Historical factors in the 1950s and 60s that made the Cuban revolution and its leaders(Castro and Che) popular in the developing world that I think should be appreciated more.

Submitted by Anglicanpolitics123 t3_y0nrhy in history

The Cuban revolution was a significant event in the 20th century and one that propelled its leaders, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, to become iconic political figures in the 20th century. Their reception varied depending on the context they were viewed in. In an American context they were viewed negatively due to the association with communism and authoritarianism. In the developing world though at the time, it was widely different. They were admired as revolutionary leaders and these are historical factors. These factors will include both the context as well as historical precursors that could have shaped global perceptions in the developing world of the Cuban revolution in the 1950s and 60s.

(i)Post War decolonisation and Che Guevara's internationalism

  • When the Cuban revolution started out Castro and many of his compatriots were nationalists. They were focused on specific issues in Cuba and they drew inspiration from historical Cuban nationalist figures such as Jose Marti and Carlos Manuel Cespedes. Now even with this specifically nationalist focus the revolution was famous enough.
  • Che Guevara's presence in the ranks of the Cuban revolutionaries was important in terms of bring an internationalist perspective. Which isn't that surprising. The Argentine who on his motorcycle travelled all of Latin American, landed in Guatemala when the CIA coup was taking place, and then landed in Mexico to meet Castro. Che brought an ideological internationalism to a revolution that had a nationalist start. And you could see this in the roles that he played. He was one of the founding fathers of Cuba's Medical Internationalism. He was a key diplomat who was important in forging the revolutionary government's diplomatic ties both with the Eastern Bloc as well as many of the Non Aligned countries of the third world as well as revolutionary movements.
  • Che's internationalism happen to take place at the same time that you had post war decolonisation movements. The Egyptian revolution of the 50s under Nasser. The Algerian revolution of the 50s and 60s with Ahmed Ben Bella. The independence movement of the Congo, etc. Che's internationalism formed if you will a bridge between the Cuban revolution and the anti colonial movements at the time. And this is symbolised in Che's speech in Algeria in 1965.

(ii)The Bay of Pigs and the context of CIA coups in the developing world

  • Another reason for the Cuban revolution's popularity in the developing world was the victory at the Bay of Pigs. The historical context for this being significant are the CIA coups of the 50s and 60s. When you place the coups in Iran(53) Guatemala(54) Congo(60) and other attempted coups such as Indonesia in the background of the Bay of Pigs it becomes obvious why many in the developing world at the time would view this as an inspiration because it ended up symbolising a type of defiant self determination.

(iii)The Cuban revolution and the background of Latin American independence leaders

  • I had hinted at before the role of Cuba's independence leaders like Cespedes and Jose Marti in terms of inspiring the nationalist element of the Cuban revolution. I also think that the memory of Latin America's independence was what inspired its popularity throughout Latin America. Figures such as Simon Bolivar and Jose San Martin's story of fighting an anti colonial war of independence throughout Latin America would have had some similarities with the story of Castro and Che in the minds of some Latin Americans. Especially Che Guevara's story of the Argentine who journey's North, mirroring Jose San Martin in his meeting with Simon Bolivar.

(iv)The Cuban Revolution and the Anti Apartheid Movement

  • The Cuban revolution had a major inspiration on the Anti Apartheid movement of the 20th century. In the 1960s when the ANC was forming its military wing they took as an inspiration for their military doctrines Che Guevara's manual on Guerilla War. When Nelson Mandela made his "I am prepared to Die" speech he states explicitly it was partly inspired by Castro's "History will Absolve Me" speech. And then there was the military assistance Cuba gave during the Cold War. This of course amplified the Cuban revolution's popularity in Africa.

You combine this with both the military and medical internationalism of the Cuban government during the Cold War and it explains its popularity.

14

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

wjbc t1_irtu2j6 wrote

Yes, some people may not realize that the Cuban Revolution ousted a U.S.-backed military dictator, Fulgencio Batista, who presided over a stagnating economy that widened the gap between rich and poor Cubans and awarded contracts to foreign companies. He also negotiated lucrative relationships with the American Mafia, who controlled the drug, gambling, and prostitution businesses in Havana. His secret police carried out wide-scale violence, torture, and public executions.

Batista was definitely a bad guy, and he was a U.S.-backed bad guy. It's no wonder the revolutionaries won support and influenced similar movements in other countries.

Castro also ruthlessly suppressed freedom of expression and exercised totalitarian rule. However, he did make substantial improvements to healthcare and education and won admiration for successfully defying the United States.

7

[deleted] t1_irtzkoo wrote

[removed]

3

malignantpolyp t1_iru27ip wrote

Maybe some exiles were socially connected Cubans who were profiting alongside the Mafia and the American-backed dictator, and were angry that their corrupt livelihoods were taken away?

