Anyone Read Any Good Books on Che Guevera Recently?

[Mother_Theresa]

Thank you for adding some intelligent comments to this discussion Michael. You are exactly right: Dubya and Che are at opposite ends of the spectrum. An imperialist and an anti-imperialist. I only made the comparison because it was claimed that Che was a murderous thug and I pointed out that Bush has been responsible for far more deaths, including far more deaths of innocent civilians. But I agree with your analysis. In fact, I wish we could have more intelligent discussion here, because Che was a very interesting character, but only three people on this thread have read a book about him (you, me and s.b.) and this thread was not created in order to elicit serious discussion but in order to bash Che and me.

For anyone interested in reading about the subject, I highly recommend Companero by Jorge Castaneda, about which the following was written:

“Jorge Castaneda’s beautiful and passionate biography. … makes Ernesto Guevara understandable at last, and his predicament deeply moving.”
The New Yorker

“Brilliant research” Washington Post BR

“Brilliant… rich in narrative detail.” Christian Science Monitor

“Astute. . . a gripping tale of a man bent on martyrdom.” Boston Globe

“Carefully documented and critical. . .reads like a thriller.” Wall St Journal

“Castaneda’s powerful intellect aims at uncovering the roots and development of Che’s thinking.” NY Times

I would have to agree with all of the above. The book is one thrilling adventure after another. For example, the accounting of how Fidel and Che and a motley assortment of Cubans sailed in a small boat loaded up with guns and grenades from Mexico to Cuba where they planned to overthrow the corrupt, US-supported military govt, but they landed in a swamp and all kinds of other disasters hit them, yet somehow they were able to overthrow the army and take control of the country (for which they were met by cheering throngs of supporters and instantly became heros not just in Cuba but to people around the world). Pretty good story. The relationship between Fidel and Che is also fascinating. Obviously Che had something special or Fidel, also extremely talented, never would have given this foreigner so much trust and responsibility. I have admitted countless times that Che was not a perfect individual – he had his flaws, he committed bad deeds – but he was an extremely talented and intriguing individual and his story is fascinating.

[Comrade_Stalin]

I read that Che has been dead for 30+ years. I thought that was excellent. I hope he stays that way.

[Hobbes]

@michael_half

Death is death, no matter what your doctrine, but at least those peasants and revolutionaries died fighting for the only thing worth dying for: freedom from oppression.

This is not a bash, but a sincere question: How do you square the goal of installing a communist dictatorship with an ideology that professes to value “freedom from oppression”? Surely a form of government which grants to a single dictator (or group of dictators) supreme control over not only political but economic life is about the most extreme form of oppression one could propose? Do you disagree that communism has, almost without exception, produced the least free and most oppressed societies in the world?

MT, arelated question – from your understanding of Che’s life: To what extent do you believe that the end goal of establishing a communist system was paramount to Che? In other words, do you think he was more concerned about getting the [then] current oppressors off of the backs of the peasants (and that the form of government that came after was secondary), or that he was more concerned with creating a specifically communist revolution?

Maybe another way to ask it would be as follows: If a hypothetical third party powerful nation had gone to Che and said “We will supply you with weapons and support, and everything you need to liberate the people from their current rulers. But in return, you can’t just replace one form of oppression (landed artistocracy/oligopoly) with another (communist dictatorship) – you’d have to help us install a capitalist democracy.” Would Che have accepted?

Note: I realize that the obvious response would be that Che wouldn’t have believed in the sincerity of the offer and so on. But if Che could choose for Cuba (or other the Latin American nations he was concerned about) to have become (a) closer to modern day Cuba, or (b) closer to modern day Costa Rica – which do you think he would have picked?

[fred_smith]

Thank you for adding some intelligent comments to this discussion Michael. You are exactly right: Dubya and Che are at opposite ends of the spectrum. An imperialist and an anti-imperialist.

Does the US occupy any nation or control its economy? Define imperialism then.

