IMPORTANT QUESTION?

[SaNbItZ]

I have been reading lateley that CHE was killed by the orders of Fidel Castro? I was wondering If any one out there knew What the whole story is?

[canikickit]

Get with the programme. (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=1227)

[FistFullOfSteel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 05:27 PM
I have been reading lateley that CHE was killed by the orders of Fidel Castro? I was wondering If any one out there knew What the whole story is?
NO,by the orders of Rene Barrientos

[Hate Is Art]

I have been reading lateley that CHE was killed by the orders of Fidel Castro? I was wondering If any one out there knew What the whole story is?

What led you to believe this? ;)

[AmericanCommunist]

I have a friend from cuba and from there point of view its not even a issue anymore. They put the blame on Castro. i have seen a recent cuban documentary wich showed castro setting up Che to be killed. So to answer you question from what i have heard and saw Castro set up Che to be killed by the Bolivians.
But ches spirit will never die.

[Ortega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 12:27 PM
I have been reading lateley that CHE was killed by the orders of Fidel Castro? I was wondering If any one out there knew What the whole story is?
Che may have been, and probably was, loosely set up by Fidel, but I'd have to say no - Fidel didn't directly kill Che. Look up the dissapearance of Camilo Cienfuegos, another "mysterious dissapearance" of one of Fidel's top men. It's interesting to compare the two cases - both men were loosely, and supposedly unknowingly sent to their deaths by Fidel himself. Camilo in an old plane flying to a remote province in stormy weather, Che alone in possibly the country least ripe for revolution in Latin America.

[FistFullOfSteel]

ok,lets say Fidel killed both,but why then???

[Hate Is Art]

thats what I meant? Why Would Fidel want to kill Che? It's not as if Che was getting to powerful or anything, in fact it was Che's descision to leave Cuba not Fidel's.

[Ortega]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 10 2004, 05:44 AM
thats what I meant? Why Would Fidel want to kill Che? It's not as if Che was getting to powerful or anything, in fact it was Che's descision to leave Cuba not Fidel's.
There are reasons to believe that he killed Camilo - Camilo was getting powerful, the people loved him, it seemed that he could do nothing wrong. Castro would have every reason to get Camilo out of the way by any means possible.

As for Che, it's always struck me as interesting that right before Che left for the Congo, willingly or not, he made a very controversial speech criticizing the Soviet Union. The Soviets were angry at Fidel, who at the time was trying hard to win their support.

Several people present upon Che's return from his speech (he delivered it at a conference in Algeria) said that Fidel seemed angry, and pulled Che away to talk to him. After talking for quite a while, (40 hours straight I've heard :blink:) Che packed up and left for the Congo.

Interesting indeed...

[Ortega]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 10 2004, 05:44 AM
thats what I meant? Why Would Fidel want to kill Che? It's not as if Che was getting to powerful or anything, in fact it was Che's descision to leave Cuba not Fidel's.
It seems to me, that while Fidel didn't directly kill Che, it's very realistic to say that he may have pressured him to leave Cuba and go underground. Before Che's death he said that going to Bolivia had not been his choice in any way, that the choice had been made on "higher levels" in the Cuban government. Fidel may have almost thrown Che away - he may have not neccesarily meant to have him killed, but he may not have taken too many precautions to keep Che alive.
Or Fidel could possibly have wanted a martyr for the cause - I know that Che was ready and willing to become one...

[Felicia]

nooooooooooooooo, nonononono

In all likelyhood, Che was not killed by Fidel's orders. The CIA trained Bolivian forces made the decision to kill Che, it's been said that the CIA didn't even want Che killed. However it's been speculated that when Fidel released photos of Che in Bolivia to show the Cubans that Che was alive and well, fighting for justice, that that may have given hints to the enemy as to his location. Plus there were many other things that went wrong, too many to list.

[Ortega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 05:51 PM
nooooooooooooooo, nonononono

In all likelyhood, Che was not killed by Fidel's orders. The CIA trained Bolivian forces made the decision to kill Che, it's been said that the CIA didn't even want Che killed. However it's been speculated that when Fidel released photos of Che in Bolivia to show the Cubans that Che was alive and well, fighting for justice, that that may have given hints to the enemy as to his location. Plus there were many other things that went wrong, too many to list.
I know, I know, I'm not saying that Che was directly killed by Fidel. I just think that Fidel may have put him in a situation where things could easily go wrong. Just sort of thrown him away, like I said before.

[FistFullOfSteel]

Originally posted by Ortega+Jan 10 2004, 11:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ortega @ Jan 10 2004, 11:08 PM)
[email protected] 10 2004, 05:51 PM
nooooooooooooooo, nonononono

In all likelyhood, Che was not killed by Fidel&#39;s orders. The CIA trained Bolivian forces made the decision to kill Che, it&#39;s been said that the CIA didn&#39;t even want Che killed. However it&#39;s been speculated that when Fidel released photos of Che in Bolivia to show the Cubans that Che was alive and well, fighting for justice, that that may have given hints to the enemy as to his location. Plus there were many other things that went wrong, too many to list.
I know, I know, I&#39;m not saying that Che was directly killed by Fidel. I just think that Fidel may have put him in a situation where things could easily go wrong. Just sort of thrown him away, like I said before. [/b]
Why would he do that?

ffs they were companeros...

[Indysocialist]

I&#39;ll say this on the subject, Che was getting pressure put on Fidel because of his Pro-China attitude like it was stated earlier.

Also, every movement needs a martyr right? Almost every movement has them, what makes Cuba different?

With that said I personally don&#39;t think Fidel had Che killed. But you never know. :ph34r:

[Hate Is Art]

Yeah I highly doubt Che&#39;s death was down to fault of Fidel, Che was longing to leave Cuba to promote revolution.

[Ralph]

cia :angry:

[SaNbItZ]

I dont know IF YOU CAN TELL BUT IM NEW TO THIS AND IM A TOTAL SUPPORTER TO CHE AND HIS CAUSE BUT WHAT IS "CIA"?

[Hate Is Art]

firstly, drop the caps mate, secondly CIA as in CIA killed Che.

I recomend A revolutionary life by J.L.Anderson, very good read, pretty sorted on Che&#39;s Life.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Ortega i don&#39;t like your point of view.Che wanted to go and fight the guerilla wars.Fidel discouraged it because he knew he wasn&#39;t safe.

[Comrade Zeke]

NO NO NO Fidel Castro did not kill Che it was the CIA trained Bolivian Jerks that killed him. Fidel Loved Che he even made a national holiday in Cuba called Che day. He spoke for weeks and weeks of how brave Che was how he would avenge his death so to answear your question no he did not kill Che&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; HOW YOU BEILIVE THAT? :o

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Comrade Zeke is right 100%

[dannie]

i&#39;m kind of confused on this matter, t here where reasons for fidel to get rid of ché.. on of them as stated above, the ussr thingie, but i don&#39;t think that would be enough reason for fidel to to this, at this point i think bolivian army killed him (with support of cia off coruse) but it could be something else, only fidel knows

[SaNbItZ]

Dont you all honestly believe that since "che" helped castro so much, then castro might of felt alittle bit threatened by che? knowing that that wasnt che&#39;s purpose? so why didnt castro keep him by his side and instead he let him go? and i know all of you are going to repply that che wouldt of stayed cuz he wanted to do his cause whare it was needed so why didnt castro support him with men or other things? ches death could of been prevented if he had more resources. so in my opinion castro did have something to do with ches death&#33;

[Ortega]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 11 2004, 02:00 PM
Ortega i don&#39;t like your point of view.Che wanted to go and fight the guerilla wars.Fidel discouraged it because he knew he wasn&#39;t safe.
That&#39;s such propaganda. You have no idea what Fidel actually did or didn&#39;t do. Che is dead now. Fidel can control, and change to his will, what did or didn&#39;t happen. Che is his to manipulate. Fidel has already changed Che from a humble, weak (by his own admittance), Socialist looking for change to a brave "freedom fighter" and martyr. Che was brave, yes, but he was no "freedom fighter". If fighting was neccesary, Che was all for it, but he believed in as little fighting as possible. Bolivia was simply supposed to set off a "spark" in Latin America, after which Che would return to Cuba, probably getting a job in the Cuban government, and would probably be somewhat like Raul today. Unfortunately, due to Fidel&#39;s refusal to help Che (even after telegrammed requests from Che, he constantly stated that el Che had the situation under control, and could handle it on his own), the misson failed, and Che completely lost control of himself, and surrendered his image to Fidel, to manipulate to his will. Che would never have wanted to be viewed as he is today. He was against the concept of the brave, single individual (he was, obviously, in favor of collectivism and group work) and would have hated being singled out as "the heroic guerrila". He is nothing but a propaganda tool for Fidel now. Of course Fidel talks about him lovingly, of course Fidel has established a day for him. All that means nothing. Che has become nothing but a poster boy for Cuba&#39;s revolution, in Cuba at least, and every time he is honored by Fidel, the honor is really reflecting back on Fidel himself.

