www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Not every one is mourning his loss.

Christian

I actually agree with you (that's two in a row now) about Cuba and Castro, and while I'm certainly no admirer of Fidel, I acknowledge what most conservative Republicans will not, and that is despite having taken a number of tyrannical measures over the years, Castro still is genuinely popular with large segments of the population of Cuba. In the eyes of many Cubans, Fidel is the little guy who stood up to the bully and won. Just prior to the attempted Bay of Pigs Invasion in April of 1961, American intelligence reported that the Castro regime was like a house of cards just waiting to be pushed over, yet when the CIA sponsored invaders reached the shores of Cuba they quickly discovered that Castro had massive support from the people and the attempted coup was quickly crushed. Of course many of Fidel's loyal comrades from the Revolution ran afoul of him in later years and wound up imprisoned,dead or in exile, but in a very real sense he has been a populist leader who successfully drove the Mafia out of Havana at the same time that J Edgar Hoover was barely acknowledging the group's existence in America.

Dear Incognitus,

What you said applies to you too, Big Guy!

As for communism, yes, people like me are deaf to those who would see any sort of good in it.

It is easy to do that from the relative comfort of North America where we can bitch and complain about life here and elsewhere without fear of arrest for our views.

Alex

I don't know about dialogues with the deaf. Some of the deaf people I have talked with are the best listeners I've met. On the other hand, many of us on message boards, well...aren't. Just for info and perspective, members may appreciate perusing the following:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...102-2622361-7236947?v=glance&s=books

That's a link to the Amazon page for _The Black Book of Communism_. It is an academically acclaimed, substantiated survey of Communist regimes, written by some former Communists (among the authors). It would appear that for all his faults, President Reagan's historical reputation will not be so dire as some here would suggest.
KH

Did Castro enjoy the popular support of some of his fellow citizens during the first years of their revolution ?

Yes, there was some popular support as there is with all revolutions. Many others were not in agreement with the policies and actions of his revolution. Some were unhappy with the direction of the revolution from the beginning, and others lost faith over time.

In the early 1960's some Cubans who were unhappy were given the option of fleeing the new socialist republic - for a price (ie: you had to pay your way to get out). Many parents sold their few precious belongings to first send their child / children into exile (mostly to Florida) and hoped to join them there at a later date when they could find the financial resources to bribe the communist officials again. The program ended when the communists drained the people of their wealth, and the vast majority of the parents never joined their children in Florida. The children essentially grew up as orphans in large displaced peoples camps. Some were as young as 5 and 6 years old when they arrived in Florida. A former coworker of mine was such a refugee.

For the next 35 - 40 years you had to ESCAPE to get off the island (and still do with some limited exceptions).

If Castro was so popular with THE MAJORITY of his population, he would not fear a year long open and democratic electoral campaign followed by people casting their ballots for the party and leader of THEIR CHOICE.

Once the country was freed of this dictatorship, American, and particualarly Cuban-American capital will flow in like never before. The land will prosper like never before. Certainly some Cubans will emigrate to mainland USA where they have extended families.

Freedom (including that of religion) will return to the island within one year of Castro's death. We must not permit his commie cronnies from holding on to power and wealth. This is what happened in most of Eastern Europe and has been the major cause for the poverty in that part of the world today.

Hritzko

Dear KH,

Whenever I hear people defend the likes of Latin American liberation etc., I DO plug my ears BECAUSE I'm not deaf.

Alex

The US always failed to understand the Latin American conflicts, which are the result of colonialism and an ancient establishment of injustice, poverty and explotation. Reagan's advisers, saw it as a part of the Cold War and they messed it all up.

The Sandinist Front was originaly a patriotic liberation movement who fought against "vampire" enterprises and for a better distribution of the wealth posessed by the same families for centuries, who exploited the US' anti-communist fever to protect their own interests.

The Sandinist government did try to have a good relationship with its neighbours and set a line with Cuba and the USSR, but soon the American puppet states in Central America feared a reaction from their people and became hostile to Nicaragua.

Then, the only countries willing to help Nicaragua were Cuba and Mexico who provided oil supplies and military training while the Czechs gave them some weapons.

Unlike other counter-revolutions such as the UNITA in Angola or AUC in Colombia, the "contras" had no popular support and were hired from street bullies and former convicts who terrorized the population and caused sabotage.

The US claimed to fight a Soviet presence that never existed in big scale. Actualy the USSR always saw Latin America as a kind of US backyard devoid of importance. They never really cared about making Socialism look better in Cuba (They'd send them broken machines, low quality ailments, etc), and the USSR rejected requests from Mexico's PRI regime to have a closer relationship with the Soviet Block.

The Sandinist Front never wished to retain power by force. Daniel Ortega himself refused to create a kind of "vanguard party" under the PRI model, or a Communist dictatorship. They nevertheless recognized the opposition's victory in democratic elections and never turned into a violent group.