CIA helped Fidel and Cuban Revolution

[Tekun]

Hope its not a repost, I searched for it, but no results

I've been currently debating with some so-called "socialists", who claim that the 26th of July movement was helped by the CIA?

They claim that the CIA helped Castro, Che, Camilo.....overthrow Batista, and thats why the US was so quick to recognize Cuba as a democratic nation, right after the revolution

They also claim that the CIA put Chavez in power, in Venezuela

I basically broke down their argument, but I just wanna check with the comrades..
Im pretty skeptical, but I gotta ask, I need some mo "ammunition" :lol:

[Wanted Man]

Where the fuck did they get that? It's just completely made up. Why would the CIA overthrow governments friendly to them, and then suddenly do a 180 and try to assassinate and overthrow the new leaders? It doesn't even make sense.

[RedAnarchist]

Unless they thought that Fidel and Chavez would turn out to be mini-Stalins, therefore damaging Socialism in Latin America and strengthening American influence in the region.

Apart from that, it's total rubbish that the CIA, a massively reactionary and anti-Communist organisation would support Fidel et al.

[bolshevik butcher]

That's crazy! The bastia were infamous for being american puppets.

[Severian]

I think they need some ammunition. It's up to them to provide evidence for this kind of allegation.

Of course these types never do - and it's impossible to disprove an allegation that's based on nothing!

In fact, the U.S. supplied weapons to Batista during the Cuban Revolutionary War...

Initially the U.S. was not super-hostile to the Cuban revolutinary government....because they assumed it wouldn't keep its promises, and would be like Figueres in Costa Rica or any other bourgeois coup that changes little.

That ended when the first agrarian reform law was passed.

And I can't recall any period where Washington supported Chavez either. He was known as an opponent of IMF-type economic polices going back to 1994 or so.

[chebol]

1982- or at least he was organising from then on. He was known from about 1984-5.

(Nothing comes from nothing comrades. Organise!)

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 11:47 AM
Unless they thought that Fidel and Chavez would turn out to be mini-Stalins, therefore damaging Socialism in Latin America and strengthening American influence in the region.
They can't even get their heads around that concept. If its red its a communist :rolleyes:

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 11:47 AM
Unless they thought that Fidel and Chavez would turn out to be mini-Stalins, therefore damaging Socialism in Latin America and strengthening American influence in the region.


Yes,Yes. Afterall Stalin left the soviet union in a mess when he died. I mean the U.S practically ownedthat nation. The cold war was the U.S *****slapping the USSR with a steak.That's exactly what the U.S wanted a few more cold wars, More allys of the soviet union so that communism would VANISH? STRENGTHEN american influence? Your post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, in ANY context. Kindly explain that one.

[Dimentio]

Well, this must be "Anti-american" nationalists among the Cuban exile movement in Miami. Actually, the USA wanted to get rid of Batista, and Castro seemed moderate.

Those who are complaining about this are of course the followers of Batista.

[OleMarxco]

Ooohhh....kay? ;) Just calm down, lie back, and carefully remove the conspiracy-theory book's...that's right...now, look away, and take a DEEP breath..AND TIE YOUR HANDS AND ZIP YOUR MOUTH, 'cuz this shit's goin' DOWNNNNN to da CELLAR.........................Or well, atleast another step towards the bottom. 'Cuz I mean, heck, this's all purely speculation; DID the American's NEED the FBI do trigger more shit like tihs to make Communists look like a 'lame duck'? No, Carter allready took care of that, ya stupid dumb nut, trough pure propaganda. No "making examples"-shit needed...they just took the reality and perverted it :marx:

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 10:26 AM
Actually, the USA wanted to get rid of Batista, and Castro seemed moderate.
Evidence?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

As you and I know comrade, there is none.


I think they need some ammunition. It's up to them to provide evidence for this kind of allegation.

Of course these types never do - and it's impossible to disprove an allegation that's based on nothing!

In fact, the U.S. supplied weapons to Batista during the Cuban Revolutionary War...

Right! MANY weapons!

They also gave advisors, and were soon to sponser terrorist attacks against the island after the revolution.

