Anderson's book on Che

[Paradox]

I just wanted to know what you guys think about Jon Lee Anderson's book on Che. I'm nearly finished with it now, and I haven't found anything really bad in the book so far. It shows that he could be very strict, but that was pretty much necessary. But on cubasolidarity.com, it says that even this book does not tell the truth about Guevara. In what way does Anderson's book not tell the truth about Che? The only other book about Che I've read is Memories of Che, and as far as I can remember, there was nothing bad about Guevara in that book. I've also read many articles about Che, most of them positive, a few of them negative. But what in Anderson's book is a lie? And which books tell the truth about Che?

[NovelGentry]

I've not read it, but it would appear his diaries are very truthful. People have quoted his diaries to make him look like a monster, others have quoted his diaries to make him look like a saint... when you read them in full you come to a very keen realization of the way he was. This isn't to say these haven't been skewed either, however, I don't think had they been rebuilt for propaganda that they would include some of the things they did. His recounts of his life will certainly serve the best for seeing the truth about his life.

[__ca va?]

I've also read his Bolivian diary and it appears to me that he loved his men so much he couldn't even punish them well, and they began to lose their discipline. From that diary it turns out to me that he was a basically good person.

[fernando]

He just sends them out walking with too many weight on their backs for too large distances, hence two of his men died in one day because of the weight on their backs, dont glorify Che because of his Bolivian diaries. He mentiones that Campa was a deserter, but he lost contact with Campa before he was caught, talking about him as if he was a traitor, but he was the one who spoke very little to none.

[NovelGentry]

He mentiones that Campa was a deserter, but he lost contact with Campa before he was caught, talking about him as if he was a traitor, but he was the one who spoke very little to none.

Have you read reminiscense of the Cuban Revolution.... I would argue that Che saw all deserters as traitors, if not intentional traitors than as unintentional... he talks a great deal about how the enemy will get their way. Very simply, if you desert you are willingly putting the rest of the guerrillas in danger, and at least was the case in Cuba guerrillas were aware of this. As such, if you deserted you knew what you were doing, whether you actually wanted harm ot come the guerrillas or not does not play into the fact that you are willingly deserting and putting them in harms way.

[Colombia]

For one thing, he was horrible when it came to the economy as shown quite clearly with his government position after the Cuban revolution.

[fernando]

Che wasnt an economist, I think that would say enough.

@novelgentry: Yes deserters might be traitors, but...Che lost contact with Campa and some of his other guerillas for some time, he could not have known if Campa was a deserter or not.

[chebol]

While Che may not have been a capitalist "economist", anyone who has actually read Che's writings on the economy, and how to build socialism would not describe his economics as "horrible". In fact, they constitute possibly the most rational and robust approach to building a socialist economy you will find.
It was initially a steep learning curve, to gain an understanding of economics, both national and global, and mistakes were made. However, the great debate on political economy, held in cuba between Che, Mandel, Bettelheim and others in 1963(?) illustrates the depth of Che's understanding of economics, and especiallly his awareness of the limitations and flaws of the Soviet economy.

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 01:10 PM
Che wasnt an economist, I think that would say enough.


Yet he chose to become minister of economics. :huh:

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 02:27 PM
While Che may not have been a capitalist "economist", anyone who has actually read Che's writings on the economy, and how to build socialism would not describe his economics as "horrible". In fact, they constitute possibly the most rational and robust approach to building a socialist economy you will find.
It was initially a steep learning curve, to gain an understanding of economics, both national and global, and mistakes were made. However, the great debate on political economy, held in cuba between Che, Mandel, Bettelheim and others in 1963(?) illustrates the depth of Che's understanding of economics, and especiallly his awareness of the limitations and flaws of the Soviet economy.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0873489101/qid=1102870686/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/002-3601615-1481629?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

I've read this book and I must say he had some crazy ideas going up in his head. Remember when he said that their annual quota would surpass the American's in less than ten years?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 08:53 PM
I just wanted to know what you guys think about Jon Lee Anderson's book on Che....
But what in Anderson's book is a lie?
I don't think Anderson actually lies, but everything's given the most negative possible spin. For example, when Anderson describes how Che rejected taking personal privilege from Cuban government posts, even that has to be turned into something negative....he says Che was a "fanatic" who refuses to take any joy from life or something like that.

But Anderson doesn't retail the slanders of cruder anticommunists - even refutes some of them - and there's a lot of useful facts that can be learned from the book.

The best books about Che are the books by Che. There's quite a few, including some collections of his articles and speeches.

