Janus
1st January 2006, 17:56
Frankly, I was tired of all the Stalin and Lenin threads so I decided to delve into new grounds with this topic. Recently, I became very interested in the Sandinista Revolution and the subsequent Contra Wars so I decided to read The Real Contra War by Timothy C. Brown.
The author states that the view of most people that the Contras were just a group of CIA funded ex-Guardia mercenaries was false. Brown points out that about 97% of the Contras were highlander peasants who had the full support of a mass popular movement consisting of the inhabitants of Nicaragua's highlands. These highlander peasants originally formed MILPAS led by Sandinista guerillas who were angry at the direction the revolution was going. It was not until 1982 that MILPAS merged into the FDN (later becoming the ERN), which had previously been made up of ex-Guardia, under pressure from the CIA.
Therefore, not even the reactionary Reagan or the CIA really understood who the Contras were since they worked with the ex-Guardia members of the FDN and not directly with the Comandos in the highlands. Brown's evidence comes not only from original documents but also from interviews conducted with many of the Comandos who later laid down their arms in 1990. If Brown is right, then that means that the majority of the Contras were no more than "just a whole bunch of really pissed off peasants".
Having accepted this view, this means that the Contra Wars didn't result from CIA pressure and didn't begin in 1982 but rather 1979. It resulted from the peasant's anger at the Sandinista's mistreatment of them and from long-existing geographical divisions, highlander vs. lowlands. Since most of the Sandinistas came from lowland backgrounds, they tended to hold the highlander peasants in low regards and mistreated harshly. As a result, this fueled hatred with the Sandinistas and provided a popular support base from which dissatisfied ex-Sandinista leaders along with Comando groups could stike against the Sandinistas.
In my opinion, the Sandinistas should have been more careful with the reactionary and independent minded highlander peasants. They should've tried to at least to prepare them for the new revolutionary government rather than just march into the highlands to implement policies that would definitely anger the peasants who had previously been left mostly alone. This along with the arrogant manner of the Sanidinistas in these dealing caused further division to occur on account of the ethnic divide between lowlanders and highlanders. The reaction of the independent and autonomous peasants was predictable but the scale of it wasn't. The Sandinistas had been prepared for a peasant rebellion but the ethnic divisions made this rebellion much more dangerous and hard to control. The resistance of the highlander peasants is similar to the anti-collectivization of the kulaks. Therefore, the lesson here is that a counterrevolution can come from many directions but most particularly from an independent, reactionary peasantry which hasn't been politically indoctrinated. This problem is only strengthened by ethnic or other divisions between the revolutionaries.
So any comments or thoughts on this topic would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
The author states that the view of most people that the Contras were just a group of CIA funded ex-Guardia mercenaries was false. Brown points out that about 97% of the Contras were highlander peasants who had the full support of a mass popular movement consisting of the inhabitants of Nicaragua's highlands. These highlander peasants originally formed MILPAS led by Sandinista guerillas who were angry at the direction the revolution was going. It was not until 1982 that MILPAS merged into the FDN (later becoming the ERN), which had previously been made up of ex-Guardia, under pressure from the CIA.
Therefore, not even the reactionary Reagan or the CIA really understood who the Contras were since they worked with the ex-Guardia members of the FDN and not directly with the Comandos in the highlands. Brown's evidence comes not only from original documents but also from interviews conducted with many of the Comandos who later laid down their arms in 1990. If Brown is right, then that means that the majority of the Contras were no more than "just a whole bunch of really pissed off peasants".
Having accepted this view, this means that the Contra Wars didn't result from CIA pressure and didn't begin in 1982 but rather 1979. It resulted from the peasant's anger at the Sandinista's mistreatment of them and from long-existing geographical divisions, highlander vs. lowlands. Since most of the Sandinistas came from lowland backgrounds, they tended to hold the highlander peasants in low regards and mistreated harshly. As a result, this fueled hatred with the Sandinistas and provided a popular support base from which dissatisfied ex-Sandinista leaders along with Comando groups could stike against the Sandinistas.
In my opinion, the Sandinistas should have been more careful with the reactionary and independent minded highlander peasants. They should've tried to at least to prepare them for the new revolutionary government rather than just march into the highlands to implement policies that would definitely anger the peasants who had previously been left mostly alone. This along with the arrogant manner of the Sanidinistas in these dealing caused further division to occur on account of the ethnic divide between lowlanders and highlanders. The reaction of the independent and autonomous peasants was predictable but the scale of it wasn't. The Sandinistas had been prepared for a peasant rebellion but the ethnic divisions made this rebellion much more dangerous and hard to control. The resistance of the highlander peasants is similar to the anti-collectivization of the kulaks. Therefore, the lesson here is that a counterrevolution can come from many directions but most particularly from an independent, reactionary peasantry which hasn't been politically indoctrinated. This problem is only strengthened by ethnic or other divisions between the revolutionaries.
So any comments or thoughts on this topic would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.