[quote]

I only made the comparison because it was claimed that Che was a murderous thug [/quote]

Are you denying that Che was murderous? or a thug? or both together?

and I pointed out that Bush has been responsible for far more deaths, including far more deaths of innocent civilians.

No then actually Roosevelt would be the truly murderous thug for the 500,000 Americans who died fighting in WWII but everything is relative right?

But I agree with your analysis.

A dubious honor for Michael.

In fact, I wish we could have more intelligent discussion here,

We could if you had even a basic understanding of any of the following: economics, morality, imperialism, communism, freedom, democracy, dictatorships, oppression.

because Che was a very interesting character,

As you keep reminding us. Ask him out on a date, but spare us the adulation.

but only three people on this thread have read a book about him (you, me and s.b.)

I have read numerous books about Che. I just have not read Motorcycle Diaries.

and this thread was not created in order to elicit serious discussion but in order to bash Che

Absolutely. I find it amazing that people admire that incredibly violent evil man who tortured and killed and left nothing but disaster behind. He is the epitome of a mindless leftie. All “good” intentions, all failed results.

and me.

Don’t flatter yourself. You’re not that influential or smart.

[quote]
I would have to agree with all of the above. The book is one thrilling adventure after another. For example, the accounting of how Fidel and Che and a motley assortment of Cubans sailed in a small boat loaded up with guns and grenades from Mexico to Cuba where they planned to overthrow the corrupt, US-supported military govt, but they landed in a swamp and all kinds of other disasters hit them, yet somehow they were able to overthrow the army and take control of the country (for which they were met by cheering throngs of supporters and instantly became heros not just in Cuba but to people around the world). [/quote]

Two facts. Most people in Cuba were more than ready to get rid of Batista. What they were not ready for was a communist revolution. That they did not support or you would not have had the bourgeoisie and church supporting the overthrow. Also while it was “heroic” and all that, it resulted in the government that has committed the most human rights abuses and the greatest injustices in the Western Hemisphere. I thought you cared about human rights. You are celebrating the Cuban Revolution? Haha!

Also you applaud Che’s use of violence to overthrow oppression but not Bush’s to overthrow Saddam and the Taliban? Look at the end results in Cuba. Look at the end results in Afghanistan and Iraq where there have been free and fair elections. Also neither Bush nor American soldiers are even responsible for most of the deaths in Iraq. That courtesy goes to the insurgents, terrorists and criminals. Interesting you do not blame them but Bush instead. Get a moral compass!

Pretty good story.

If it were only a story…

The relationship between Fidel and Che is also fascinating.

So they had a thing for each other. They should have gotten a room rather than destroy an entire country.

Obviously Che had something special or Fidel, also extremely talented, never would have given this foreigner so much trust and responsibility.

So like MT, Fidel sees something “special” about Che. Well, I would have to say that if you like surface, narcissistic, violent torturers and murderers why not pick up a book on Videl in Argentina. No doubt he would have the same admirable qualities.

I have admitted countless times that Che was not a perfect individual – he had his flaws, he committed bad deeds

It would be interesting to see you equally as forgiving for Bush or Reagan. When can we expect to read your next glowing report on Reagan who left nothing but success, freedom, economic prosperity, justice?

But he was an extremely talented and intriguing individual and his story is fascinating.

Talented? Hah! What did he accomplish? The only thing talented about him was his ability to torture and murder. He never even fought in a battle and failed utterly in Congo and Bolivia. Talent? Bah. So you find him intriguing and his story fascinating. Write him a love letter. Set up a shrine with candles in your room but don’t expect me to understand, sympathize or sanction such a grotesque admiration for this neurotic, narcissistic, self-absorbed fool. Where are his accomplishments? Where is the hope and freedom that he brought? How many lives did he destroy? How many lives were wasted going down the same failed path because he inspired them? How much of an impediment was he to bringing democracy to Latin America? Answer those questions and we can in fact have an actual intelligent discussion. That is not currently possible with all the lovestruck giddy school girls fainting and panting for Che.