[Ortega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 04:48 PM
Dont you all honestly believe that since "che" helped castro so much, then castro might of felt alittle bit threatened by che? knowing that that wasnt che&#39;s purpose? so why didnt castro keep him by his side and instead he let him go? and i know all of you are going to repply that che wouldt of stayed cuz he wanted to do his cause whare it was needed so why didnt castro support him with men or other things? ches death could of been prevented if he had more resources. so in my opinion castro did have something to do with ches death&#33;
I agree with you, SaNbItZ. I support Castro in most ways, but I could definetly see Fidel having something, even if not much, to do with Che&#39;s death.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Its funny to see you talk of propaganda ortega.Anyway,I wouldn&#39;t support Fidel if he killed Che.He did not have anything to do with it.Thats my conviction.

[Ortega]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 11 2004, 09:03 PM
Its funny to see you talk of propaganda ortega.Anyway,I wouldn&#39;t support Fidel if he killed Che.He did not have anything to do with it.Thats my conviction.
And what propaganda are you claiming im spouting? Not the American side, certainly. I&#39;m continuing to support Fidel, and saying that he simply could have been involved in Che&#39;s death, not that he directly killed him.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Sure Fidel could have been involved with it. I could have been involved with starting AIDS, but guess what? I wasn&#39;t. Anyone could have been involved with anything, you just have to check it out and depending on the situation most aren&#39;t. And yes, in many cases you spread imperialist bouregoise propaganda. This is just an example of it.

[Felicia]

Originally posted by Ortega+Jan 10 2004, 08:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ortega @ Jan 10 2004, 08:08 PM)
[email protected] 10 2004, 05:51 PM
nooooooooooooooo, nonononono

In all likelyhood, Che was not killed by Fidel&#39;s orders. The CIA trained Bolivian forces made the decision to kill Che, it&#39;s been said that the CIA didn&#39;t even want Che killed. However it&#39;s been speculated that when Fidel released photos of Che in Bolivia to show the Cubans that Che was alive and well, fighting for justice, that that may have given hints to the enemy as to his location. Plus there were many other things that went wrong, too many to list.
I know, I know, I&#39;m not saying that Che was directly killed by Fidel. I just think that Fidel may have put him in a situation where things could easily go wrong. Just sort of thrown him away, like I said before. [/b]
No, the point is that Che&#39;s death was in NO WAY orchrestrated (sp) by Fidel. Fidel did notihng conciously that would have put Che in harm. There were many things that went wrong with the guerrilla campaign. Diaries of other members were found, giving away clues as to the location of the guerrillas.

I&#39;d love to talk more about this, but I have to go do my laundry, ciao.

[Ortega]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 11 2004, 09:36 PM
Sure Fidel could have been involved with it. I could have been involved with starting AIDS, but guess what? I wasn&#39;t. Anyone could have been involved with anything, you just have to check it out and depending on the situation most aren&#39;t. And yes, in many cases you spread imperialist bouregoise propaganda. This is just an example of it.
I don&#39;t like Ceausescu, and I think that Fidel may have cut Che off somewhat in Bolivia, or at least purposefully gotten him out of the spotlight so that he couldn&#39;t speak out against the USSR again.
I would hardly call that bourgeious propaganda...

[capone]

CHE WAS KILLED BY FIDEL. FIDEL WAS SCARED OF SOMEONE LIKE "CHE" HE HAD SO MUCH POWER. HE HELPED THE CIA AND TOLD THEM "CHE&#39;S" LOCATION IN BOLIVA. FIDEL WAS SCARED TO HAVE SOMEONE NEXT TO HIM WHO WAS THE PEOPLES FAVORITE. CHE VIVE&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Felicia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 02:18 PM
CHE WAS KILLED BY FIDEL. FIDEL WAS SCARED OF SOMEONE LIKE "CHE" HE HAD SO MUCH POWER. HE HELPED THE CIA AND TOLD THEM "CHE&#39;S" LOCATION IN BOLIVA. FIDEL WAS SCARED TO HAVE SOMEONE NEXT TO HIM WHO WAS THE PEOPLES FAVORITE. CHE VIVE&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
whoaaa there horsey&#33;

[capone]

I AM NOT AGAINST FIDEL I AM HAPPY SOMEONE HAS THE BALLS TO STAND UP AGAINST THE USA

[Felicia]

whoa, take the caps off, it gives the impression that you are intensely angry.

[capone]

i appoligize im not angry just informin you on what really happened :D

[Felicia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 04:10 PM
i appoligize im not angry just informin you on what really happened :D
ok, if you say so, but Fidel didn&#39;t have Che killed. They were strong comrades, comrades are bound together by so many things, they&#39;d never do that to one another.

[capone]

yes but fidel could have had another agenda i gots to go bye

[Ortega]

Fidel always was one to protect himself and no one else - he was known, even before he had any sort of power - to drop his closest Comrades in a second if it served his own interests.
I agree with Fidel on most things, but you have to be able to admit that he can still have some flaws. He is only human, after all.
All I&#39;m saying is that, no matter how close Fidel and Che were, in the end that ultimately wouldn&#39;t mean much, especially if Fidel felt threatened by Che&#39;s popularity.

[Soviet power supreme]

so why didnt castro support him with men or other things? ches death could of been prevented if he had more resources.

He did support him.He wasnt alone in Bolivia.He had cuban guerillas with him.He needed the support of the Bolivia&#39;s working class.

[Ortega]

Unfortunately, due to Fidel&#39;s refusal to help Che (even after telegrammed requests from Che, he constantly stated that el Che had the situation under control, and could handle it on his own), the misson failed, and Che completely lost control of himself, and surrendered his image to Fidel, to manipulate to his will. Che would never have wanted to be viewed as he is today. He was against the concept of the brave, single individual (he was, obviously, in favor of collectivism and group work) and would have hated being singled out as "the heroic guerrila". He is nothing but a propaganda tool for Fidel now.

This is, I think, one of the better things I&#39;ve posted, and I&#39;m just going to keep reiterating (sp?) its message, so I might as well just post it and draw attention to it.
Now that Che is dead, he belongs to Fidel. Fidel can decide who Che was and who he wasn&#39;t. Fidel can decide how closely he and el Che were friends... Che has become the glorious martyr, purposefully or not, that Fidel can use to justify his every action.

[capone]

Fidel can only make CHE what he wants in cuba that propaganda wont spread thruogh the usa

[capone]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 07:28 PM
Fidel always was one to protect himself and no one else - he was known, even before he had any sort of power - to drop his closest Comrades in a second if it served his own interests.
I agree with Fidel on most things, but you have to be able to admit that he can still have some flaws. He is only human, after all.
All I&#39;m saying is that, no matter how close Fidel and Che were, in the end that ultimately wouldn&#39;t mean much, especially if Fidel felt threatened by Che&#39;s popularity.
i agree mos def&#33;&#33;&#33;

[SaNbItZ]

Thats true too but still you have to admit that there was someting that could have been done.

[Comrade Zeke]

Have you ever thougt that mabey it wasn&#39;t Fidel who killed Che,but his brother Raul&#33;&#33;
I mean look at it Fidel is a strong,Charasmatic leader. Che Guevara was his battle man after he became president. Now where does Raul&#39; fit into this im begging to think that Raul was so jelous that his brother was giving so much attention to Che that he secretly ordered Cuban CIA exiles to find him in Bolivia,NO FIDEL WOULD NEVER EVER KILL CHE BUT MABEY,JUST MABEY RAUL CASTRO DID. :o

[Ortega]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 12 2004, 09:45 PM
Have you ever thougt that mabey it wasn&#39;t Fidel who killed Che,but his brother Raul&#33;&#33;
I mean look at it Fidel is a strong,Charasmatic leader. Che Guevara was his battle man after he became president. Now where does Raul&#39; fit into this im begging to think that Raul was so jelous that his brother was giving so much attention to Che that he secretly ordered Cuban CIA exiles to find him in Bolivia,NO FIDEL WOULD NEVER EVER KILL CHE BUT MABEY,JUST MABEY RAUL CASTRO DID. :o
That would make sense, except that Raul was the man who introduced Che to Castro. Castro was sceptical about Che in the early days, but Che and Raul became close friends (both shared the same political ideologies, while Castro was undecided on his political views), and Raul persuaded Fidel to take Che under his wing.