And, don't forget that they kept a dossier on Castro long before heembarked on granma.

[KC]

Check "Guerrilla Prince". There is something in that about the US relations with Cuba right after the revolution. They were good, but they declined very quickly. I don't remember why or anything, but I know the answer's in that book.

[Severian]

The question is, evidence that the U.S. supported the revolution against Batista.

[BuyOurEverything]

Unless they thought that Fidel and Chavez would turn out to be mini-Stalins, therefore damaging Socialism in Latin America and strengthening American influence in the region.


Even coming from an anarchist, that's pretty weak.

First, they would not have set up any self-avowed communist anywhere, ever, period. Second, why would the put in someone who would be hostile to US interests? Third, Stalin didn't exactly destroy socialism in the USSR, if I remember correctly, the USSR existed for quite a while after Stalin died. I could go on, but why?

[Tekun]

Yeah, I refuted and broke down their argument in a jiff
They listed a bunch of books that Im sure are written by Cuban exile scum in Miami
Especially a book by Luis Fortova, a Cuban exile
I looked up the reviews for his book, and there were like 3 ppl who accused him of fabricating evidence regarding the revolution
Fortova = filthy liar :angry:

Not only that, but this "so-called" socialist lives in Miami with his Cuban gf
So Im guessing she's been filling his head with anti castro bullshit

Thanks comrades

[Marat]

The CIA did provide some covert assistance to Castro and to Batista at the same time. CIA was just hedging their bets so whoever won would be "indebted" to Uncle Sam and would be "loyal." They figured wrong with Castro.

[Severian]

Again, evidence?

[Marat]

William Blum's Killing Hope has evidence with the footnotes to boot.

[Severian]

Kinda helps if you can give a page number or some more detail than just the name of a book.

But OK....Here's the chapter from Blum's book (http://members.aol.com/bblum6/cuba.htm), he briefly mentions that claim and cites another book by Tad Szulc (Fidel:A Critical Portrait).

That one it looks like I'll have to get from the library.

[metalero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 11:39 AM
Hope its not a repost, I searched for it, but no results

I've been currently debating with some so-called "socialists", who claim that the 26th of July movement was helped by the CIA?

They claim that the CIA helped Castro, Che, Camilo.....overthrow Batista, and thats why the US was so quick to recognize Cuba as a democratic nation, right after the revolution

They also claim that the CIA put Chavez in power, in Venezuela

I basically broke down their argument, but I just wanna check with the comrades..
Im pretty skeptical, but I gotta ask, I need some mo "ammunition" :lol:
The only logical and objective conclusion you can make from this statement, it's that it seeks to portray the two most powerful popular movements (and the hopes for latinamerican emancipation to build socialism) in latinamerica as some CIA work. It of course can only fool pseudo-revolutionaries...

[metalero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 11:05 PM
Check "Guerrilla Prince". There is something in that about the US relations with Cuba right after the revolution. They were good, but they declined very quickly. I don't remember why or anything, but I know the answer's in that book.
that is trashy book. It couldn't even work as a critical analisys of Fidel personality.

[Led Zeppelin]

The question is, evidence that the U.S. supported the revolution against Batista.


One of the myths of the Cuban Revolution is that a tiny guerilla group was able to overthrow a dictatorship backed by the United States imperialists.

In fact, the assault of Castro's guerilla group was successful because it happened to coincide with a US coup against the Batista dictatorship. As Guevara expressed it in April 1961:

"The monopolies, as is common in these cases, began to think of a successor to Batista, probably because they knew that the people were opposed to him.... What more intelligent stroke than to depose the unserviceable dictator and replace him with new boys who would, in good time, serve the interests of imperialism?"(Ernesto Guevara: Cuba - Exception or Vanguard?, in: John Gerassi (Ed.): 'Venceremos! Speeches and Writings of Che Guevara=; London; 1969; p. 198)

As early as June 1957, Robert Hill, then responsible for the US State Department's relations with Congress, told the newly-appointed US Ambassador to Cuba, Earl Smith:

"You are assigned to Cuba to preside over the downfall of Batista. The decision has been made that Batista has to go." (Hugh Thomas: op. cit.; p. 165)

