Smallclub Posted November 27, 2016 Posted November 27, 2016 53 minutes ago, sarkozy said: He had no redeeming features and should be remembered as belonging to the infamous list of twentieth century tyrants that includes Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and Lenin. May he RIH. You might add Nicolas Sarkozy while you're at it. AFAIK Castro hasn't organized or supported mass murders or holocausts… I suggest you ask Santa some history book, this Christmas… 1
wabashcr Posted November 27, 2016 Posted November 27, 2016 and one thing for which he is never given credit, but if you read the history books it does seem not in contention ('one hell of a gamble' is an absolute cracker for anyone interested, though there are plenty of great books on him, the crisis, cuba et al) - fidel was the one who was the moderate voice when it came to the missiles during the crisis. che is on record as trying very hard to convince the russians to launch but fidel talked them down (it may have not been for long had things not been resolved, of course). for what it is worth, che was an utter looney better off in a rubber room at the bottom of the ocean and all those deluded dills wandering around in che t-shirts thinking they are keeping alive the voice of peace and love should be with him. I've not seen anything that suggests Castro was a voice of reason in the missile crisis. The unclassified Soviet cables between Moscow and their ambassador seem to suggest otherwise. The US were flying spy planes over Cuba regularly, and Castro wanted the Soviets to shoot them down. Castro was paranoid that a US invasion was imminent, at which point he expected the missiles to be launched. He had retreated to a bunker expecting nuclear war. Khrushchev never believed the US were on the brink of invading Cuba, and finally decided he couldn't afford to let Castro drag the Soviets into a nuclear war. He cut Castro out of negotiations and made his own deal with Kennedy to remove the missiles in exchange for the US vowing to never invade Cuba. Castro was furious and felt Khrushchev had betrayed Cuba. Yes it's true Che had gone off the rails by then, but Fidel was right there with him in his paranoia. He saw no diplomatic resolution. They were determined to make Cuba a martyr, when all along they were merely a pawn. It seems to me Khrushchev was the voice of reason in the missile crisis. Fidel and Che were ready to launch. And the Kennedys lucked out despite a reckless bluff call. 1
El Presidente Posted November 27, 2016 Posted November 27, 2016 Pro Fidel....anti Fidel....ambivalent Fidel, put forward your points with a little thought and dignity. Your first responsibility is to maintain the ethos of the forum in order that controversial & emotional topics such as this one can be discussed openly and intelligently. For those that need to, pull your heads in. 1
skalls Posted November 28, 2016 Posted November 28, 2016 I'm sure his family is mourning their loss, as is their right. History however, won't be kind to Fidel. He may not have been as bad as Mao, Lenin and Pol Pot, but we was of the same vein. I'll leave it at that.
Ken Gargett Posted November 28, 2016 Posted November 28, 2016 12 minutes ago, skalls said: I'm sure his family is mourning their loss, as is their right. History however, won't be kind to Fidel. He may not have been as bad as Mao, Lenin and Pol Pot, but we was of the same vein. I'll leave it at that. out of curiosity, this would fall into 'pulling your head in', how?