[Comrade Zeke]

O I didn&#39;t know....O well It was an idea...........mabey someone else ordered Che to be killed :(

[ComradeRed]

I thought Prez. Johnson killed che. Johnson deserves to die, not el che.

[SaNbItZ]

So in all of your guys opinion Castro DID&#39;NT have anything to do with ches death?

[Wiesty]

ok final comment castro did not set che up. They were both stradegic leader who worked togethers and were friends before the revolution and no he was not set up why it makes no common sence. che helped the revolution greatly so why would fidel set him up
bottom line fidel did not set che up

[bubbrubb]

i don&#39;t think he killed che directly but his abandonment of him certainly has something to do with it

[Sylvia]

I read something recently about Che&#39;s death in Internet (sadly can&#39;t remember where) and they were going on and on about George Bush being actually the one who gave the order to Félix Rodriguez....

[bubbrubb]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 12:57 AM
I read something recently about Che&#39;s death in Internet (sadly can&#39;t remember where) and they were going on and on about George Bush being actually the one who gave the order to Félix Rodriguez....
good one i sure hope ur joking or mayb im retarded and just can&#39;t ell(i have a good felling u r) :D

[nezvanova]

I&#39;ve read it too. There was a link to it a few days ago too...

[Wiesty]

ya i hear fidel "abbondened" che dont know if thats the word to use. He kinda let him, fired, canned u get the point. And i think it was something that che did that he had to be let go. Che still had a lot to do with castro after, he just wasnt his right hand man who went to meetings with him. He was still a military leader.

[Larissa]

No, he didn&#39;t. The CIA did.

[Ortega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 10:40 PM
I&#39;ve read it too. There was a link to it a few days ago too...
Che, George Bush, and Felix Rodriguez (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=21543)...

[nezvanova]

thanks ortega&#33; :)

[Sylvia]

yeah thanks :cool:

[Ortega]

No problem at all... :)

[SaNbItZ]

SO you all agree he didnt??????????????

[SaNbItZ]

SO you all agree he didnt??????????????

[SaNbItZ]

SO you all agree he didnt??????????????

[ScottishChe]

I just cant believe that Castro possibly led Che to his death...so much for being comrades&#33; Castro was only after power, he never wanted to create a better life for his countrymen...his main priority was to get power. Che was ten times the man Castro was....he was fighting because he knew what was happening was an injustice, he wasnt after any power or anything. Castro was sneaky as well. He didnt make himself president as soon as the rebels won, he allowed somebody else (i forget his name) to be president but to have very little power. SNEAKY&#33;

[ScottishChe]

I just cant believe that Castro possibly led Che to his death...so much for being comrades&#33; Castro was only after power, he never wanted to create a better life for his countrymen...his main priority was to get power. Che was ten times the man Castro was....he was fighting because he knew what was happening was an injustice, he wasnt after any power or anything. Castro was sneaky as well. He didnt make himself president as soon as the rebels won, he allowed somebody else (i forget his name) to be president but to have very little power. SNEAKY&#33;

[ScottishChe]

I just cant believe that Castro possibly led Che to his death...so much for being comrades&#33; Castro was only after power, he never wanted to create a better life for his countrymen...his main priority was to get power. Che was ten times the man Castro was....he was fighting because he knew what was happening was an injustice, he wasnt after any power or anything. Castro was sneaky as well. He didnt make himself president as soon as the rebels won, he allowed somebody else (i forget his name) to be president but to have very little power. SNEAKY&#33;

[NovelGentry]

What&#39;s even scarier is that you believe Castro possibly led Che to his death. Bolivia was on Che&#39;s radar -- as were a number of other countries, he mentions them in one of his letters (or maybe it was an essay). The fact is Che was killed for a bunch of reasons, Castro was not one of them.

As far as Castro only being after poewr... look at what he&#39;s done, and look at what he&#39;s willing to do for his people. He&#39;s one of the more down to earth and lovable Socialist "dictators."

[NovelGentry]

What&#39;s even scarier is that you believe Castro possibly led Che to his death. Bolivia was on Che&#39;s radar -- as were a number of other countries, he mentions them in one of his letters (or maybe it was an essay). The fact is Che was killed for a bunch of reasons, Castro was not one of them.

As far as Castro only being after poewr... look at what he&#39;s done, and look at what he&#39;s willing to do for his people. He&#39;s one of the more down to earth and lovable Socialist "dictators."

[NovelGentry]

What&#39;s even scarier is that you believe Castro possibly led Che to his death. Bolivia was on Che&#39;s radar -- as were a number of other countries, he mentions them in one of his letters (or maybe it was an essay). The fact is Che was killed for a bunch of reasons, Castro was not one of them.

As far as Castro only being after poewr... look at what he&#39;s done, and look at what he&#39;s willing to do for his people. He&#39;s one of the more down to earth and lovable Socialist "dictators."

[fuerzasocialista]

To even begin to fathom that el Che was "set-up" by Fidel is absurd. Even after Fidel read the famous letter of el Che saying "good-bye" to the Cuban people, el Che still went back to Cuba and it was on Fidel&#39;s insistance that he return. El Che had always wanted to start a revolution in South America and Bolivia was his top pick because of its strategic location. Infact, it wasn&#39;t really revolution he was after at first but a training camp for guerrilla warfare. El Che left Cuba out of his own accord, not because he was muscled out like some people have insinuated and stated. And to say that Fidel had him killed or purposely revealed his location to the CIA, of all entities, is flat out ridiculous. He was sold-out and killed by turn-coats and CIA operatives in Bolivia.

[fuerzasocialista]

To even begin to fathom that el Che was "set-up" by Fidel is absurd. Even after Fidel read the famous letter of el Che saying "good-bye" to the Cuban people, el Che still went back to Cuba and it was on Fidel&#39;s insistance that he return. El Che had always wanted to start a revolution in South America and Bolivia was his top pick because of its strategic location. Infact, it wasn&#39;t really revolution he was after at first but a training camp for guerrilla warfare. El Che left Cuba out of his own accord, not because he was muscled out like some people have insinuated and stated. And to say that Fidel had him killed or purposely revealed his location to the CIA, of all entities, is flat out ridiculous. He was sold-out and killed by turn-coats and CIA operatives in Bolivia.

[fuerzasocialista]

To even begin to fathom that el Che was "set-up" by Fidel is absurd. Even after Fidel read the famous letter of el Che saying "good-bye" to the Cuban people, el Che still went back to Cuba and it was on Fidel&#39;s insistance that he return. El Che had always wanted to start a revolution in South America and Bolivia was his top pick because of its strategic location. Infact, it wasn&#39;t really revolution he was after at first but a training camp for guerrilla warfare. El Che left Cuba out of his own accord, not because he was muscled out like some people have insinuated and stated. And to say that Fidel had him killed or purposely revealed his location to the CIA, of all entities, is flat out ridiculous. He was sold-out and killed by turn-coats and CIA operatives in Bolivia.

[SaNbItZ]

ok then so [B]WHO DID? the CIA?

[chebol]

Don&#39;t you just love the fact that on the left we are more willing to blame each other than unite in condemnation of the Imperialists.

Che was always intent on bringing about continental (and worldwide) change- a mere cursory view of Che&#39;s past shows this. Key to this, of course, was Argentina, the country that Che was himself from. It was actually his intent to return to Argentina to spread the revolution there. Fidel insisted that he be more patient, but Che was apparently tiring of the limitations of Cuba. Fidel then convinced Che to go to the Congo- partly to help the national liberation movement there, and partly to temper Che&#39;s impatience to bring about immediate revolutions all over Latin America.
Che was slightly demoralised by his african experience, an expedition that became a shambles (read "The African Dream", Che&#39;s african diaries, for more details). He spent a few months recuperating and returned momentarily to Cuba, before going on to Bolivia. The choice of Bolivia was Che&#39;s- Manuel Pineiro argued for Peru, but Che had experienced revolution in Bolivia before (in the early 50s), and it bordered Argentina. Che was NOT "abandoned" there, at least not by Fidel or Cuba. The Communist Party in Bolivia refused to help Che (taking it&#39;s cue from Moscow), and, along with the USSR, deserve a secondary level of culpability. Perhaps Che and Fidel both deserve to be placed on a third level, but the primary fault for Che&#39;s death lies with the US and the CIA, the Bolivian Government, and, to a significantly lesser degree, Regis Debray. More importantly, Che&#39;s band lost contact with Cuba, and therefore with resources, information, and mediction.