In the autumn of 1957:

"The United States began to hold up Batista's orders for military hardware. In March 1958 an embargo on the shipment of arms and ammunition to Cuba was declared." (Philip Bonsal: >Cuba, Castro and the United States=; Pittsburgh; 1971; p.21)

The withdrawal of United States support from the Batista regime caused severe demoralisation among Batista's officer corps:

"Batista's soldiers, demoralised by the general repudiation of the government they served and by the accelerated corruption among their own officers and elsewhere... simply melted away as a fighting force after mid-1958. . .Batista now saw all the elements of his power eroded, his large army useless, his political support at home non-existent, his henchmen looking for exile, and the Washinton backing he had so long enjoyed withdrawn." (Philip Bonsal: op. cit. p. 19, 23)

...

The final US moves to oust Batista were entrusted to William Pawley, an American diplomat and business man who was close to President Dwight Eisenhower:

"Since November the US government had been taking urgent steps to remove Batista from power.... William D. Pawley, the former Ambasssador to Peru and Brazil and a personal friend of President Eisenhower, was about to be sent as a secret emissary to negotiate with Batista, Pawley would be authorised to offer Batista the opportunity to live with his family in Daytona Beach, Florida, if the dictator would appoint a caretaker government. . . . The key aspect of the plan was that Pawley would be authorised to speak to Batista for President Eisenhower." (Ramon L. Bonachea & Marya San Martin: >The Cuban Insurrection: 1952-1959'; New Brunswick (USA); 1974; p. 304)

Pawley's scheme was:

"To get Batista to capitulate to a caretaker government satisfactory to us, whom we could immediately recognise and give military assistance to." (Hugh Thomas: op. cit.; p. 233)

It was felt that this caretaker government should be a military junta:

"Everyone thought that the best idea was for the US to support a military junta." (Hugh Thomas; op. cit.; 235).

and that this junta should be led by an officer with a history of opposition to the Batista dictatorship. The choice fell on Colonel Ramon Barquin, then in prison for leading an unsuccessful revolt against Batista:

"Only Colonel Ramon Barquin met those qualifications." (Ramon L.Bonachea & Marya San Martin: op. cit.; p. 323).

On 17 December 1958, Barquin's release was arranged by the CIA, after which he proclaimed himself chief of the armed forces in Havana:

"He (Barquin - Ed.) owed his release to the somewhat delayed intervention of the CIA, who on 30 December had dispatched a man... to offer the head of the prison, 100.000 to release this prisoner." (Hugh Thomas; op. cit.; p. 246)

But, unknown to the CIA, Barquin was a member of Castro's 26 July Movement, and he immediately subordinated himself to that movement:

"Being himself at this time a member of the 26 July Movement, he (Barquin -- Ed.)... subordinated himself to the 26 July Movement." (Hugh Thomas; op. cit.; p. 246)

On 14 December:

"Ambassador Smith received instructions to the effect that it was time to tell Batista to leave. At long last, and for reasons other than the condemnation of Batista=s brutal regime, the US government was withdrawing its support from the Cuban dictator." (Ramon L. Bonachea & Marya San Martin: op. cit.; p. 304),

Finally, on 17 December Smith met Batista and informed him that the State Department desired his resignation:

"On 17 December Smith finally saw Batista and said on instructions that the State Department believed . . that it would avoid a great deal of bloodshed if he were to retire." (Hugh Thomas; op. cit.; p. 237)

Thus, Castro's guerilla force:

"did not defeat Batista's army in any military sense." (Theodore Draper: >Castro=s Revolution: Myths and Realities=; 1962 (hereafter listed as: >Draper (1962)=; p. 14).London;

"The collapse of Batista's army was far more a political and psychological phenomenon...than a defeat by a superior enemy force." (Theodore Draper: Castroism: Theory and Practice=; London; 1965' (hereafter listed as >Draper (1965)=; p. 136).

In other words, Castro's guerilla force was victorious because its attack on the Batista regime happened to coincide with a coup against that regime by US imperialism.

Cuban Revisionism (crappy markup) (http://www.allianceml.com/CommunistLeague/Compass101-Cuba92.htm)

How is that for evidence?