[Mother_Theresa]

Fred, as usual, your post is nothing more than an obnoxious rant full of falsehoods (most notably that Che never fought on a battlefield, which is wildly false) and insults that interrupt peoples’ attempts to have meaningful discourse. If you really care about the issue, why don’t you please tone down your anger and try to engage in a meaningfull discussion of the issues. Btw, I’ve never read Motorcycle Diaries either or seen the movie.

Hobbes, thank you for the good comments and questions.

@Hobbes

How do you square the goal of installing a communist dictatorship with an ideology that professes to value “freedom from oppression”?

The question uses unfairly derogatory language and assumes things that are not true. I do not believe Fidel, his brother Raul, or Che (the 3 top men responsible for toppling the Batista regime) intended to install a “communist dictatorship” when they overthrew the government. Their goal was to oust the corrupt regime and when they were fighting that rebellion, I don’t believe they had detailed plans for what type of a government would replace it (just as the freedom fighters who defeated the British in the Revolutionary War did not know what type of government would be created years later when the US Constitution was drafted). They had broad support of the people in their rebellion, with citizens volunteering to join the fight, donating food, shelter, arms and assistance and, as I’ve stated, when they prevailed, overthrew the US-supported thugs and drove into Havana riding on top of their tanks, the streets were lined with cheering crowds of supporters. The citizens were joyous becasue Fidel, Raul, Che and their army did liberate them from oppression.

Surely a form of government which grants to a single dictator (or group of dictators) supreme control over not only political but economic life is about the most extreme form of oppression one could propose? Do you disagree that communism has, almost without exception, produced the least free and most oppressed societies in the world?

I agree that communism has for the most part failed and has led to immense suffering and death in many countries (as I’ve said before). But it’s easy to make that judgment in retrospect from the year 2005. Fidel and Che overthrew Batista 50 years ago and it was not so easy to make such a judgment then. Moreover, consider the time: it was the Cold War, the major nations of the world sided with either the US or the communists. The US was intermeddling in various latin american nations, taking advantage of and contributing to the misery and oppression of local peoples. Is it so surprising that in resisting such offensive, imperialistic intermeddling by the US that people might turn to the Soviets for support. Moreover, while in practice Communism has failed after a number of experiments, in theory (at least 50 years ago) it doesn’t sound so bad (people working together for the common good), in particular to a nation of impoverished, oppressed, uneducated peasants in countries where a minute percentage of the population and foreigners owned the vast majority of the land and wealth.

Also, bear in mind that communism can be implemented in various ways and, in fact, the Soviets grew extremely displeased with Che because he was strongly critical of them and they suspected (wrongly I believe) that he would have prefered to have closer ties with the Chinese instead, and the Soviets were very critical of the Chinese.

In summary, it’s unfair to question the rebellion based on your 2005 knowledge of communism. They overthrew a bad government, the people were deeply appreciative, and they set about to create a new government that would not have such close ties to the imperialistic US. The form of government they created evolved over time.

To what extent do you believe that the end goal of establishing a communist system was paramount to Che? In other words, do you think he was more concerned about getting the [then] current oppressors off of the backs of the peasants (and that the form of government that came after was secondary), or that he was more concerned with creating a specifically communist revolution?

Communism was secondary; getting rid of imperialistic oppressors was first, although I admit that Che had been reading communist texts prior to the Cuban revolution (though he hadn’t visited Russia or China at that time and had very limited real-life understanding of how communism might work).

Maybe another way to ask it would be as follows: If a hypothetical third party powerful nation had gone to Che and said “We will supply you with weapons and support, and everything you need to liberate the people from their current rulers. But in return, you can’t just replace one form of oppression (landed artistocracy/oligopoly) with another (communist dictatorship) – you’d have to help us install a capitalist democracy.” Would Che have accepted?