As to the 40 hour argument- both Fidel and Che had on many occasions argued for hours on end. 40 is perhaps exceptional, but if you remember that Che was also relating his experiences in Africa, the time is not so strange.
Did Fidel disagree with Che on the USSR? I think history has proved that he didn&#39;t. (Neither was Che uncritical of China, whose many faults he also critised). Che&#39;s main criticism of the USSR when he was in Africa was their unwillingness to lend signifficant aid to third world struggles. (He did, of course, have plenty of other ones too).
The problem lies in the fact that Cuba depended very clearly at this time on the good will (and sugar subsidies) of the USSR, and PUBLIC criticism was clearly not helpful (there was a significant amount of private discourse, but never enough to anger the Soviets). Fidel&#39;s anger at Che was with his impatience- impatience to fight injustice, wherever it appeared- including in the socialist bloc.

Would those who &#39;think&#39; this or that, or are outraged at a particular &#39;fact&#39; which has arisen, please go and read some of the primary and secondary sources that deal with this time- Che&#39;s works and diaries, the copious material that is produced by Fidel, interviews with Armando Hart, Manuel Pineiro, Raul Castro and others; and the works produced on documents and letters we haven&#39;t even heard of.
Then you can still feel free to criticise Fidel, but at least it will be based on the matters of history, instead of conjecture.

My final request is that anyone who has read, heard or seen criticism such as those that started this thread, post the details of the sources, so as to properly verify (or demolish) the claims made therein. Otherwise, this simply becomes a festival of assertions and baseless assumptions. (and yes I realise I haven&#39;t sourced any of my claims- I&#39;ll do that when I have time after the elections).

Talking of which- Fidel did not take presidential power because that is not the basis on which the J26 movement had fought. They had decided on a prefered &#39;compromise&#39; president, which all the forces of Cuba could support. When Urrutia became an obvious hindrance to the constitutional process of the revolution, and indicated a corruption in common with the previous governmental structure, it became necessary to remove him to implement the reforms guranteed under the constitution. Fidel was not *simply* conniving for power.

[Wiesty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 09:24 PM
It seems to me, that while Fidel didn&#39;t directly kill Che, it&#39;s very realistic to say that he may have pressured him to leave Cuba and go underground. Before Che&#39;s death he said that going to Bolivia had not been his choice in any way, that the choice had been made on "higher levels" in the Cuban government. Fidel may have almost thrown Che away - he may have not neccesarily meant to have him killed, but he may not have taken too many precautions to keep Che alive.
Or Fidel could possibly have wanted a martyr for the cause - I know that Che was ready and willing to become one...
fidel also sent camilo to prison.

[Severian]

Wiesty: What? No. Where did you hear such nonsense?

The sticky thread on the "Death of Che" refutes all the false rumors about Che&#39;s death, but since a lot of people in this thread apparently can&#39;t be bothered to read it, I&#39;ll repost:

I&#39;m going to comment on a rumor that gets persistently brought up in various threads, including this one: that there was a falling-out between Castro and Guevara, or that Castro didn&#39;t do everything he could to support Che&#39;s guerrilla in Bolivia.

First of all, there&#39;s no evidence of any major political disagreement between Castro and Guevara. Differences of emphasis, maybe. It&#39;s sometimes suggested that Guevara was critical of the USSR and Castro wasn&#39;t, but in fact Castro also criticised Soviet policies in a number of mid-60s speeches.

Second, the Cuban government was heavily involved in supporting the guerilla effort in Bolivia. Cuban intelligence supplied the passports that Che and others travelled on, a large number of Cubans participated as guerillas, etc.

Third, Che never expressed any dissatisfaction with Castro or the support he received from the Cuban government. Not even in his private diary, which has been published, so anyone can read it. Not in any conversation with any of the other guerillas.

Guess who&#39;s the origin of the claim that he did express dissatisfaction with Castro? One of Che&#39;s murderers, CIA agent Felix Rodriguez. He claimed that Che seemed to him "bitter over the Cuban dictator&#39;s lack of support for the Bolivian incursion...." Yeah, right, Che&#39;s going to confide something with his captors something that he never confided in any of his comrades or in his diary. What BS.

The rumors, originating with Rodriguez, have circulated ever since, spread by enemies of the Cuban revolution and of everything that Che Guevara stood for. The New York Times, for example. Here&#39;s a letter to the NYT - which the NYT refused to print in full - explaining in detail why an NYT article on this was purest BS. Link to letter (http://www.themilitant.com/1995/5947/5947_14.html)

Fourth, it&#39;s sometimes said that the Cuban government failed to rescue Che once the guerillas got into trouble. What were they supposed to do, drop an army of paratroopers?

One excellent book that definitively debunks this rumor and others: Conflicting Missions by Piero Glijeises. It&#39;s a history of Cuban foreign policy, including Africa and Latin America. It&#39;s so massively well-documented - with declassified papers from a dozen countries - that it received the Ferrell Prize from the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations even though it&#39;s not mostly about U.S. foreign relations.

BTW, it&#39;s interesting to note how little conflict there has been within the core leadership of the Cuban Revolution. I&#39;m sure there have been disagreements, but they have been resolved amicably. The Cuban Revolution, unlike some others, has never eaten its children.

The main leaders of the guerillas in the Sierra are all still leaders of the Cuban Communist Party today - with the sole exceptions of Camilo Cienfuegos, killed in a plane crash, and Che Guevara, murdered by a CIA agent and the Bolivian military dictatorship.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 03:51 PM
In all likelyhood, Che was not killed by Fidel&#39;s orders. The CIA trained Bolivian forces made the decision to kill Che, it&#39;s been said that the CIA didn&#39;t even want Che killed.
Said by who? In fact, Felix Rodriguez, the CIA&#39;s man on the scene, ordered Che&#39;s death.


However it&#39;s been speculated that when Fidel released photos of Che in Bolivia to show the Cubans that Che was alive and well, fighting for justice, that that may have given hints to the enemy as to his location.

When did this happen? I&#39;m fairly sure that Che&#39;s presence in Bolivia was kept secret until it was already known to the enemy.

There are enough well-documented facts about Che&#39;s Bolivian guerilla that there&#39;s no need to repeat vague rumors.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 12:32 PM

Unfortunately, due to Fidel&#39;s refusal to help Che (even after telegrammed requests from Che, he constantly stated that el Che had the situation under control, and could handle it on his own),
WTF? How did Che send telegrams from the Bolivian jungles? In fact, Che made no such requests, nor was there any way Cuba could have sent more aid than it did, especially after things had begun to go wrong. What were they supposed to do, drop batallions of paratroopers?

I think this is a good illustration of how ridiculously unfactual most of these rumors and insinuations against Fidel Castro. Some people are appararently just willing to believe any accusation, no matter how strange and unfounded, as long as it&#39;s directed against Fidel and the Cuban Revolution.

[Guerrilla22]

Che was killed by merchandisers, who new once dead there would be a huge demand for Che merchandise.

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

Fidel is a Machiavellian leader...he used any means to get where he is at. I&#39;ve stuck by the theory that he knew Che was a bigger threat internationally than he could ever be, hence his death was not important to try to stop.

Once Che was done with the Cuban Rebellion, he went to the Congo to continue the socialist movement. America saw the international threat he was to &#39;democracy&#39;, hence put an end to it as quickly as they could.

Fidel read Che&#39;s letter (which Che wanted to be read after he had perished) before Che died...which implied that Castro knew something before Che&#39;s actual capture and subsequent murder. Apparently Che was very upset with this.

I stick behind my stance - Castro was looking out for himself, so he could care less about what happened to Che. As long as Castro was in power, whatever everyone that was once his comrades wanna do elsewhere is their perrogative, as long as it didn&#39;t threaten his leadership role.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Knowledge 6 6 [email protected] 6 2004, 07:32 PM
Fidel read Che&#39;s letter (which Che wanted to be read after he had perished) before Che died...which implied that Castro knew something before Che&#39;s actual capture and subsequent murder.

Fidel read Che&#39;s letter (which Che wanted to be read after he had perished)which implied that Castro knew something before Che&#39;s actual capture and subsequent murder.

Source for your assertion that Che only wanted it read after his death? Sounds peculiar - if anyone would need to know about Che&#39;s death in advance, it would be Che himself, to set such a condition.


Apparently Che was very upset with this.

