of Kennedy in regards of how to deal with Cuba, and such an approach might have opened the door to the beginnings of rapprochement or at least a cooling off.

Of course, the ultimate sticking point was nationalization of American businesses. This sort of thing has happened elsewhere, however, in places where relations became more normalized than they have been in Cuba. The hard line on the embargo is a tragedy, and largely the fault of the U.S:, but we should not pretend that Castro was powerless or without options to effect change. He even claimed shortly after the revolution that the intention was free, fair elections in a year or year and a half, and an end to dictators... but we see where that went.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Ran said:

Holding free elections with genuine alternative parties who were not hassled, attacked, or silenced for dissent, run fairly and above board with international observers, could have likely led to Castro winning in a way that would have gained substantial international support as a democratically elected government, pressuring the U.S. to deal with the Cuban government as a democratically elected representative of the Cuban state rather than a regime. Naturally, the U.S. would also publicly deny the results despite all evidence to the contrary, but it's worth recalling that there was a distinct equivocation on the part of Kennedy in regards of how to deal with Cuba, and such an approach might have opened the door to the beginnings of rapprochement or at least a cooling off.

Of course, the ultimate sticking point was nationalization of American businesses. This sort of thing has happened elsewhere, however, in places where relations became more normalized than they have been in Cuba. The hard line on the embargo is a tragedy, and largely the fault of the U.S:, but we should not pretend that Castro was powerless or without options to effect change. He even claimed shortly after the revolution that the intention was free, fair elections in a year or year and a half, and an end to dictators... but we see where that went.

Just as a for instance, how would you deal with the coups/assassinations etc. in the run up to the election without therein being portrayed as ‘hassling’, etc. And for fun, let’s imagine that the CIA tunnels tons of cash/operational support/media coverage to the ‘Let’s bring back the old system’ party. How would you account for that, again, without ‘interference’? I’m not being a dick, this was their real life situation, and i’m wondering about actually sustainable alternatives that aren’t suicidal. 

 

Edit, for clarification, the CIA/Dulles blueprint LOVED it when their target rolled over and tried for ‘open’ elections. Just look at the Italian elections 1948-64. Seriously, that was ideal for them, mainly because it meant:

1) they had way more money than their target to use.

2) their target would be held accountable for keeping it ‘clean’ while they themselves would operate under no such limitation.

3) it might even mean they could suspend assassinations/coup operations pending how things looked election wise, as the target had apparently decided to assist them.

4) it’s win-win. If they can do w/e they want and the target has to avoid the appearance of ‘hassling’ them by interfering with their slush funding/propaganda/etc, they will almost certainly win. If the target tries to play ball or stop their operations, they can loudly denounce the election process, as did happen in RL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Just as a for instance, how would you deal with the coups/assassinations etc. in the run up to the election without therein being portrayed as ‘hassling’, etc. And for fun, let’s imagine that the CIA tunnels tons of cash/operational support/media coverage to the ‘Let’s bring back the old system’ party. How would you account for that, again, without ‘interference’? I’m not being a dick, this was their real life situation, and i’m wondering about actually sustainable alternatives that aren’t suicidal. 

All of those are possiblities, but they're probably a pretty forseeable reaction to having overthrown the government of Cuba and nationalized American businesses.

Despite everything that had happened well before Kennedy, Kennedy opened up a back channel to try and reach an accommodation with Castro and Cuba. He was willing to work out something even given Castro having enforced a dictatorial, one-party rule, cozied up the Soviets, etc. Kennedy's assassination put an end to that. But imagine if Castro had been more proactive and _followed through_ on his stated intentions of returning Cuba to an open, free society without dictators -- it seems those talks and the chance for normalization could have happened sooner, more openly, and with real results.

I didn't even go into the more unusual, and unprecedented, route of Castro _stepping away_ from power as a way of getting out of the way of said stated goals, which he could very well have done if he wanted. His narcissism was an active impediment to normalization of relations with the U.S., and it was no one's decision but his own.

ETA: I mean, f'r instance: I was just reminded when Googling that EISENHOWER officially recognized the revolutionary government in the immediate aftermath of its overthrow of Batista's regime. I think the CIA plots were largely after Castro's role as a dictator, and the revolution's turn towards communism, were in the bag. Before that, while there was hope of a more open and free government, the U.S. had been willing to engage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a matter of fact, both are historical myths in a way.
Eisenhower wasn't truly interested in Castro - he snubbed him and went to golf.
But Castro wasn't that interested in the US either. Historians have shown that he was always more interested by the Soviet Union.