[schumi]

Originally posted by Colombia+Dec 12 2004, 04:56 PM--> (Colombia @ Dec 12 2004, 04:56 PM)
[email protected] 12 2004, 01:10 PM
Che wasnt an economist, I think that would say enough.


Yet he chose to become minister of economics. :huh: [/b]
he thought they asked for a communist thats why he raised his hand :P

I dont think there is anything wrong with andersons book on che though...very well written and yet not glorifying che too much...

Ive heard Beningo (ches bodyguard during the revolution and soldier during the bolivian adventure, he is now regarded as a traitor) say that Che tried to train mentally ill persons so they could join his group...i dont know if its true but it would seem a bit dumb and later on in the bolivan campagne these mentally ill persons deserted and told the police everything about che&#39;s group....If it is true: What the hell was Che thinking??? Im not a great military commander or anything like that but what would possibly drive one to make such a &#39;stupid&#39; decision? <_<

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 09:45 AM
Ive heard Beningo (ches bodyguard during the revolution and soldier during the bolivian adventure, he is now regarded as a traitor) say that Che tried to train mentally ill persons so they could join his group...i dont know if its true but it would seem a bit dumb and later on in the bolivan campagne these mentally ill persons deserted and told the police everything about che&#39;s group....If it is true: What the hell was Che thinking??? Im not a great military commander or anything like that but what would possibly drive one to make such a &#39;stupid&#39; decision? <_<
Benigno is not a reliable source. For example, he claims to have been in the Congo when in fact he was not. See Conflicting Missions by Gliejeses for documentary proof that Benigno&#39;s lying about this.

[NovelGentry]

Beningo is a reactionary SOB, and if I&#39;m not mistaken has been paid by a number of groups to give his first hand "personal" knowledge of Che.

[fernando]

So the documentary makers used a traitor to make an "objective" documentary about Che? Ah what else could I expect from a documentary based on the book by Kalfon&#33;

[NovelGentry]

I&#39;m not sure of his traitor status within the Bolivian fight, or whether or not he did anything to actually go against Che. What I am sure of now is that he uses his name and status to do little more than get as much money from he can (no matter what he has to say to make it seem interesting).


What makes Conflicting Missions such an important and compelling book is its truly commanding array of obscure and exotic sources. The ultimate prizes are the declassified Cuban communications, reports, and diaries, as well as the interviews with Cuban veterans whose voices are heard here for the first time. And it is these sources that tell the previously obscured stories of Cuba in Africa, particularly in Guinea Bissau and Angola. So thorough is Gleijeses’ research that he frequently takes the reader on little archival detours to cross-reference, re-check and eventually debunk many a flimsy source. For example, Gleijeses proves that Dariel AlarcF3n (alias Beningo), a former associate of Che Guevara’s who now lives in France, is a liar. Vouched for by Regis Debray, AlarcF3n is important because Jorge Castaneda relies heavily and uncritically on AlarcF3n in writing his controversial biography of Che. More specifically AlarcF3n via Castaneda claimed that Che and Fidel had a major falling out that led to Che’s death by way of suicide missions, first in the Congo then in Bolivia. But, as Gleijeses shows, AlarcF3n was not at a key meeting where the rift supposedly occurred, nor was AlarcF3n, contrary to his many assertions, even in Africa with Guevara.

This is just scratching the surface.

[cubalibra]

I have read John Lee Anderson&#39;s book and enjoyed it for the fullness of the Guevara story. I do agree with the other posters that you need to read Che&#39;s own writings as well to truly understand what a wonderful man he was. What someone scrawled on the side of the schoolhouse in Bolivia says it best.

CHE, AS ALIVE AS THEY NEVER WANTED YOU TO BE&#33;

[nochastitybelt]

this observation I made while reading the Bolivian Diaries, is either an example of human conditioning and what one will do at the moment of truth, so to speak or shows what a great leader Che was in getting his troops in shape.

In the beginning of the Bolivian Diaries, and quite a bit throughout, Che made a number of references about Chango (if someone can verify that it was indeed Chango, I don&#39;t have my book anymore) that he was very undisciplined, incapable of following an order, pretty much the least capable revolutionary of the group, and stated his prominent dissillusionment with his ability as a revolutionary. NOW, the interesting part... not in the Bolivian Diary, but in Anderson&#39;s book I believe and documented other places. It was Chango who was caught with Che, and was the one to try to pull him out of the ravine and drag him away from the Bolivian troop when Che got shot in the leg and his gun jammed. And was there with him until the end. Chango was shot and murdered first. Very interesting I thought.