Unrealistic hypothetical. What powerful 3d party nation in the late 1950’s? Moreover, Fidel was the leader, not Che, so Che could/would have offered his input and suggestions, but ultimately decisions were made by Fidel (though he greatly respected Che). However, Che probably would have rejected the idea. He sincerely believed communism was a better way to improve a society and he was more extreme in that regard than Fidel. Che was a strong advocate of volunteerism and often went out and cut sugar cane for long hours to set a favorable example; when Fidel began offering prizes and incentives for increased labor, Che objected, feeling it should be about morality and good will, not greedy capitalistic goals. Again. it’s unfair to cricize his belief based on what we know today; at that time it was less unreasonable to hold such beliefs.

[fred_smith]

MT:

Which battle did Che fight in?
Were Castro and Che not communists BEFORE the Cuban Revolution?

Define imperialism.
Define intermeddling.

Explain why you see both good and bad points in Che but are not willing to do so for say Duvalier? Duarte? Pinochet? Reagan? Bush?

Do you also see good points in Stalin? Hitler? Saddam? Mao? Pol Pot?

Are the methods used by say Bush and Che morally equivalent? are any deaths that resulted morally equivalent? Are the final results of their actions also morally equivalent?

[sandman]

You are wasting your time Fred. MT’s point is that it doesn’t matter what Che did, doesn’t matter how many murders he committed, doesn’t matter how many families he destroyed, doesn’t matter how many people he personally tortured and killed, because deep down he was A NICE GUY.
Bush on the other other hand, is NOT A NICE GUY, so what he does matters very much.

[fred_smith]

A real fighter in battle? You decide…So much for the claim that he fought in a battle, though I would certainly welcome ANY facts to the contrary…

[quote]"We will make our hearts cruel, hard, and immovable … we will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of thousands; let them drown themselves in their own blood! Let there be floods of the blood of the bourgeois

[fred_smith]

Though I might be tempted to get up the “urge” to read this new book," A Girl Like Che Guevara." A short description of the book follows.

[quote]Doval provides an intimate portrait of life inside Communist Cuba in this absorbing if uneven debut. It is January 1982: Che Guevara is a national icon; bread lines curl around Havana corners; and 16-year-old Lourdes Torres is leaving her sheltered urban existence, bound for a camp in the nationalized tobacco fields of the western province of Pinar del Rio. Despite receiving conflicting messages about life in Cuba

[Chewycorns]

And as this Observer article illustrates, Che was no friend of international journalism.

Rene Burri photographed Che in Havana in 1963, just months after the Cuban missile crisis. Che was being interviewed by an American woman from Look magazine. 'I was in his tiny office for three hours, the blinds closed throughout, and Che was pacing the room like a caged tiger. The interview was like a cockfight between Communism and capitalism, and he was strutting and angry, hectoring this woman, and chomping on his cigar. Suddenly, he looked straight at me and said, "So, you are with Magnum. If I catch up with your friend Andy, I’ll cut his throat", and he drew his finger slowly across his throat.’ Andy was Andrew St George, another Magnum photographer, who had travelled with Che in the Sierra Maestra, and then later filed reports for American intelligence. ‘Che was fired up that day’ says Burri, ‘and he was maybe a showman, but it scared the hell out of me. I knew then, this was a man who was not cut out to be a politician, he was a soldier and a killer.’

By 1965, Burri had been proven right, and Che, fed up with the difficulties of trying to make post-revolutionary Cuba work, left the island to pursue armed struggle elsewhere, convinced that he could be the catalyst for countless revolutions in Africa and Latin America.

'He had this Jack London-style attitude to revolution as one great big unending adventure, but none of the political maturity to deal with the practical realities of making the country work. He had this Castilian Spanish upper-class guilt about the working class and peasants that he never quite overcame. For all the noble impulses that drove him, and I think there were many, Che’s whole life could be read as a foredoomed attempt to leave his own class.

[fred_smith]

There can be little doubt that Che Guevara was not going to be even willing to give even a remote bit of tolerance to the idea of working with or even tolerating the Americans. Here are some excerpts from Che’s biography.