3 hours ago, Ran said:

You do realize that the black market is a major part of how people manage to keep themselves fed? "Cuba" as a state is not achieving this. The Cuban people are doing it despite the state.

That's only part of the picture. Cuba imports about 80% of its food, and the US embargo does have an impact on this (given that the US could export tons of cheap food without the embargo, which complicates business). It's just as easy to say that Cuba has managed to feed its people in spite of the US. Plus, the fact that the libreta is progressively becoming irrelevant is also due to the fact that many Cubans don't need it anymore, which, one way or the other, is thanks to the state giving more opportunities to citizens to benefit from the tourist industry.

It seems to me that whatever the current situation is, the Cuban state's policies did get the Cubans through difficult times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

As a matter of fact, both are historical myths in a way.
Eisenhower wasn't truly interested in Castro - he snubbed him and went to golf.

And then had the VP, Nixon, speak with him for over 3 hours. This wasn't a snub, per se, it was deliberately keeping a certain distance to show that this was a negotiation, not a capitulation. That's diplomacy. The Eisenhower administration absolutely did recognize Castro's government.

 

Quote


But Castro wasn't that interested in the US either. Historians have shown that he was always more interested by the Soviet Union.

As Huber Matos, Urrutia, and others who had supported the overthrow of the Batista regime learned to their rue when Castro consolidated power, a decision which has led to generations of unnecessary suffering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2018 at 7:39 PM, Dr. Pepper said:

I know what GDP per capita means.  I don't consider it an important measurement.  I don't consider it a relevant one at all.  I'm concerned about things like whether or not a country can care for the basic needs of it's citizens.  Are they healthy, literate, have housing, etc.  Don't particularly care if the country is producing a certain amount of money.  Worries about that come from a deeply capitalist bias.  

 

On 1/19/2018 at 7:55 PM, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Yeah, and the amount and quality of healthcare, education and housing you can provide for your citizens is of course intimately tied to how productive the overall economy is. 

Also, if only those basic needs matter then I don't see what your problem with capitalist countries is. The amount of people that can't meet those needs is pretty small, and most have enough for way more than that. 

People smarter than me say, like Joseph Stiglitz or Amartya Sen have argued we should develop an aggregate statistic that better represents economic well being than GDP does. Certainly GDP numbers or growth doesn’t tell the whole story about economic well being. It’s kind of like the U3 numbers which don’t tell the whole story about what is going on with unemployment.

Certainly though, a nation’s ability to produce greater output overtime is important in improving the well being of a country.

With regard to Cuba, I’d imagine that the US’s silly embargo hasn’t been helpful. But, also, I’d imagine Cuba probably should do some economic liberalization. I’m hardly a free market fanatic, as I do believe the state should strive to make sure it’s all citizens have access to decent education and health care, that regulation is often necessary etc. etc., but I do think that the decentralized decision making nature of markets has some advantages that helps growth.

Of course, I wouldn’t advise Cuba to adopt the American model as it stands right now as it’s mainly just produced enormous inequality, stagnating wages, people without access to health care, education, etc. etc., and a political system corrupted by money and a whole lot of nuttiness.

Here in the United States, interestingly enough, GDP numbers pretty much tell us that the “Party of Business” isn’t as good at economic matters or producing economic growth as it claims, though just listening to it’s rhetoric, you’d think it’s on the pro bowl team of producing economic growth, when in reality it’s more like it’s a back bencher on the local JV squad. Who can forget such Republican or conservative top hits like "The Bush Boom", "Bullish on Bush", "Mornin in America", "The Brownback Boom", or now playing "Pumped For Trump".

One might conclude that the US could use a few more progressive or maybe even “socialist” policies that would hardly harm GDP growth, leaving aside the issue that GDP numbers don’t always give the full picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Kalbear said:

It does not excuse Castro desiring to nuke the US and being willing to sacrifice his nation to do so. It doesn't excuse Guevara's exploits either. 

Castro's comments were made in the same era during which MacArthur wanted to nuke Chinese cities, and (according to Daniel Ellsberg) first use of nuclear weapons was common stance in Pentagon. Closer to present day, Israel made plans for nuking random European capitals in case of conventional military defeat against Arab countries (Operation Samson). There are also Trump's recent opinions on the subject.