[Severian]

That's not evidence...it's a hatchet job of out-of-context misleading quotes, straight out of the Stalin school of falsification. For example, Che is quoted on the attempt to get rid of Batista in order to prevent a meaningful revolution - as if Che was saying it succeeded!

Here's the more complete quote:
link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1961/04/09-abs.htm)

The reality is the Washington explored the possibility of a coup, and eventually encouraged Batista to resign, in order to derail the revolutionary movement led by the July 26th Movement, prevent it from taking power, and save Batista-ism without Batista...because it saw the revolution was winning, by December 1958 the handwriting was on the wall. And Washington failed! There never was any coup, Barquin never had any real power to hand over - and was never a member of the July 26th Movement, incidentally - and the July 26th movement rejected any compromise or even negotiation with the generals, and the army was collapsing anyway.

A more accurate account of these abortive coup attempts. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/BLJ.htm)

***

I still intend to check Szulc's book when I get a chance. What Blum says is possible...it would even help explain why Washington had such misplaced complacency about the Cuban Revolution, initially.

[Dimentio]

Nobody in the US thought that Castro was a communist in the years of 1956 to 1959. They saw him as a centre-liberal, until he started to expropriate US business in Cuba.

[Nat Turner]

OK I think the us helped batista in the beginning because he was a puppet and the amount of american interests in cuba under batista and were scared that fidel wanted to nationalize these.But after the revolution started gaining steam and coming out of the sierra maestra I think that the US actually did help out castro because batista was embarrasing the US because of his roaming SS-like police beating and murdering all communists and any person that was suspected of supporting the revolution.I think they pulled their support when they saw fidels true colors. But by the way,all the people looking for concrete evidence probably wont find it,thats why I said I think,because fidel and the US are embarrased about this and have hidden the documents,the Us is embarrased for helping castro,and cuba is embarrased for accepting help from its sworn enemy

[Tekun]

^Thats ur POV comrade, and IMO its far from the truth

So, as far as Im concerned, the CIA basically condemned and left Batista on his own
But in now way did they help Castro and the 26th, either through weapons or $$
^
Good


Thanks comrades

[Coggeh]

i don't think they are right in their theory of that the C.I.A helped Che and Fidel but they have a point if you think about it , maybe Che and Fidel promised complete trade with U.$.A for low labour prices ,maybe they wanted another Communist state and secretly knew about the Russian arm's deal and the missles and thought they could turn this into an act of war on the Russia side and spread probaganda right across the western world saying that the Soviet Union was a war hungy state ! .....anywho i believe this isnt true CHE AND FIDEL WOULD NOT ACCEPT AID OFF THE REAL ENEMY!

[Marat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:56 PM
Kinda helps if you can give a page number or some more detail than just the name of a book.

But OK....Here's the chapter from Blum's book (http://members.aol.com/bblum6/cuba.htm), he briefly mentions that claim and cites another book by Tad Szulc (Fidel:A Critical Portrait).

That one it looks like I'll have to get from the library.
Tad Szulc was a reporter from the N.Y. Times. He also uncovered the Bay of Pigs plot before it went forward. President Kennedy was outraged saying, "What good is it to conduct a secret invasion of Cuba if Castro can read it in the N.Y. Times."

Szulc does not paint a sympathetic portrait of Castro in that biography.

[Guerrilla22]

Yeah this is correct. There came a point in the Cuban revolution when the US realized that Batista was incapable f winning and even if he were to win was not capable of making Cuba function. US companies had a lot of capital invested in Cuba at the time and the CIA thought it could buy favor with the directoriat, which was largely made up of liberals.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 10:15 AM
That one it looks like I'll have to get from the library.
Tad Szulc was a reporter from the N.Y. Times. He also uncovered the Bay of Pigs plot before it went forward. President Kennedy was outraged saying, "What good is it to conduct a secret invasion of Cuba if Castro can read it in the N.Y. Times." [/quote]
And the editors of the NYT censored the article at Kennedy's request. "All the News that's fit to print" indeed.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I have a copy of Szulc's book; there's alot of bullshit in there, but some good things as well. Not as bad as I'd thought it would be, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 06:26 PM
I have a copy of Szulc's book;
Excellent! Maybe you can save me a trip to the downtown library. Could you check out pp.pp. 427-8 (Blum's footnotes) and see what it says about CIA aid to the July 26th movement in 1957-58 (and what that's based on?)