In journeys undertaken in 1951 and 1952, Guevara travels first in Argentina, where he meets the lepers at Cordoba, then heads west into Chile and then north through Peru, Colombia, Venezuela and onto Miami in the US, where he is turned back by the immigration authorities.

The arrogant, narcissistic, megalomaniac is turned back by US authorities!!! How dare they!!! I would argue that this is precisely when his hatred of America and Americans begin. He literally is THAT SHALLOW.

Guevara becomes Castro’s chief lieutenant and distinguishes himself as a resourceful and ruthless tactician capable of ordering the execution of traitors and waverers but also deeply concerned for the welfare of his troops.

This is very similar to other megalomaniacs. I will take care of you but destroy you if you cross me. It is like a petulant child bashing its dolly’s head in when she refuses to sit properly and drink tea.

[quote]He comes to believe in hatred as a potent revolutionary force. “Hatred (is) an element of the struggle,” he later writes in his ‘Message to the Tricontinental’.

“A relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us over and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to and transforming him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold killing machine. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy. We must carry the war into every corner the enemy happens to carry it: to his home, to his centres of entertainment; a total war.” [/quote]

Clearly, compromise is not an option. As soon as Che takes over power, there is not going to be a slow shift to Communism but a rapid implementation of harsh, oppressive policies, including executions.

[quote]The new revolutionary government quickly arrests and tries the ‘Batistianos’, the supporters of the Batista regime, for alleged atrocities committed during the dictator’s rule. As commander of the La Cabana Fortress in Havana, Guevara is closely involved in the trials. More than 500 civil and military officials from the former government are executed.

It is reported that Guevara takes a personal interest in the prosecutions of former members of Batista’s Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities. He is also involved in land reform and the reorganisation of the national army. [/quote]

Not surprisingly, Che immediately executes ruthless policies upon taking over. So much for dialogue. The unwitting partners (church, business) find out to their dismay that they have underestimated Che and Castro. The tragic results continue to haunt the country with the worst human rights record and some of the highest poverty rates in the Western Hemisphere today.

In August, ‘Time’ magazine publishes a cover story on Guevara, calling him “Castro’s brain”. “It is he who is most responsible for driving Cuba sharply left, away from the US that he despises and into a volunteered alliance with Russia,” the magazine states.

so it was planned all along and like the other lies about the US pushing Ho Chi Minh in the hands of the soviets is clearly refuted with some patient research into the facts.

Game. Set. Match!

moreorless.au.com/heroes/guevara.htm

[Mother_Theresa]

More childish taunts, insults and links to obviously biased, unsubsubstantiated, commie-hating sources. When I have the time later I intend to respond to the few valid questions that have been raised, but I’m sorry you guys are so filled with hatred that you must bury such questions in a mountain of trash.

I’ll pick through your insults and biased propaganda later in order to respond to your few legit questions. In the future, though, it might be easier if you would engage in sincere, civil discourse as Hobbes did, rather than simply trying to shout me out.

[Chewycorns]

@Mother Theresa

More childish taunts, insults and links to obviously biased, unsubsubstantiated, commie-hating sources.

I’ve never heard the Guardian described in that light.

[fred_smith]

Chewy:

You are onto something but not quite the right tack I think. I used to live in Argentina and have been traveling there for many many years. Che may have been from a good family but I believe that he grew up in straightened circumstances. No one is more arrogant than the Argentines (no one else has such good cause to be so!) and he was a spoiled, namby-pamby little brat who was the center of his coddling mother’s universe. Imagine the shock when he was dismissed or passed over by the rich grandees of that nation. It reminds me of the story of Hitler’s artist youth in Vienna where a rich Jew walked by and ignored or dismissed the self-important Hitler. I would argue that his megalomaniac personality was just as deeply offended and that the light slight grew into an incalculable offense. Hitler’s hatred of the Jews. Guevara’s hatred of the bourgeousie and Americans all based on a few nickle and dime slights that a normal person who have just shrugged off after exchanging a few heated words. This then is the hero of the left. Why Che was nothing more than a snooty French waiter at a second-rate restaurant with delusions of grandeur.