Let's not forget the fact that only one nation in human history actually used nukes. It wasn't Cuba.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ran said:

All of those are possiblities, but they're probably a pretty forseeable reaction to having overthrown the government of Cuba and nationalized American businesses.

Hey, let's be perfectly clear here. "Overthrown the government of Cuba"? Huh? A dictator, originally elected but in the fashion of pretty well every Central and South American government supported by the USA, led a military coup and set himself up as dictator. And then set up a regime famous for corruption, bribery and torturing and murdering the opposition.

And overthrowing this horrific regime angered the USA? That says a mouthful.

And once again, I will repeat, Batista started the whole nationalization program by nationalizing the oil industry and other businesses in Cuba, which is why Eisenhower recalled the US ambassador.

When I was in university in the early 70s my geography prof, an American who was doing his Ph.D. on Cuba about a year before the revolution on some famous US scholarship program (Ford Foundation maybe?), told us about driving down a country road and then turning a corner to find themselves about to run into a military operation with soldiers lining up villagers by machine gun. They managed to get their jeep turned around and skeedadled outta there only to hear a great deal of gunfire behind them. Way back then he decided to move to Canada after finishing his thesis because of the things he saw. Like, guess what, most people in Canada including myself, he was not happy with things Castro did but thought the Cuban people were way better off than they had been under Batista. He was actually in Batista-run Cuba for about a year, and his opinions probably are the ones that most influenced me on this topic. I don't think anyone else here was an academic in Cuba in 1958, were they?

I also think most people expected Cuba was going to transition to democracy more quickly than it did. I lay the blame for that squarely on the US embargo. Without the embargo there would have been economic activity that would have moved Cuba away from communism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much as I detest Castro and think the US position during the Cold War was at least understandable, keeping the embargo up after the fall of the Wall has likely backfired in terms of the regime's longevity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Hey, let's be perfectly clear here. "Overthrown the government of Cuba"? Huh? A dictator, originally elected but in the fashion of pretty well every Central and South American government supported by the USA, led a military coup and set himself up as dictator. And then set up a regime famous for corruption, bribery and torturing and murdering the opposition.

Which was followed by a regime that executed hundreds of people in show trials, kept dissidents in prison for decades, exported mercenaries to Angola, etc.

But as I noted above, Eisenhower did recognize the Cuban government, and there was a hope in those early days that Castro would avoid the dictatorial leanings of his predecessor. Alas, he did not. 

 

42 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I don't think anyone else here was an academic in Cuba in 1958, were they?

No. Several generations of my family were there, though. I don't know, the experiences of my parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and other family of their generation vs. the experiences of an academic living there for one year... I guess I should go with the academic's opinion? Heh.

Lets just say that the actual experiences of Cubans born and raised there were quite varied. Many individuals from various classes of Cuban society who had supported the overthrow of Batista were turned into the enemy when Castro grabbed power and swung towards communism, so it's not just the "sour grapes" of people who were pro-Batista that you have to take into account; there were also those who were against Batista, for the overthrow, but had expected a restoration of democracy which never came, or had at least expected a respect for their rights and found that that, too, was gone.

 

42 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I also think most people expected Cuba was going to transition to democracy more quickly than it did. I lay the blame for that squarely on the US embargo. Without the embargo there would have been economic activity that would have moved Cuba away from communism.

Absolutely.

34 minutes ago, Galactus said:

Much as I detest Castro and think the US position during the Cold War was at least understandable, keeping the embargo up after the fall of the Wall has likely backfired in terms of the regime's longevity. 

Yep. Huge mistake. Castro's narcissism and his place as the figurehead made idiots in the U.S. refuse to deal with him, but all they did was visit suffering on the Cuban people and strengthened the regime's control. It was counter-productive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ran said:

Holding free elections with genuine alternative parties who were not hassled, attacked, or silenced for dissent, run fairly and above board with international observers, could have likely led to Castro winning in a way that would have gained substantial international support as a democratically elected government, pressuring the U.S. to deal with the Cuban government as a democratically elected representative of the Cuban state rather than a regime.

Just ask Guatemala and Chile how being democratic saved them from the wrath of Washington.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Just ask Guatemala and Chile how being democratic saved them from the wrath of Washington.