"Apparently?" Where and when did Che express this? Not in the Bolivian Diary, or anything else I&#39;ve read. Maybe his murderers allege he said this? Maybe Che told you via a ouija board? Maybe you have no basis at all?

I&#39;m still waiting for any of the rumor-mongers to say where they get their "information" from. So far it&#39;s all "I believe this" "I believe that" - which tell us something about you, but nothing about what actually happened.

Here&#39;s Che&#39;s farewell letter, and Fidel&#39;s remarks before reading it. (http://www.fortunecity.com/boozers/greenman/667/firlet.htm) Fidel says:


All kinds of soothsayers, interpreters, &#39;specialists on Cuba&#39; and computers have been working without respite to figure out the riddle. They&#39;ve tried every variant: Ernesto Guevara has been &#39;purged&#39;, Ernesto Guevara is ill, Ernesto Guevara has fallen out with the leadership, and so forth and so on.

The people of course trust and believe in us. But our enemies spread such rumours, mainly abroad, in order to smear us with slander: there you have it, that fearsome, evil communist regime, people disappear without a trace and with no explanation. As for us, we told the people when they began to notice his absence that when necessary we would tell all, but for the time being we had our reasons for remaining silent....

In explanation we shall read this letter—here is the handwritten original and here is a typed copy. The letter is from Comrade Ernesto Guevara, who will speak for himself. I thought that perhaps here it would be necessary to talk about the history of our friendship, our comradeship, about how this friendship began and how it evolved. But it&#39;s not really necessary. Instead I shall limit myself to reading the letter.

It is not dated, for it was to be made public whenever we considered it most expedient. But if we are sticklers for the facts, it may be said that the letter was handed over on April 1 of this year, that is exactly six months and two days ago. It reads:

So there you have it: even while Che was still alive, slanderers were already claiming Fidel had purged him. Fidel reads the letter to answer your kind....and you use that as a basis of further accusations. A vicious cycle.

The text of the letter itself, like the Bolivian Diary, testifies to the continuing solidarity between Che and other leaders of the Cuban Revolution.

[NovelGentry]

Fidel read Che&#39;s letter (which Che wanted to be read after he had perished) before Che died...which implied that Castro knew something before Che&#39;s actual capture and subsequent murder. Apparently Che was very upset with this.

I shouldn&#39;t have to repeat this, but I will. The letter served dual purpose. In the event of his death it was a farewell, in the even of a political crisis (with the USSR or anyone else) based on Che&#39;s actions, it distanced Che from Cuba.

The letter does not say "if you are hearing this I am dead." Once again, why would he even got on to say that he renounces his cuban citizenship and has cut off all ties with Cuba. If he&#39;s dead he obviously wouldn&#39;t be able to hold any government positions and can&#39;t really be considered a citizen anymore, can he?

Once again, the letter was a political tool, one which if I recall correctly Che told Castro to read in the event of a political emergency. The only reason it&#39;s considered "premature" and the only reason Che didn&#39;t like it was because Castro didn&#39;t wait for a political emergency, he just waited a few months and then read it.... political emergency or not.

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

So, you&#39;re telling me that Castro cared whole-heartedly about Che? And that he would have done anything to stop Che&#39;s death?

So let me ask you a few questions if you&#39;re so sure of this.

Would not Castro go after America or the Bolivian troops (who were trained by the US) that captured/killed Che?

Why did Castro let the entire incident slide? Why did he not seek after the people(s) responsible for Che&#39;s death?

Castro gave that speech because of one thing - Che was a cultural icon not only to Cuba, but to Latin and South America in general. He could not have possibly let Che&#39;s death be swept under the rug, because Che united the pplz of Latin America. This unification could be used to Castro&#39;s benefit - it made everyone believe that Castro was Che&#39;s best friend, and in the end would make it seem as if Che&#39;s ideas could be heard through Castro.

Fidel was looking out for himself...he was looking out for his own leadership role and position. Che&#39;s death, though tragic, united Latin and South America in a common goal - defying US Imperialism.

Che died for everything he believed in. Would Castro have died for Che&#39;s cause in Africa? Hell no, but he would include it in speeches to make it seem as if he cares, when he really doesnt. If he did, he would&#39;ve been on the front lines with Che in the Congo...but as we all know, he was in Cuba securing his president status.

[NovelGentry]

Would not Castro go after America or the Bolivian troops (who were trained by the US) that captured/killed Che?

Why did Castro let the entire incident slide? Why did he not seek after the people(s) responsible for Che&#39;s death?

On what grounds? Because Che was in a country that he "wasn&#39;t supposed to be in" killing an army he "wasn&#39;t supposed to kill." This would be little different if someone came to the US, started killing troops, and then our troops killed them. The friends of these people are then supposed to seek out our troops and kill them too?

You forget Che wasn&#39;t just "murdered" by the bolivian army, he was trying to murder them too.


Castro gave that speech because of one thing - Che was a cultural icon not only to Cuba, but to Latin and South America in general. He could not have possibly let Che&#39;s death be swept under the rug, because Che united the pplz of Latin America. This unification could be used to Castro&#39;s benefit - it made everyone believe that Castro was Che&#39;s best friend, and in the end would make it seem as if Che&#39;s ideas could be heard through Castro.

Strange how Che would give the letter to Castro to read if this wasn&#39;t the case.


Che died for everything he believed in. Would Castro have died for Che&#39;s cause in Africa? Hell no, but he would include it in speeches to make it seem as if he cares, when he really doesnt. If he did, he would&#39;ve been on the front lines with Che in the Congo...but as we all know, he was in Cuba securing his president status.

Castro is not an intense internationalist, nor can he even considered completely communist. Castro certainly had social justices in mind, and I would argue that the types of social justices at least makes him borderline socialist/communist. But I don&#39;t think Castro considers himself a communist.... if anything Che&#39;s influence on Castro is what has pushed him more towards communist over the years.

So you&#39;re right, Castro wouldn&#39;t have died for Che&#39;s cause. Che died for what he believed in (A liberated communist south American *and more probably the WORLD*), Castro may die for what he believed in (a liberated Cuba).

Why would you expect Castro to die for something he didn&#39;t believe in? Caring about someone else and caring about someone else&#39;s cause are two very different things. I have friends who are not communist that I care very much about, but I would never fight for what they believe in. I fight for what I believe in, furthermore I would not expect them to fight for what I believe in.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Knowledge 6 6 [email protected] 9 2004, 08:16 AM
So, you&#39;re telling me that Castro cared whole-heartedly about Che? And that he would have done anything to stop Che&#39;s death?

So let me ask you a few questions if you&#39;re so sure of this.

Would not Castro go after America or the Bolivian troops (who were trained by the US) that captured/killed Che?

Why did Castro let the entire incident slide? Why did he not seek after the people(s) responsible for Che&#39;s death?

Castro gave that speech because of one thing - Che was a cultural icon not only to Cuba, but to Latin and South America in general. He could not have possibly let Che&#39;s death be swept under the rug, because Che united the pplz of Latin America. This unification could be used to Castro&#39;s benefit - it made everyone believe that Castro was Che&#39;s best friend, and in the end would make it seem as if Che&#39;s ideas could be heard through Castro.

Fidel was looking out for himself...he was looking out for his own leadership role and position. Che&#39;s death, though tragic, united Latin and South America in a common goal - defying US Imperialism.

Che died for everything he believed in. Would Castro have died for Che&#39;s cause in Africa? Hell no, but he would include it in speeches to make it seem as if he cares, when he really doesnt. If he did, he would&#39;ve been on the front lines with Che in the Congo...but as we all know, he was in Cuba securing his president status.
Why should anyone bother to answer your questions when you won&#39;t answer my one (1) question: what is the source for your claims? For example, your claim that Che was upset with Fidel reading his letter?

But what the heck:


Would not Castro go after America or the Bolivian troops (who were trained by the US) that captured/killed Che?

Because he&#39;s a revolutionary, not a Hatfield or a McCoy. Assassination is not an effective revolutionary strategy - assassination for personal revenge is not any kind of revolutionary strategy. Revolutionaries aim to bring down the system, not just take out a few bad individuals.

I&#39;m curious exactly what you think Castro should have done to "go after America". Assassinate Johnson? Crash some planes into the World Trade Center? Please, enlighten us.

Kinda like nobody wants to say exactly how Fidel was supposed to save Che, drop a batallion of paratroopers into Bolivia?


Castro gave that speech because of one thing - Che was a cultural icon not only to Cuba, but to Latin and South America in general. He could not have possibly let Che&#39;s death be swept under the rug, because Che united the pplz of Latin America. This unification could be used to Castro&#39;s benefit - it made everyone believe that Castro was Che&#39;s best friend, and in the end would make it seem as if Che&#39;s ideas could be heard through Castro.