Perhaps the lowered standard of living has something to do with the decades-long US embargo? Can you name another Caribbean, Central or South American country which people are clamoring to enter? Having the world's most powerful country vehemently opposed to your existence tends to have a negative effect on your economy.

4

-Elpidio t1_irxde7w wrote

In February 1945, the United States attended a hemispheric conference in Mexico to discuss the “fundamental economic aspiration of the peoples of the Americas” and “their natural right to live decently and work and exchange goods productively in peace and with security.” This is known as the Economic Charter of the Americas.

In preparation for this conference, the U.S. Department of State drafted a memo to the American Ambassador in Mexico, George S. Messersmith outlining the 2 most important parts of the Charter:

Washington, February 5, 1945, 7:00pm:

Following is résumé of Department’s policy with respect to the economic portions of agenda:

…

5. Elimination of excessive economic nationalism in all its forms.

…

8. Adherence to system of private enterprise.

This is basically the reason for all the U.S. interventions in Latin America (and everywhere else for that matter). Please note that these ideas were put forth during World War 2. Japan had yet surrendered!

Let’s now read the internal memos and get a sense of how this policy against “economic nationalism” shaped the actions of the U.S. towards Cuba and the Castro government.

Memorandum of a Conversation, Department of State, Washington, September 24, 1959

Subject: Meeting with American Sugar Interests Regarding the Situation of Their Properties in Cuba

Special participant: Sam H. Baggett, V.P., United Fruit Company

Mr. Baggett expressed his pleasure at Mr. Rubottom’s comments. He considers that the agrarian reform in Cuba will have far reaching effects if it should become a pattern for other countries in Latin America*. The low valuation of property and payment in I.O.U.’s,* if it spreads, will force the United Fruit Company out of business. This Cuban attitude posses a serious problem for all investors in Latin America*. He agreed that we should not make a hero of Castro, but observed that he will be one in any case if he gets away with his agrarian reform as it stands.*

A few weeks later...

Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Rubottom) to the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Murphy), Washington, October 23, 1959

Subject: Current Basic United States Policy Towards Cuba

Castro’s economic policies, apart from directly affecting adversely the rights of United States investors in Cuba and thus raising additional problems in U.S.-Cuban relations, have a distinctly statist and nationalist orientation which, if also adopted by other Latin American countries, would seriously undermine our economic policies and objectives with respect to the Latin American region*. … there is a continuing danger that other regimes responsive to and/or modeled on the Castro regime may arise elsewhere in the region with serious adverse consequences to our security and interests.*

A few weeks later...

Memorandum of Discussion at the 432d Meeting of the National Security Council, Washington, January 14, 1960

…We ought to oppose quietly any Cuban loan applications which might be made.

Instead of applying economic pressure against Cuba, we could encourage private investors to be cautious about investing elsewhere in Latin America. If the Latin American countries see that Castro is frightening investment away from Latin America, they will not be favorably inclined toward Castro. If the Latin American opinion leaders were told that our investors are waiting to see what happens in Cuba, they might build up an anti-Castro opinion in Latin America*.*

The Vice President [Nixon] believed we should look at Latin America as a single area from an investment point of view, so that anything which hurts investment in one part of Latin American hurts investment throughout the area.

A few weeks later...

Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Rubottom) to the Secretary of State, Washington, March 9, 1960

Subject: NSC Discussion of Cuba

There is no disagreement between the Departments and agencies concerned about our basic approach towards Cuba—that the Castro regime is a threat to our security interests and the achievement of our objectives in Latin America.

But it gets even better!

International terrorism and economic warfare are justified not by what Cuba does, but by its “very existence,” its “successful defiance” of the proper master of the hemisphere.

See the internal records:

March 22, 1960, Special National Intelligence Estimate, Communist Influence in Cuba:

The Communists probably also believe that the US will lose in influence and prestige so long as Castro’s successful defiance of the US (including his acceptance of bloc assistance) continues*, and that the US is faced with the dilemma of tolerating an increasingly Communist-oriented Cuba or of arousing widespread Latin American opposition by intervening.*

February 17, 1961, Paper Prepared in the Central Intelligence Agency, Cuba:

Cuba will, of course, never present a direct military threat to the United States…

For the Communist powers, Cuba represents an opportunity of incalculable value. More importantly, the advent of Castro has provided the Communists with a friendly base for propaganda and agitation throughout the rest of Latin America and with a highly exploitable example of revolutionary achievement and successful defiance of the United States.