Again ignoring that Washington was on-board with Castro to begin with. Eisenhower recognized the Cuban government within a week of it coming to power. Castro's failure to follow through on his promise to restore democracy was a major aspect of why things soured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Ran said:

Which was followed by a regime that executed hundreds of people in show trials, kept dissidents in prison for decades, exported mercenaries to Angola, etc.

But as I noted above, Eisenhower did recognize the Cuban government, and there was a hope in those early days that Castro would avoid the dictatorial leanings of his predecessor. Alas, he did not.  

I don't think I have seen any serious disagreement with the fact those executed were the worst of those who committed war crimes, torture and violated human rights. I could argue Castro should have put colonels and generals on trial, but I understand they were allowed to go into exile.

Castro was not going to kick out Batista and then return to the corrupt ways of Batista, if that's what you mean about returning to the dictatorial leanings of Batista. In fact, using the word 'leanings' is a real understatement, isn't it? The US expected Castro to take power and leave everything in place, with the mafia running Havana and 75% of arable land left in foreign hands, and the rural population starving. That would have been a helluva revolution, wouldn't it?

Just imagine if 75% of the arable land in the US was owned by foreigners. Or 75% of the arable land in Sweden was owned by foreigners. Wouldn't you expect a revolution and land re-distribution?

And once the US broke off diplomatic relations with Cuba, they imposed sanctions and started fomenting revolution against Castro. Let's be realistic here, they may have been pissed about property seizure but the real reason is the fear of the 'domino effect'. Cuba was nothing compared to massive US investment in the rest of South and Central America. Cuba has suffered for 55 years to protect American property in the hemisphere, and then to protect votes.

54 minutes ago, Ran said:

No. Several generations of my family were there, though. I don't know, the experiences of my parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and other family of their generation vs. the experiences of an academic living there for one year... I guess I should go with the academic's opinion? Heh.

Lets just say that the actual experiences of Cubans born and raised there were quite varied. Many individuals from various classes of Cuban society who had supported the overthrow of Batista were turned into the enemy when Castro grabbed power and swung towards communism, so it's not just the "sour grapes" of people who were pro-Batista that you have to take into account; there were also those who were against Batista, for the overthrow, but had expected a restoration of democracy which never came, or had at least expected a respect for their rights and found that that, too, was gone. 

While I was responding to your post, frankly, I wasn't really including you, since you do have roots there. I should have made that clear. :) 

Seriously, if Castro had not turned to communism, where do you think Cuba would be now? Which democracy south of the USA do you think Cuba would look like? The Dominican Republic? No dictatorships there, eh. And there aren't a million Dominicans living in NYC either, right. Haiti? No dictatorships there, eh, and a million Haitians haven't fled to various countries. Puerto Rico? No Puerto Ricans in the US, eh?

Nope. Cuba was a massive experiment that could have worked out better without a crippling boycott. But then there could have been a domino effect in other countries. Cuba would have had to have bowed down to the US again if they hadn't gone the route they did.  In my opinion anyway.

And in the end, that's one of the reasons Castro was a great leader. He didn't become a Trujillo, robbing the country and opening a Swiss bank account with hundreds of millions in it. And he didn't sell out the country to the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2018 at 5:26 PM, GAROVORKIN said:

It will take a bit of time and there will probably be few false starts. But Cuba will get there . 

It won't. The same way as most other former communist countries haven't.

It's very romantic and noble to think that people will triumph in the end and have a society that is fair and just to all its citizens, but it couldn't be further from the truth.

Just take a look at former communist countries and consider where they are. People who were highly placed in the communist regime or people closely connected to the people who were highly placed in the communist regime are basically the new aristocracy, having made their fortunes by either blatantly stealing from the state (and the people) or by having preferential treatment in dealings with the state. Meanwhile, majority of the people are significantly less well off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

 

People smarter than me say, like Joseph Stiglitz or Amartya Sen have argued we should develop an aggregate statistic that better represents economic well being than GDP does. Certainly GDP numbers or growth doesn’t tell the whole story about economic well being. It’s kind of like the U3 numbers which don’t tell the whole story about what is going on with unemployment.

Certainly though, a nation’s ability to produce greater output overtime is important in improving the well being of a country.

With regard to Cuba, I’d imagine that the US’s silly embargo hasn’t been helpful. But, also, I’d imagine Cuba probably should do some economic liberalization. I’m hardly a free market fanatic, as I do believe the state should strive to make sure it’s all citizens have access to decent education and health care, that regulation is often necessary etc. etc., but I do think that the decentralized decision making nature of markets has some advantages that helps growth.