Which speech are you referring to exactly? And what, exactly, is the political difference between Che and Castro, and why did Che himself never say or write anything about this alleged political difference?

NovelGentry wrote:

You forget Che wasn&#39;t just "murdered" by the bolivian army, he was trying to murder them too.

This is false. Che did not kill prisoners, except for executions for war crimes. Killing in combat is not murder - what Felix Rodriguez et al did to Che was murder, no quotes.

And they knew it, which is why they shot him below the waist to make it appear he&#39;d died in combat, and buried him in an unmarked grave.


Castro is not an intense internationalist,

Christ, Cuba has more doctors in Africa than the World Health Organization. Cubans have aided guerillas around the world, even fought alongside them after Che&#39;s death, in Guinea-Bissau for example. Cubans helped build the Ho Chi Minh trail, and would have fought in Vietnam if the Vietnamese hadn&#39;t turned &#39;em down. They went into Angola, with no guarantee of how the USSR would react, and fought there for years with nothing to gain economically. And they&#39;ve paid a price in intensified hostility from Washington for all of this. For a while in the late 70s, Angola was the #1 stated reason for continuing the embargo. But they&#39;ve never hesitated. (See Conflicting Missions by Piero Gliejeses for the documented proof of all that.)

Literally today, Powell and Kerry were competing for who can be more anti-Castro, because, as Powell explains "He is a troublemaker in the rest of the region. He is a troublemaker in Venezuela. He&#39;s a troublemaker in Colombia. He&#39;s never stopped being a troublemaker," link (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9861739.htm)

Who, in world history, has been more internationalist? How much more does Castro have to do before his internationalism qualifies as "intense"?

Castro hasn&#39;t gone off to be a guerilla somewhere else for one simple reason. He has responsibilities in Cuba. Please, somebody, explain how he could have done more for the world revolution somewhere else than as president of Cuba.

Even Cuba&#39;s simple survival is a great contribution to the world revolution.

[NovelGentry]

This is false. Che did not kill prisoners, except for executions for war crimes. Killing in combat is not murder - what Felix Rodriguez et al did to Che was murder, no quotes.

And they knew it, which is why they shot him below the waist to make it appear he&#39;d died in combat, and buried him in an unmarked grave.

I didn&#39;t say one god damned thing about prisoners and there&#39;s a reason I put murder in quotes. People have a funny way of redefining words here... If you kill someone, you&#39;ve murdered them -- as far as I know every nation has laws against murder. This so called "exception" of war sounds like some whacked out neocon argument. That when you kill someone in battle it&#39;s not murder -- it&#39;s fucking murder, get over it.

What you&#39;re trying to argue here is whether it&#39;s civilized to kill someone who has surrendered.... and that&#39;s fine if you want to argue that. In fact, I&#39;ll say it&#39;s not civilized, and it&#39;s not right, morally or legally. That doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s the only way for it to be murder. Then the argument of being unarmed comes up... and that&#39;s just complete crap because there are lots of unarmed people who are killed in war, that is unarmed soldiers who are killed in war and you will kill them just the same when they attack.

This idea that "when you&#39;re in battle is not murder" is bollocks. Unlawful killing of another human being == Murder. I hate to tell you, but Che was murdering people, just because you think your law is the only law that matters doesn&#39;t make it otherwise.


Christ, Cuba has more doctors in Africa than the World Health Organization. Cubans have aided guerillas around the world, even fought alongside them after Che&#39;s death, in Guinea-Bissau for example. Cubans helped build the Ho Chi Minh trail, and would have fought in Vietnam if the Vietnamese hadn&#39;t turned &#39;em down. They went into Angola, with no guarantee of how the USSR would react, and fought there for years with nothing to gain economically. And they&#39;ve paid a price in intensified hostility from Washington for all of this. For a while in the late 70s, Angola was the #1 stated reason for continuing the embargo. But they&#39;ve never hesitated. (See Conflicting Missions by Piero Gliejeses for the documented proof of all that.)

Literally today, Powell and Kerry were competing for who can be more anti-Castro, because, as Powell explains "He is a troublemaker in the rest of the region. He is a troublemaker in Venezuela. He&#39;s a troublemaker in Colombia. He&#39;s never stopped being a troublemaker," link

Who, in world history, has been more internationalist? How much more does Castro have to do before his internationalism qualifies as "intense"?

Castro hasn&#39;t gone off to be a guerilla somewhere else for one simple reason. He has responsibilities in Cuba. Please, somebody, explain how he could have done more for the world revolution somewhere else than as president of Cuba.

Even Cuba&#39;s simple survival is a great contribution to the world revolution.

Yes, and that&#39;s all well and good that Castro will send others to die for the cause, even more welll and good that those "others" tend to be willing. But Castro himself is not an intense internationalist. You can give support to other countries without being an internationalist. Castro does not actively fight for world revolution. He will HELP revolutions around the world, but he will not create those revolutions. Hence why Che was an INTENSE internationalist, and Castro is not. Key word being intense, but it&#39;s OK that you missed that word... people seem to like to miss a lot of words, and what words they don&#39;t like to miss they like to redefine to fit their pristine image.

[chebol]

The measure of a man is not how he died, but how he lived. And for Fidel that means you have too look seriously at 78 years of achievements, rather than make sweeping statements off half-heard gossip.

Severian has covered most of the points, but I will take up what little my exhaustion will allow me (elections and End The Lies rallies organising having drawn me pretty thin).

Novel Gentry- if you believe that all killing is murder, fine. But what will you do when cornered by a man intent on taking your life? Will you accept that? Or will you fight back? What if that man is intent on making you and your family and friends suffer indefinitely, and has the capacity to do so? Will you try to stop him? And what if the only way to do so is to kill him, regrettable as that may be?
My point is that the absolute moral high ground is rarely moral, nor a high ground. Rather, it is an excuse for inaction and cowardice, absolutely.
Besides, you&#39;ve mixed your argument- you argue simultaneously that all states have laws, and that all killing is murder. Actually, under almost every system of law (and I&#39;m a law student straining to think of a contradictory example here) not all killing is murder- most often war deaths are not classed as murder, bu are sanctioned under law.
Whether you agree with this argument and these laws is a different matter.
But it then necessitates providing a basis on which to place this argument. (My advice is read Trotsky "Their morals and ours", and then get back to me).
As to Che murdering people- well, aside from the executions which he played a key role in (largely of individuals who had repeatedly tortured and murdered thousands), Che (and the rest of the Guerrillas) did NOT kill unarmed *opponents*. Military prisoners were regularly stripped of weapons and clothes, given a political dressing down, and sent on their lonely way. FACT.

You further argue that Fidel was not an instigator of "internationalist" revolutions. Well, apart from being a key instigator of the past century&#39;s key internationalist revolution- the Cuban- perhaps you weren&#39;t aware that the young Fidel took part in an aborted revolution in the Dominican Republic, or that he instigated an international conference of progressive latin american students, and during his campaigning for this was caught up in the violence surrounding the murder of colombian leftist leader Gaitan (who Castro had just met) in Bogota, where Castro played a leading (if brief) role in the popular uprising. Or perhaps you have forgotten (or didn&#39;t know), that sending Che to the Congo was Fidel&#39;s idea.

Enough. I need to sleep. The past two months have almost killed me.

hasta siempre
chebol

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 03:48 PM
If you kill someone, you&#39;ve murdered them -- as far as I know every nation has laws against murder.
And under the laws of most if not all countries, murder is only one kind of killing. There is also murder, justifiable homicide, etc. Please, look up the word in a dictionary. It does not mean simply kill.


Unlawful killing of another human being == Murder.

War is not illegal, however.


Yes, and that&#39;s all well and good that Castro will send others to die for the cause, even more welll and good that those "others" tend to be willing. But Castro himself is not an intense internationalist. You can give support to other countries without being an internationalist. Castro does not actively fight for world revolution. He will HELP revolutions around the world, but he will not create those revolutions. Hence why Che was an INTENSE internationalist, and Castro is not. Key word being intense, but it&#39;s OK that you missed that word... people seem to like to miss a lot of words, and what words they don&#39;t like to miss they like to redefine to fit their pristine image.

So who is more intense, then? You haven&#39;t explained how Castro going off an fighting somewhere would have helped the world revolution more than what he&#39;s done as president of Cuba.