NSXCIGAR Posted November 28, 2016 Posted November 28, 2016 5 hours ago, wabashcr said: I've not seen anything that suggests Castro was a voice of reason in the missile crisis. The unclassified Soviet cables between Moscow and their ambassador seem to suggest otherwise. The US were flying spy planes over Cuba regularly, and Castro wanted the Soviets to shoot them down. Castro was paranoid that a US invasion was imminent, at which point he expected the missiles to be launched. He had retreated to a bunker expecting nuclear war. Khrushchev never believed the US were on the brink of invading Cuba, and finally decided he couldn't afford to let Castro drag the Soviets into a nuclear war. He cut Castro out of negotiations and made his own deal with Kennedy to remove the missiles in exchange for the US vowing to never invade Cuba. Castro was furious and felt Khrushchev had betrayed Cuba. Yes it's true Che had gone off the rails by then, but Fidel was right there with him in his paranoia. He saw no diplomatic resolution. They were determined to make Cuba a martyr, when all along they were merely a pawn. It seems to me Khrushchev was the voice of reason in the missile crisis. Fidel and Che were ready to launch. And the Kennedys lucked out despite a reckless bluff call. I have to second this assessment. Aside from Raul Castro declaring in 1960 "My dream is to drop three atomic bombs on New York" Fidel had this correspondence with Khrushchev on October 26, 1962 in which he is clearly attempting to provoke the Soviets into launching a nuclear first strike against the US. Also, lunatic Che is on record as stating "If the nuclear missiles had remained, we would have used them against the very heart of America, including New York City…We will march the path of victory even if it costs millions of atomic victims…" This was said under Fidel's watch. So it appears as though Khrushchev was indeed the cooler head. Also, it's estimated by several sources that up to 100,000 Cubans have been murdered by the state under the Castros--up to 16,000 of those by firing squad with no due process. Adjusting for population, this would be the equivalent of over 6 million US deaths or 500,000 Australian deaths. And between 65,000 and 80,000 people have died trying to flee Cuba. And according to author Humberto Fontova, "Fidel Castro's regime jailed political prisoners at a higher rate than Stalin's during the "Great Terror" and murdered more people in its first three years in power than Hitler's regime murdered in its first six" [yes--in absolute numbers!]. So one would have a hard time not classifying Fidel Castro as a genocidal tyrannical dictator. Sure, he's small potatoes compared to the heavy hitters of the 20th century, but he's still one of them. 3
Smallclub Posted November 28, 2016 Posted November 28, 2016 1 hour ago, skalls said: He may not have been as bad as Mao, Lenin and Pol Pot, but we was of the same vein. I'll leave it at that. You leave it at that? That's a bit easy. Please prove us how Castro is of "the same vein" of Pol Pot who killed one third of the population of his country, or Mao who killed millions of people, and (as one example among many others) sent all the music teachers in forced labor camps, while Beijing Music Conservatory was transformed into a morgue… 2
NSXCIGAR Posted November 28, 2016 Posted November 28, 2016 27 minutes ago, Smallclub said: You leave it at that? That's a bit easy. Please prove us how Castro is of "the same vein" of Pol Pot who killed one third of the population of his country, or Mao who killed millions of people, and (as one example among many others) sent all the music teachers in forced labor camps, while Beijing Music Conservatory was transformed into a morgue… I know what you're getting at, but IMO, either one is guilty of genocide/mass murder or they're not. And with over 100,000 deaths directly attributable to the Castro regime and another 80,000+ indirectly attributable, the pile of bodies is pretty high in a country of between 7 and 10 million at the times the majority of the deaths occurred and constitutes a pretty good case to let him into the club. A junior member, to be sure--but he's in. The numbers of deaths I cite, BTW, are generally accepted by many international groups and researchers and are easily referenced. I think it's a bit deceptive because there were far fewer deaths in absolute numbers and they occurred over a much longer period and occurred much more quietly. It's futile to start ranking the degree of horror and playing "who was worse". Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro--all guilty of mass murder. Keep in mind, total private or civilian mass-murder victims number into only the thousands worldwide. 100,000 is a tremendous number. It's worth bringing up Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un who have not killed anywhere near the numbers that Mao or Stalin did, but I don't think any argument could be made that they are somehow "better".