Of course, I wouldn’t advise Cuba to adopt the American model as it stands right now as it’s mainly just produced enormous inequality, stagnating wages, people without access to health care, education, etc. etc., and a political system corrupted by money and a whole lot of nuttiness.

Here in the United States, interestingly enough, GDP numbers pretty much tell us that the “Party of Business” isn’t as good at economic matters or producing economic growth as it claims, though just listening to it’s rhetoric, you’d think it’s on the pro bowl team of producing economic growth, when in reality it’s more like it’s a back bencher on the local JV squad. Who can forget such Republican or conservative top hits like "The Bush Boom", "Bullish on Bush", "Mornin in America", "The Brownback Boom", or now playing "Pumped For Trump".

One might conclude that the US could use a few more progressive or maybe even “socialist” policies that would hardly harm GDP growth, leaving aside the issue that GDP numbers don’t always give the full picture.

Yeah, I agree with all of that that. 

If Cuba does indeed decide to follow through with opening up their economy, they should do so gradually and partially, like China and Vietnam, instead of the absolutely disastrous "shock therapy" ideas that American economists managed to convince the former USSR to attempt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I don't think I have seen any serious disagreement with the fact those executed were the worst of those who committed war crimes, torture and violated human rights. I could argue Castro should have put colonels and generals on trial, but I understand they were allowed to go into exile.

Castro was not going to kick out Batista and then return to the corrupt ways of Batista, if that's what you mean about returning to the dictatorial leanings of Batista

Castro did return to corrupt ways. Just different corrupt ways. 

13 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

. In fact, using the word 'leanings' is a real understatement, isn't it? The US expected Castro to take power and leave everything in place, with the mafia running Havana and 75% of arable land left in foreign hands, and the rural population starving. That would have been a helluva revolution, wouldn't it?

I'm not sure that's actually true of what the U.S. expected. As you yourself noted, the U.S. had its issues with Batista as well.

13 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Just imagine if 75% of the arable land in the US was owned by foreigners. Or 75% of the arable land in Sweden was owned by foreigners. Wouldn't you expect a revolution and land re-distribution?

A different approach would have entailed paying fair value for seized lands, with deferred payments. A kind of national emininent domain. The U.S. was not necessarily opposed to this under Eisenhower -- the talks never got there. Same with Kennedy -- he was willing to work out some means of accommodation. You act as if the U.S. basically just sat there twirling its mustache plotting evil things when in fact there were occasions where hostilities and acrimony were not primary interests and another path might have been found.

 

13 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

And once the US broke off diplomatic relations with Cuba, they imposed sanctions and started fomenting revolution against Castro.

Sure. Executing hundreds of people, cozying up to the Soviets, and dropping any pretense of democratic reform were not calculated to make the U.S. friendly.

13 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Let's be realistic here, they may have been pissed about property seizure but the real reason is the fear of the 'domino effect'.

It was a concern, of course. But you can see that Eisenhower treated Cuba quite differently than it did Guatemala, where Eisenhower immediately authorized operations to overthrow the government and formented a civil war.

13 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

 

13 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

While I was responding to your post, frankly, I wasn't really including you, since you do have roots there. I should have made that clear. :) 

Seriously, if Castro had not turned to communism, where do you think Cuba would be now? Which democracy south of the USA do you think Cuba would look like? The Dominican Republic? No dictatorships there, eh. And there aren't a million Dominicans living in NYC either, right. Haiti? No dictatorships there, eh, and a million Haitians haven't fled to various countries. Puerto Rico? No Puerto Ricans in the US, eh?

I suspect Cuba could have been rather more like Puerto Rico than any of those others. I know GDP per capita isn't a perfect figure, for reasons noted, but you could do a lot worse than be in Puerto Rico under normal circumstances. Puerto Rico is substantially wealthier than the Central Americans country.

And in the end, that's one of the reasons Castro was a great leader. He didn't become a Trujillo, robbing the country and opening a Swiss bank account with hundreds of millions in it. And he didn't sell out the country to the US.

It's been estimated that Castro's wealth as somewhere between a few hundred million (per a former member of his inner circles) and a billion dollar (per Forbes), and there have been many accounts of the luxuries he was afforded or afforded himself. Did he gold plate everything or make a great public show of that wealth? Nope, it'd clash with the image. But he and his family were very well taken care of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...