Che was able to go fight in other countries because Fidel and others were leading the revolution in Cuba. If they weren&#39;t doing so, or if Che didn&#39;t have confidence that they would lead the revolution along the same basic course that he would have, then Che&#39;s actions would have been incredibly irresponsible.

[NovelGentry]

And under the laws of most if not all countries, murder is only one kind of killing. There is also murder, justifiable homicide, etc. Please, look up the word in a dictionary. It does not mean simply kill.

That assumes it&#39;s justifiable... there&#39;s also manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. But you have to look at what excludes the killing in war from these other definitions. For starters, in war, your intent is always going to be to kill your enemy -- thus we can rule out manslaughter from the start, as far as justifiable homicide... Well what is so justifiable about going to another country to "liberate" and killing off members of its army in the process?

The word in the dictionary is the unlawful, premeditated killing of another human being. So here&#39;s what comes into question, was what Che did unlawful? If you ask me it was... does that mean it&#39;s wrong? No... but it&#39;s still unlawful. Was it premeditated? Not ALL of his killing was... I&#39;m sure many times it was heat of the moment and somewhat justifiable by self defense. However, if you&#39;re planning an attack on say some ammo barracks, are you not premeditating the murder of those who will stand in your way? Possibly with specifics right down to the guards you may know are there that you will HAVE to kill?


War is not illegal, however.

This is debateable, war most certainly CAN be illegal, particularly when it&#39;s simply based on strict ideological reasonsings. If you ask me, the Vietnam war was illegal -- its main goal was very simply opposition to communist ideals. Much like any "war" that Che took part it was opposition to capitalist ideals. There&#39;s nothing that legally justifies what Che did in a legal sense. Nor should we pretend there is. But we&#39;re OK with that, because we&#39;re OK that you have to work outside of the "system" which defines "the law" in order to get anything done.


So who is more intense, then? You haven&#39;t explained how Castro going off an fighting somewhere would have helped the world revolution more than what he&#39;s done as president of Cuba.

Che was able to go fight in other countries because Fidel and others were leading the revolution in Cuba. If they weren&#39;t doing so, or if Che didn&#39;t have confidence that they would lead the revolution along the same basic course that he would have, then Che&#39;s actions would have been incredibly irresponsible.

Like I said, Castro&#39;s position, very simply, is one that is supportive of revolution an pre-existing socialist states. It is not one to START worldwide revolution, or even other local revolution. In fact, even if you would consider him helping Che in Bolivia to be him "starting revolution".... that was one of the few times he ever did it. Support in the Congo, Vietnam, various Latin American countries (past and recently) were never revolutions initialized by him, he merely supported them.

Che on the other han was one to initialize revolution, had he not died and *succeeded* in Bolivia, do you not think he would have initialized revolution in yet another country?

Castro&#39;s "support" goes little beyond the diplomatic support of other nations for the sake of making allies. It&#39;s no different than a capitalist country helping another capitalist country in the face of communism/socialism.

Che didn&#39;t want to just "support" revolution, he wanted to make it.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 10:35 AM
That assumes it&#39;s justifiable... there&#39;s also manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.

Che on the other han was one to initialize revolution, had he not died and *succeeded* in Bolivia, do you not think he would have initialized revolution in yet another country?

Castro&#39;s "support" goes little beyond the diplomatic support of other nations for the sake of making allies. It&#39;s no different than a capitalist country helping another capitalist country in the face of communism/socialism.

Che didn&#39;t want to just "support" revolution, he wanted to make it.
Yeah, typo, I meant to say manslaughter or justifiable homicide, not murder or justifiable homicide. So if you know about manslaughter, why did you say all killing is muder? Manslaughter is not legally murder y&#39;know.


So here&#39;s what comes into question, was what Che did unlawful?

No, it&#39;s the Barrientos dictatorship that was illegal, not the attempt to overthrow it. "When government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter and abolish it" - as the Declaration of Independence puts it, but the principle&#39;s recognized in many other countries nowadays.

More to the point, Che was following the "laws of war", at least their overall spirit, which his killers definitely weren&#39;t. In any case, most people do not generally describe the actions of soldiers, within the laws of war, as murder.


Like I said, Castro&#39;s position, very simply, is one that is supportive of revolution an pre-existing socialist states. It is not one to START worldwide revolution, or even other local revolution. In fact, even if you would consider him helping Che in Bolivia to be him "starting revolution".... that was one of the few times he ever did it. Support in the Congo, Vietnam, various Latin American countries (past and recently) were never revolutions initialized by him, he merely supported them.

And various other countries in Africa. It&#39;s usually a better idea for revolutionaries in each country decide if it&#39;s time to launch armed struggle. It would be incredibly irresponsible, and destructive to the workers&#39; movement in those countries, for Cuba to make a habit of "starting revolutions" - Bolivia was exceptional for a number of reasons including the promised support of the Bolivian CP - and turned out to be a mistake &#39;cause the Bolivian CP didn&#39;t come through.

So if Castro was to do as you suggest, he wouldn&#39;t be doing more to aid the world revolution, he would be doing more to hurt the world revolution.

[NovelGentry]

why did you say all killing is muder? Manslaughter is not legally murder y&#39;know.

Actually I said the unlawful killing of another human being... but there&#39;s your good paraphrasing skills in action again. And yes, manslaughter is not legally murder, it&#39;s quite different from murder, and from a legal perspective it is a situation where you did not directly KILL someone. That is in fact what separates it from murder. For example, if you hit someone with your car... intentional or not, it is not to say you were trying to kill them. If you beat someone and they die a day later in the hospital, it is not to say you were trying to kill them. So I standby my stance, that unlawful killing == murder. Unlawful maming that leads to the death of another individual, however, can be classified as manslaughter.

I should note that this is strictly semantics, but law is a game of semantics.


No, it&#39;s the Barrientos dictatorship that was illegal, not the attempt to overthrow it. "When government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter and abolish it" - as the Declaration of Independence puts it, but the principle&#39;s recognized in many other countries nowadays.

More to the point, Che was following the "laws of war", at least their overall spirit, which his killers definitely weren&#39;t. In any case, most people do not generally describe the actions of soldiers, within the laws of war, as murder.

It may be so that the "principles" of Jefferson&#39;s ideas of revolution are recognized by many other countries today, however, it doesn&#39;t make them law, and it says nothing about the countries THEN, and more particularly the specific countries he started revolutions in. This is why the question comes down to law, because if you want to go by your assumed version of "universal law" -- then lots of things quickly become legal in certain countries that are not. In short, if you want to point out where the Bolivian law, during the time of the attempted revolution, states what Che was doing was legal, go ahead. If you want to point out to me where Cuban law, during the time of the revolution, states what Che was doing was legal, go ahead. I think you&#39;ll be hard pressed to find that kind of information. In short, what they did was illegal and the government had every *LEGAL* right to do what they did to suppress the revolution, and the revolution had no *LEGAL* right to do what they were doing.

Just for reference, can you point me to a copy of the "laws of war" ? I could use it for reference in order to argue this a bit better.


It&#39;s usually a better idea for revolutionaries in each country decide if it&#39;s time to launch armed struggle. It would be incredibly irresponsible, and destructive to the workers&#39; movement in those countries, for Cuba to make a habit of "starting revolutions" - Bolivia was exceptional for a number of reasons including the promised support of the Bolivian CP - and turned out to be a mistake &#39;cause the Bolivian CP didn&#39;t come through.

I&#39;m glad you brought this up, because, I agree that it&#39;s best if the people in each country do decide when to lauch armed struggle, and not some outside force. But that depends what you consider an outside force. And here is my point... Che as an *INTENSE* internationalist did not consider himself to be a "person of a particular country." In fact, Che believed very firmly that he was not Argentinian, Cuban, or whatever else... he believed he was a Latin American, and by that definition Che is in just as good a position as anyone to start those revolutions. And while I&#39;m not completely sure, I don&#39;t think Castro assumes he has that right, nor would it be smart to as a political move -- but this is preceisely what separates Che&#39;s intense internationalism from Castro&#39;s sort of mediocre internationalism. I&#39;m not sure how much clearer it can get.

[Severian]

I wrote "why did you say all killing is muder? Manslaughter is not legally murder y&#39;know." and NovelGentry responded:


Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 02:52 PM
Actually I said the unlawful killing of another human being... but there&#39;s your good paraphrasing skills in action again.
Actually you also said "If you kill someone, you&#39;ve murdered them" - that&#39;s a cut-and-paste quote. You seem real big on denying you said things that you did, in fact, say. It&#39;s like wrestling an eel - you&#39;re so slippery it&#39;s hard to pin you down to any position. As soon as something&#39;s refuted, you claim never to have said it. Would it kill you to say "that&#39;s not what I meant to say" or maybe even "I was mistaken to say that" instead? Helps move a discussion forward, y&#39;know.