February 3, 1964 as quoted by Piero Gleijeses, Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington, and Africa, 1959-1976, (2003)

Perhaps of even grater moment is that the primary danger we face in Castro is not what he does in the way of distributing arms, disseminating propaganda, training subversives, and dispatching agents, but in the impact the very existence of this regime has upon the leftist movement in many Latin American Countries.

The simple fact is that Castro represents a successful defiance of the US, a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half. Until Castro did it, no Latin American could be sure of getting away with a communist-type revolution and a tie-in with the Soviet Union. As long as Castro endures, Communists in other Latin American countries can, to use Stalin’s words, ‘struggle with good heart’.

As the famous economist, Joan Robinson wrote in 1967:

It is obvious enough that the United States crusade against Communism is a campaign against development*. By means of it the American people have been lead to acquiesce in the maintenance of a huge war machine and its use* by the threat or actual force to try to suppress every popular movement that aims to overthrow ancient or modern tyranny and begin to find a way to overcome poverty and establish national self-respect*.*

Cheers :-)

4

Eminence_grizzly t1_iruqc8e wrote

No, dictators should not be praised for overthrowing their rivals.

1

Anglicanpolitics123 OP t1_iruqusy wrote

You kinda missed the boat with this response. I was explaining why the Cuban Revolution was extremely popular in the developing world and what historical events were taking place in the 50s and 60s that increased its popularity.

10

Eminence_grizzly t1_iruuosn wrote

It was extremely popular in the Soviet Union (for obvious reasons), and the developing world was under constant influence from it.

2

Vessarionovich t1_irv86ht wrote

(v) The Cuban revolution executed thousands of political prisoners after summary trials often lasting just minutes. Che Guevara presided over these trials.

Either the developing world was unaware of these monstrous injustices.....or their values and ethics reflected other priorities.

−2

Anglicanpolitics123 OP t1_irvc1eg wrote

So lets just address this particular claim.

(i)It is true that the Cuban revolution did preside over political trials and executions.

(ii)You're presenting a misleading picture of Che Guevara's role in the trials of the Cuban revolution. Che did preside over some of them but he didn't execute thousands of political prisoners. Research done by official biographies like the one Jon Lee Anderson did in 1997 show he presided over 55 executions. Still not good. But no where near "thousands.

(iii)Distinctions need to be made between Fidel and Raul Castro's roles in the trials of the Cuban Revolution and Che Guevara's. Because Fidel and Raul Castro(especially the latter) where more prone to summary executions. In the case of Che Guevara it was actually the opposite. Che Guevara actually made sure that there was at least due process in the trials he presided over and even barred those with an ideological bias from presiding over the tribunals. He also acquitted several who were put on trial.

(iv)The context of the trials of the Cuban Revolution is important. The came after the overthrow of the Batista regime. Batista's regime was responsible for the murder of up to 20,000 Cubans and committed both crimes against humanity as well as war crimes during the revolutionary war such as the indiscriminate use of napalm and chemical weapons. When Castro came to power he implemented nation wide a policy called "The Law of the Sierra" which established capital punishment for those guilty of war crimes during the Batista era. It was essentially like what the Allies did in the Nuremberg trials after defeating the Nazis and what happened in the Tokyo trials after WWII.

(v)Fidel Castro and the Cuban revolutionaries also presided over those trials because of intense pressure from public opinion. During the revolution Castro had promised to the Cuban public accountability for those guilty of war crimes during the Batista government. Which sets the context for the trials he instituted. These trials of course produced condemnation in America. Now according to research done in the Book "A Century of Revolution: Insurgent and Counter Insurgent Violence in Latin America's Long Cold War" Castro as a gesture to try and maintain good relations with the U.S actually sought to suspend the trials. This produced a negative reaction among sectors of the Cuban public, particularly families of the victims of the Batista regime who carried pictures of both their dead relatives as well as the officials responsible for their deaths. Many even organised protests over that issue. So the injustice for them was letting those people go.

But to your general point about the developing world having different priorities.....there is actually truth to that and Nelson Mandela himself actually said this in an interview he did on American new networks in 1990. He was questioned about his close relationship with Fidel Castro given his struggle for human rights against apartheid. And he said quite bluntly that we are fighting a struggle against one of the worst racial tyrannies and have no time to spend on the internal affairs of Cuba. The fact of the matter is from the Third World's perspective what they saw is this. The U.S and Western governments backing apartheid and many colonial systems. Cuba fighting against apartheid and the colonial systems dominating them. Regardless of Castro's authoritarianism who are they gonna have a higher regard for?

6

Brad_Wesley t1_irvs86u wrote

> Still not good.

The 55 executed were police and military who tortured and killed other Cubans. They had it coming. For some reason nobody mentions the vastly more than 55 people the Batista people executed.

9