Course if it's a different edition than Blum's the page numbers may be different...

[Guerrilla22]

There's also a bit about this in John Lee Anderson's che biography, Che Guevara: a revolutionary life

[Wiesty]

I doubt it, the CIA were with Batista 100%

[Severian]

OK, finally got the Szulc book from the library. Apparently it's the original source for this idea.

Szulc's source, according to the notes at the back of the book (p.670-71):

The story of the secret CIA involvement in the Sierra war was reconstructed from my own knowledge as a New York Times reporter in Cuba in 1959; this information was considered privileged by me at the time. It was subsequently confirmed in Washington by senior CIA and State Department officials on a confidential basis.

Not really verifiable, then.

What Szulc says (p.427-28):

Uncle Sam, however, was engaged in a number of actions in Cuba that were both contradictory and mysterious. On one hand, the United States continued to supply the Batista regime with weapons to fight the rebels, while on the other hand it secretly channeled funds to the 26th of July Movement through the Central Intelligence Agency.

The story of CIA financial support for the Castro rebellion, a selective form of support, is a surprising one, though it is unclear whether this operation was formally authorized by the Eisenhower administration of undertaken by the Agency entirely on its own. It is not even certain that Castro himself knew that some of the money reaching him or his Movement came from the CIA. A new reconstruction of this United States involvement with Castro shows that between October or Novemeber of 1957 and the middle of 1958, the CIA delivered no less than fifty thousand dollars to a half-dozen or more key members of the 26th of July Movement in Santiago. The amount was quite large, relative to what the Movement itself was able to collect in Cuba. The entire clandestine operation remains classified as top secret by the United States government; therefore, the reasons for the financing of the Movement cannot be adequately explained. It is a sound assumption, however, that the CIA wished to hedge its bets in Cuba and purchase goodwill among some members of the Movement, if not Castro's goodwill, for future contingencies. This would have been consistent with CIA policy elsewhere in the world whenever local conflicts affected United States interests.

These funds were handled by Robert D. Wiecha, a CIA case officer attached to the United States consulate general under the cover of vice-consul, who served in Santiago from September 1957 to June 1959. The late Park Fields Wollam, who as consul general was Wiecha's superior in Santiago, had told State Department colleagues at that time of the CIA role in dealing with the Castro organization.

That's all about the money; Szulc goes on to discuss Wiecha's unsuccessful efforts to set up a meeting with Castro.

It's possible that the CIA or its political superiors hoped to have all possible rulers of Cuba bribed in advance, to be on the safe side, or "hedge its bets" as Szulc puts it. If so, they failed.

Then again, it's possible Szulc is making it up, that his sources are making it up, or that he's just mistaken. And there's really no way to check further that I can see.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 06:39 AM
Nobody in the US thought that Castro was a communist in the years of 1956 to 1959. They saw him as a centre-liberal, until he started to expropriate US business in Cuba.
Anything I have read suggests Castro was a kind of 'centre liberal' in 56. But even if he was a communist, American foreign policy is often so confused that they are perfectly capable of helping a communist.

I wouldn't get worried about it. True or false it has no implications of any significance at all for Castro, except as a (currently apt) comment on the jungle that is the American State.

At worst, its like 'Lenin's Gold'. Who cares ?

[Janus]

I seriously doubt it. But the US did try to befriend Fidel after the Revolution in order to protect American corporate property in Cuba. It was also a calculated move to make Cuba dependent on itself again. I suppose the US indirectly helped out the revolution by not giving direct military assistance to Batista's regime since they weren't fully aware of Fidel's true motives.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

In 1959, Fidel toured many countries, including the United States, to encourage unity among nations. Although President Eisenhower refused to meet him, Vice President Nixon met with Fidel, later calling him a communist dictator that should be overthrown.

http://www.freeinfosociety.com/site.php?postnum=48