You&#39;re confused about the murder - manslaughter distinction, manslaughter is also unlawful killing (and not indirect, just unintentional), but who cares, I ain&#39;t a lawyer.


It may be so that the "principles" of Jefferson&#39;s ideas of revolution are recognized by many other countries today, however, it doesn&#39;t make them law, and it says nothing about the countries THEN, and more particularly the specific countries he started revolutions in.

I disagree. I might point out, for example, that even a Cuban judge under Batista accepted the legal argument that the Moncada attack was not a crime because it was Batista&#39;s coup was illegal and that revolution to overthrow him was legal. Strange for a self-described communist to be less progressive than that judge.

What is the ultimate source of legality? Does it descend from God? I&#39;d argue it comes from the "consent of the governed" and governments are only legal to the extent they possess that. E.g. the October Revolution, based on the Congress of Soviets, was more legal than the self-appointed Kerensky government.


Just for reference, can you point me to a copy of the "laws of war" ? I could use it for reference in order to argue this a bit better.

Do a search for "Geneva Convention". It&#39;s been ratified, aka made law, by almost all countries.


I&#39;m glad you brought this up, because, I agree that it&#39;s best if the people in each country do decide when to lauch armed struggle, and not some outside force. But that depends what you consider an outside force. And here is my point... Che as an *INTENSE* internationalist did not consider himself to be a "person of a particular country." In fact, Che believed very firmly that he was not Argentinian, Cuban, or whatever else... he believed he was a Latin American, and by that definition Che is in just as good a position as anyone to start those revolutions. And while I&#39;m not completely sure, I don&#39;t think Castro assumes he has that right, nor would it be smart to as a political move -- but this is preceisely what separates Che&#39;s intense internationalism from Castro&#39;s sort of mediocre internationalism. I&#39;m not sure how much clearer it can get.

Ah. Does that mean Che was too intense, and Fidel is more correct? That didn&#39;t seem to be what you meant originally, what with your comments about Fidel not being "completely communist" but rather "at least borderline socialist/communist". Anyway.

Only in the case of Bolivia, after getting the agreement of the Bolivian CP and other groups, did Che think it was OK to start a guerilla war there. And since Fidel and other Cuban leaders agreed, and helped him do so, I don&#39;t see how this is evidence of a difference between Che and Fidel.

[NovelGentry]

Actually you also said "If you kill someone, you&#39;ve murdered them" - that&#39;s a cut-and-paste quote. that&#39;s a cut-and-paste quote. You seem real big on denying you said things that you did, in fact, say

Or I just didn&#39;t realize I said that, which does happen from time to time. However, it was not intentional. I stand by that all unlawful killing is murder, in terms of just plain killing, well once again, it&#39;s semantics, and dependent whether or not on whether or not there is a "lawful" form of killing, and still more dependent on what killing implies. Once again, a game of semantics.


Would it kill you to say "that&#39;s not what I meant to say" or maybe even "I was mistaken to say that" instead? Helps move a discussion forward, y&#39;know.

No, in fact I just said it "Or I just didn&#39;t realize I said that, which does happen from time to time."

But I must admit, I&#39;ve gotten quite used to you putitng words into my mouth -- and I don&#39;t remember my posts word for word with photographic memory, so I usually give myself the benefit of the doubt. We could much more easily "move the conversation" along if you stopped doing that.


You&#39;re confused about the murder - manslaughter distinction, manslaughter is also unlawful killing (and not indirect, just unintentional), but who cares, I ain&#39;t a lawyer.

And that is the distinction within the law. Much like if you were to throw out a cigarette and it caught a forest fire and burned someone&#39;s house down... is it arson? You can take "killing" in the general sense of the word which would be to end something&#39;s life, or so that&#39;s what I would assume it to be. But legally speaking murder and manslaughter are very different forms of "killing." If Manslaughter too is the illegal killing of another human being, then according to accepted legal definitions of murder, it IS murder, which just isn&#39;t the way it is. Furthermore there are even more distinctions when you go into things like "premeditated murder", "involuntary manslaughter", etc..etc.. So let&#39;s agree to close the bucket of law worms for now if that&#39;s OK and keep to the subject on hand. You don&#39;t believe Che murdered people, I believe he did... either way it doesn&#39;t really change what he did, just what you call it.


I disagree. I might point out, for example, that even a Cuban judge under Batista accepted the legal argument that the Moncada attack was not a crime because it was Batista&#39;s coup was illegal and that revolution to overthrow him was legal. Strange for a self-described communist to be less progressive than that judge.

What is the ultimate source of legality? Does it descend from God? I&#39;d argue it comes from the "consent of the governed" and governments are only legal to the extent they possess that. E.g. the October Revolution, based on the Congress of Soviets, was more legal than the self-appointed Kerensky government.

I don&#39;t believe in God, so no, it doesn&#39;t descend from God. But let&#39;s work on this idea of the "consent of the governed"... if that is the case then I suppose we should all be rejoicing as all the laws currently limiting what revolutionary action we can take don&#39;t apply... we just have to make sure we have the consent of all the governed people, for which I will assume you meant a majority of the governed people, as I don&#39;t think it&#39;d be possible to get EVERYONE&#39;s consent.

You&#39;re twisting this into what is "acceptably righteous" not what is "lawful" and personally I find it funny for a self-described communist not to make a distinction between the two.


Do a search for "Geneva Convention". It&#39;s been ratified, aka made law, by almost all countries.

"almost all countries"... and there in lies the problem. There&#39;s no such thing as unversal law, to say there is you have to believe in a higher source of law beyond man. To assume that every living person has the same ideas of these "rules of war" as everyone else is just ludacris. Your warcrime is another man&#39;s necessary blood shed. It&#39;s just not as cut and dry as you want to make it. There&#39;s no such thing as "rules of war"... it&#39;s war for a reason.


Ah. Does that mean Che was too intense, and Fidel is more correct? That didn&#39;t seem to be what you meant originally, what with your comments about Fidel not being "completely communist" but rather "at least borderline socialist/communist". Anyway.

Maybe it didn&#39;t seem to you that way because you don&#39;t believe communists have to be internationalists, I do.

No, Che wasn&#39;t TOO intense. If you ask me Che had it right, and I think it&#39;s the responsibility of every man to have such an outlook. Nations are these strange abstract borders we put ourselves in when we can&#39;t get along with one another and we think somehow dividing people will enable them to get along better. It doesn&#39;t change the disunity among man, the very same disunity still exists internally within nations.

My point remains, Che was an intense internationalist, Castro is not. Che was communist, Castro is not.

What I seem less willing to believe here is quite simply that Castro believes communism has to exist, let alone world wide. Che would have made revolution with or without Castro, I have little doubt of that if any and I think had Castro not met Che, Castro&#39;s Cuba would be far less socialist even than it is today.


Only in the case of Bolivia, after getting the agreement of the Bolivian CP and other groups, did Che think it was OK to start a guerilla war there.

This is poorly stated. "Only in the case..., did Che think it was feasible to start guerrilla war there." is much more appropriate. The support of the CP isn&#39;t what made revolution "OK" it&#39;s what made it seem possible in Bolivia. Had he not started revolution in Bolivia he had at least 3 other countries where he mentioned the possibility for it. What has to be separated is the feasability and the right to do it... I&#39;m not sure where Che ever wrote about the "right" to start revolution, particularly in Latin America, which he considered as a whole his "country."

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 04:01 PM
No, Che wasn&#39;t TOO intense. If you ask me Che had it right,
But earlier: "I&#39;m glad you brought this up, because, I agree that it&#39;s best if the people in each country do decide when to lauch armed struggle, and not some outside force."

So which one is it? Do you think Castro should go around saying "hey, let&#39;s start a guerilla war in country X" or not? If yes, I think that&#39;s foolish, and if no, then what&#39;s your criticism?

[NovelGentry]

As I have mentioned on the other thread, I&#39;m done talking to you, but I will reserve that finish point to the end of this response:


QUOTE (NovelGentry @ Oct 11 2004, 04:01 PM)
No, Che wasn&#39;t TOO intense. If you ask me Che had it right,

But earlier: "I&#39;m glad you brought this up, because, I agree that it&#39;s best if the people in each country do decide when to lauch armed struggle, and not some outside force."

So which one is it?[/b]

As you may recall I finished my last response by saying that Che believed above all that he was a Latin American. I do too.