MT: Who is shouting? I am providing all the facts to challenge your claims regarding Che. Why does this bother you so? Why have you identified yourself so closely with Che? Look at the man. Look at what he did. Look at the consequences of his policies. Look to see where he was successful. Look where he failed. Then balance it out.

How many lives lost at what cost versus what success?

I think that any thinking person can only conclude that Che was a monstrous failure.

[Mother_Theresa]

Fred, I don’t have time to counter all the lies that you’ve posted, but here’s an especially ludicrous one, though your posts are littered with other falsehoods.

@fred smith

He never even fought in a battle

@fred smith

Which battle did Che fight in?

@fred smith

A real fighter in battle? You decide…So much for the claim that he fought in a battle [before posting a link to an absurd rant from newsmax.com that claims, “the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood never reached Guevara’s nostril from actual combat. . . in actual combat, his imbecilities defy belief.”]

Professor Jorge Castaneda wrote in Companero. . .

The first combat of the revolution broke out on December 5 in Alegria de Pio. Che was caught in a burst of machine gun fire, receiving a flesh wound in the neck . . .

p 99

During his second combat, at a place aptly named Hell’s Ravine, he killed his first enemy.

p101

A first sign of Che’s changing fortunes occurred in mid-May of 1957 when, upon the arrival of an arms shipment, Castro assigned to Guevara one of the four heavy machine guns.

p103

The battle of Uvero on May 28, 1957, marked the Rebel Army’s coming of age. In it, Che attained a military rank in accordance with his talent, bravery and responsibility. As Pombo recalled many years later, “He was a man who liked to take the lead in combat, to set an example; he would never say, go and fight, but rather, follow me into combat.” Though assigned a precise and limited task in the assault, in Castro’s words, “Che asked for three or four men and in a matter of moments started out to launch an attack from that direction.” He stood out not only in battle, but in tending to the wounded among both his men and the enemy’s."

p104

Thanks to his bravery and tenacity, Che was promoted to comandante on July 21, 1957. . . Guevara led several battles of varying importance, during the following months: at El Bueycito in July, El Hombrito at the end of August, Pino del Agau in early September. . . in December 1957, after one year in the Sierra, Che was wounded in the foot during a battle in the Altos de Conrado.

p105

Che embarked on his mission on August 31 with 148 men. During forty-six days they would endure all the hardships of isolation in a tropical climate: hunger, thirst, mosquitos, cyclones and floodwaters, unsafe roads and continual harassment by Batista’s army. They marched over 300 kilometers, suffered through swamps, torrents, and constant privation. . . their tribulations soon became the stuff of legend.

p121

[quote]Military victories followed one another in quick succession. . . Batista’s troops were openly demoralized, less willing to fight with each passing day. His soldiers surrendered even when they had the military advantage; they sensed how the civilian population was increasingly hostile to them and sympathetic to the rebels. Che’s column’s relentless advance led him to conceive and prepare the assault on Santa Clara. . . It would witness the greatest battle of the war, sounding the death knell of Batista’s dictatorship and consecrating Che Guevara as a revolutionary hero and military strategist.

The principal barracks of Santa Clara housed over 2,500 soldiers and ten tanks. Another thousand troops were stationed on the city outskirts. Guevara launched his attack with 300 men – most of them exhausted, undernourished and inexperienced. He was informed, in addition, that enemy reinforcements were on their way from Havana by rail. The armored train, which would become part of the Guevara legend, consisted of two locomotives and nineteen cars; it carried fourteen machine guns and 400 well-equipped soldiers.

