Che Guevara and the Revolution

Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by hugoestr Genghis, Was he? I was not aware of that. I guess I will have to research it. What I do know is that niether Castro or Che were communist during the revolution. They only became communists after being rejected by the U.S. If Castro were receiving Soviet help, I find it difficult to see why didn't he declare a socialist country immediately after he became the head of state. This was the case with other countries that received support from communist countries. Nicaragua comes to mind. His trip to the U.S. also doesn't make too much sense. In the footage that I have seen of his trip to the U.S., Castro looks a bit desperate to gain the support of the U.S. government and its peolpe. Besides, as much as we would like, we cannot use war at the least provacation. It is expensive, it costs lives, the outcome is not known. War works much better as a threat than as a reality. Invading Cuba after the fall of Batista would not had made too much sense. The revolutionary leadership was nothing more but about a dozen of amateurs running around with guns who were supported by the masses, who are incredibly fickled. The rational outcome was that the members of the Batista regime would organize a counter-revolution, a coup d'etat, or something else to protect their interest. Instead, the courage elite hop on planes to start their lives in Maimi. Even at this point it would make sense that they would train, jump on a boat, and destroy the Castro government by repeating their strategy. This never happened. The few courage enough to do so were killed or captured during Bay of Pigs. The U.S. miscalculated many things, mainly Cuban expatriates, Cuba support for Castro, and Castro's skill to hold onto power. If Eisenhower had met with Castro and backed him, Cuba would still be a favorite American resort to this day. Not backing Castro from the beginning was the big mistake. The injection of Soviet influence into the Caribbean is not "the least provocation". And furthermore, America has been intervening in the Caribean since the time of Teddy Roosevelt. We could have done once we saw what a threat he had become, Eisenhower's backing or not.

You missed my point about the use of force. The threat of violence is always more powerful and cheaper than its use. The U.S. used violence against Cuba after waiting too much and it failed.

The fact that the U.S. has historically intervened in the area is not significant to my argument. I was giving possible reasons why the U.S. didn't intervene before Bay of Pigs.

My main point is that none of the nonsense going on with Cuba would had happened if Eisenhower had been a half decent politician. The U.S., especially at the time and place, should have sided with every two-bit dictator that takes over a country; if we don't they will go to the competition.
This is so self-evident, and the decision to not help Castro so stupid in hindsight, that the only logical explanation is that Eisenhower doubted that Castro would survive for too long.

Originally posted by hugoestr Che Guevara never was my idol. I tried to read his essay on guerrilla warfare, and it was so boring that I gave it up before I was done. From what I know about the man, he seems to have had some kind of manic-depressive disorder--more manic than depressive. He seems like an adrenaline junky, and a revolution was one of the most risky endeavor to take during that time. After all, he did leave a wife and children to pursue thrills.

As with all semi-mythical figures, it's probably wiser not to dig too deep.
He served well as a symbol for the anti-imperialist liberation struggle in the 60s and 70s in Africa and the Americas, and if just a few of the people who wear t-shirts with his picture nowadays would find out, that there actually was such struggle, that can't be too bad.

Originally posted by Genghis I think it's very unfortunate for Cuba that it occurred.  I also think it's inexcusable that America let a hostile government form 90 miles from our shores.  What type of idiot lets that happen!?

 

oh my...guy what planet you leave on...people with this arrogant view as yourself are the ones che wanted to put aside.. to quote you and think like you i have to say  that what inexcusable "world buddy" would let this UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  use its imperialistic ways with disregard for everyone else///

cant you see that the whole world starts to see the american enemy...i feel so sorry for you when this will happen.....

i take offense in your language here, i am sorry.i am not cuban myself but been living there for a while...as much as people would critic their government they do LOVE CASTRO AND CHE AS INDIVIDUALS, not necessary system...who can say that about that george bush in the ghettos of new orleans?

che was uniq and remains so...i do not agree with him exporting revolution but he was a right person at the right time, right there and then...however castro was the real leader, and is ....idealism had his moments but castro was the man who knew enough is enough..

 

cuban people are suffering becouse this american embargo and  BELIEVE me , they as ajority have NO LOVE FOR PEOPLE LIKE YOU that say things as such one above

shame that in 20th century we still have backwards "conservatives" like yourself

An utterly incompetent buffoon as far as revolutionaries are concerned.  His model for guerrila warfare essentially amounted to a get rich quick scheme which failed everywhere where it was applied and his operation in Bolivia was borderline hilarity, the Bolivians could have let him and his band starve to death.  Castro and Che get credit mostly out of their own conceit, they didn't conquer in the Sierra Maestra they merely survived.  The real work of overthrowing Batiste was done by his political enemies and with each of their deaths his rule weakened just a little bit until it collapsed for Castro to march into Havanna in the midst of a vaccuum.