Ken Gargett Posted November 28, 2016 Posted November 28, 2016 7 hours ago, wabashcr said: I've not seen anything that suggests Castro was a voice of reason in the missile crisis. The unclassified Soviet cables between Moscow and their ambassador seem to suggest otherwise. The US were flying spy planes over Cuba regularly, and Castro wanted the Soviets to shoot them down. Castro was paranoid that a US invasion was imminent, at which point he expected the missiles to be launched. He had retreated to a bunker expecting nuclear war. Khrushchev never believed the US were on the brink of invading Cuba, and finally decided he couldn't afford to let Castro drag the Soviets into a nuclear war. He cut Castro out of negotiations and made his own deal with Kennedy to remove the missiles in exchange for the US vowing to never invade Cuba. Castro was furious and felt Khrushchev had betrayed Cuba. Yes it's true Che had gone off the rails by then, but Fidel was right there with him in his paranoia. He saw no diplomatic resolution. They were determined to make Cuba a martyr, when all along they were merely a pawn. It seems to me Khrushchev was the voice of reason in the missile crisis. Fidel and Che were ready to launch. And the Kennedys lucked out despite a reckless bluff call. certainly not suggesting fidel was some sort of saint but in fairness, i said " fidel was the one who was the moderate voice when it came to the missiles during the crisis ", which is perhaps not the same thing as the voice of reason. in comparison to che, i believe he certainly was. i stand by that - fidel was the moderate voice. che was the opposite. long time since i have read all those histories (and i have not the time to search through them to find the actual quotes and references so you can believe it or not, i have no issue either way) but one thing that did stick out at the time was that che wanted to fire off the bombs and fidel was a dissenting voice. he knew full well that if a missile was fired at the states then cuba would have been a smouldering pile of rubbish very soon after. che was a fruitcake who didn't care. castro obviously did. but that said, i don't doubt that had the US invaded or fired at cuba, castro would have been keen for retaliation in full. che wanted first and last strike and didn't care who or how many died. remember cuba was not che's country. it was for fidel. these books are thoroughly well researched, i believe (certainly the better ones are), so i had no reason to disbelieve it. che was a very powerful figure and i do not think it would have been easy, keeping him under control. there is an awful lot of speculation that the final reason che left cuba to go off and spread "revolution" elsewhere, was that fidel had had enough and helped to push him out. to NXSCIGAR, everything is open to interpretation (well, almost everything, i guess) and i am certainly not wishing to act as some sort of apologist for fidel in any way, but "Fidel had this correspondence with Khrushchev on October 26, 1962 in which he is clearly attempting to provoke the Soviets into launching a nuclear first strike against the US.". i'm not sure if you've read that letter but you can't possibly come to that conclusion from it. he notes several options for the US including an invasion. he then states that if, and he states this on several occasions, this was to happen, the Soviets should respond with action that would prevent a first strike against them. i, and i find it hard to see how anyone could do otherwise, do not see this as a provocation but rather a suggestion (perhaps even a plea, if you prefer) to the Soviets if cuba is invaded. he says that several times. this is not a provocation at all, surely? in blunt terms, he basically says that if they attack/destroy us, please do the same to them. he does not say, get in first before they attack us. (actually, i've reread the letter and it is even less along those lines than i first thought. he limits that response from the Soviets to an actual invasion. he rules out such an action if the States limit themselves to air attacks - this cannot be seen as an attempt at provocation??). re wabashcr, i think your statements greatly diminish the role of JFK. not sure what you mean by 'reckless bluff call'? the decision not to fire? not to attack cuba? he made that decision, surely the crucial choice in preventing nuclear war, in the face of almost all his generals and advisors. it may just be the most important decision in history. every chance we would not be sitting here if he had not done so. he stared the russians down and then gave them a way to save face by the removal of the missiles in turkey. it is worth listening to the discussions, such as they are available, from the cabinet debates. possibly hard to tell exactly what is happening from just the recordings but there are a lot of very stressed individuals in that room. the calm voice was kennedy. that is how it appears at least to me. 2
Ken Gargett Posted November 28, 2016 Posted November 28, 2016 29 minutes ago, Olga said: Good riddance. another example of pulling your head in? or is rob's comment/request/decree something that does not travel outside Oz? perhaps if we restrict comments to those which actually add something to the debate. neither odious praise nor slings and arrows?
Recommended Posts