Che Guevara and the Revolution
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Modern History
Forum Discription: World History from 1918 to the 21st century.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3741
Printed Date: 05-Jun-2024 at 20:32
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Che Guevara and the Revolution
Posted By: Guests
Subject: Che Guevara and the Revolution
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2005 at 13:40
| I want to hear your ideas about the revolution in Cuba and Che Guevara... |
Replies:
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2005 at 15:33
http://www.marxists.org/subject/art/music/mp3/hasta_siempre.mp3 - Hasta siempre, Commandante Che Guevara! ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: Jalisco Lancer
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2005 at 00:51
|
Che was a real leader. His column captured Santa Clara on the last strike to Batista. He tried to export the revolution to Africa and the rest of Latin America. ------------- |
Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2005 at 00:49
|
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!? ------------- Member of IAEA |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2005 at 02:38
|
Che is nothing but a popular figured for spoiled western rich people who ironically consume things with hi sface on it in very capitalist ways. I never understood why someone who killed prisoners of war was always so popular with so called humanitarian peoples. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2005 at 06:19
|
I think many people who wear che t-shirts don't even know who he is.
------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2005 at 15:16
hero of the 20th century  ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2005 at 09:31
|
I totally agree with you. These people cannot realize Che's mentality, just his image... ------------- |
Posted By: poirot
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2005 at 22:31
|
El Otro Lado Del Rio... ------------- AAAAAAAAAA "The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.� ~ HG Wells |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2005 at 06:50
That's not really want I meant. I think people who wear those t-shirts really don't know who he is. I think don't know that he kicked out Batista and installed Castro, that he was a guerillaleader or even that he's called Che Guevara. ------------- |
Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2005 at 13:50
|
I saw a hilarious shirt where the red star on Che Guevara's hat is replaced by a $, and underneath is written "this shirt brought to you by capitalism". ------------- Member of IAEA |
Posted By: Jalisco Lancer
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2005 at 14:29
|
Jim, Cuba was not hostile at first glance towards the US. Even Einsenhower sent the official recognition to Castro. Problem started when the casinos and the properties of the exiled cubans were confiscated. The US pushed to the Cubans and they polarized their position by accepting the soviet protection. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2005 at 19:16
|
Castro came to the U.S., spoke with members of the Eisenhower administration, gave interviews to American T.V.. His goal was to get the U.S. to back and support his new government.
Instead, the Eisenhower White House rejected him, were hostile towards him, which eventually drove him to seek for aid from the Soviet Union. They were most happy to grant it. This means that the U.S. created the Castro regime that we have to this day for not being savy enough to bring Castro onboard. And the reason the U.S. has a petty dictatorship a few miles away its coast can be thanked to the misleading intelligence given in the early 1960s. It said that as soon as the news of an American attack were spread, Cubans were raise against Castro. Nothing occurred, of course, and Bay of Pigs lead to the Nuclear Crisis, which as one of the negotiation conditions for removal of nuclear heads from Cuba was the guarantee that the U.S. would not attempt another invasion. Frankly, Castro's dictatorship doesn't seem any worse in its brutality to the Chilean and Argentine dictatorships in the 1970s, which enjoyed U.S. support. ------------- |
Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2005 at 19:35
|
Oh I know all about this, this was a topic of study in my history class this year. If I were Eisenhower I would have tried to deal with him at first, but before the ink was dry on the first deal between Cuba and the USSR, Marines would have been in downtown Havana. ------------- Member of IAEA |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 00:14
|
Genghis,
No one at the time believed that Castro would last long. It was only until the threat or actual missles were on the island that Cuba became important. ------------- |
Posted By: Justice
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 00:33
 NO PASARAN ------------- THEY WILL NOT PASS |
Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 10:35
|
Castro was receiving Soviet aid before that, a violation of the Monroe Doctrine and in my mind the moment we should have considered Cuba a grave threat to our vital interests. ------------- Member of IAEA |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 13:29
|
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Justice
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 14:42
 Che Guevara was a Marxist revolutionary before he even met Castro.Why else do you think an Argentinian would want to join in an army to liberate Cuba.  Che actually wanted to nuke USA and he accused Soviet Union for treachery when they removed the nukes from Cuba  Either way in his diaries,which were written by him before Cuba or Castro, you can clearly see his Marxist Revolutionary,views. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara PS:America tried to coup Castro. ------------- THEY WILL NOT PASS |
Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 15:26
|
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. ------------- Member of IAEA |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 17:37
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. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 17:44
Thanks for the link. I will read it. 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. ------------- |
span style="font-weight: bold;"Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 17:59
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. ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: Jalisco Lancer
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2005 at 11:49
|
Justice has a point. Che Guevara was more radical than Castro. As matter of fact, El Che was extremely disappointed at the soviets by pulling the nuclear heads out of Cuba. El Che then visited Beijing and met with the top heads of the communist party. Castro was under pressure from the soviets after Che's visit to China. That was the period when El Che started to export the revolution to Congo and then Bolivia. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2005 at 00:25
|
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 |
Posted By: kotumeyil
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2005 at 07:30
|
Any rational person understands that the real threat is from USA towards Cuba, not vice versa... ------------- [IMG]http://www.maksimum.com/yemeicme/images/haber/raki.jpg"> |
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2005 at 01:47
|
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. |