. . . the tracks had been removed the day before. What followed was a spectacular derailment. Three of the cars fell off the track, overturning immediately; the others were pounded by rebel fire. . . They soon begged for a truce and negotiated their surrender to Che that afternoon. . . It was the largest seizure of enemy weapons of the entire war. Almost 400 soldiers were taken prisoner.[/quote]
pp 134-5

If you really want to understand Che, I recommend that you read a scholarly, well-documented text such as Companero rather than relying on the biased rants full of insults and lies that you run across in your Google searches.

[Mother_Theresa]

What a coincidence. George Bush likes dogs too and his grandfather did business with the Nazis. But all of that is irrelevant and, like Fred, you are merely inserting OT inflamatory matter into this thread in order to divert the discussion. Oh well.

Look, here’s my main point: contrary to what Fred claims, I do not idolize Che. He is not my hero. But nor do I want to simply regurgitate a bunch of unsubstantiated lies, rumors and insults that are floating around the Internet, as so many of you are content to do. Instead, I decided to read a serious book to get a more accurate understanding of the truth. Not surprisingly, I discovered the truth is lot more complex than the simple-minded insults being tossed about and Che was not pure evil as many of you claim.

Regardless of how you feel about him now, I highly recommend that you do the same. It’s ironic that many of you have mocked people who have no understanding of who Che was but wear his shirts because they think it’s cool, when you are doing the exact same thing but on the other side – blindly signing on to the cool new anti-Che chic and parrotting the insults and lies without any interest in getting to know the facts. Are you really content to simply pull crap off of google that will support your preconceived hatred and bias or would you rather try to understand the truth? I suggest you try the latter; Che is the fascinating subject for a bio and if you’re so correct about how evil he was your reading will give you specifics to back up your hatred.

Otherwise, as I clearly demonstrated above, many of the accusations being tossed about (such as Fred’s claim that he never fought in battle) are completely false and your failure to read a book on the subject, or engage in honest, open discussion, will keep you mired in ignorance (which may be what you want).

[politbureau]

I don’t doubt the true Che Guevara differs from his black/white public personas and wouldn’t worry too much about Fred’s bull-horn demagoguery if I were you.

The essential problem though is Che-admiration unavoidably implies homage of his major life’s work: the repressive Cuban police state. Put another way ‘you can tell a tree best by its fruit.’

[Comrade_Stalin]

@Mother Theresa

But all of that is irrelevant…blah blah blah

Sure MT, whatever you say.

[quote]American General: Try one of these Jamaican cigars, ambassador, they’re pretty good.

Soviet Ambassador DeSadeski: Thank you, no. I do not support the work of imperialist stooges.

American General: Oh, only commie stooges, huh?[/quote]

• From Dr. Strangelove

visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html

[Mother_Theresa]

That’s a funny line, CS, but it doesn’t fit at all in this case. Che was far from a commie stooge. He was highly critical of the Soviets and angered them with public remarks that he made about them. That caused serious strain in the relations between Fidel and Che, led to a curtailment of Che’s responsibilities leading the Cuban government and was a large part of the reason why he went off to fight in Congo.

[fred_smith]

My problem with this is that so many posters on this forum attribute every evil under the sun to someone like George Bush and have nothing but excuses and need to understand that… blah blah blah statements for some little thug like Che Guevera.

Also, about those battles… I stand with the article in Newsmax. Why? Let’s take a look at what some of those “battles” were like…

[quote]On January 14, 1957 they came across the La Plata army barracks. They staked out the barracks and at nightfall on the 16th the Rebel Army crossed the shallow La Plata river and took two peasants `into custody’. Reassured that they would come to no harm they told the rebels that there were only about 15 soldiers in the barracks and that one of the region’s most notorious foreman was about to ride by. ‘Shortly afterward, Chicho showed up, astride a mule, with a little black boy riding “double”. Chicho was drunk. Universo Sanchez gave him an order to halt in the name of the Rural Guards and immediately Chicho replied: “Mosquito”. That was the password. We must have looked like a bunch of pirates, but Chicho Osorio was so drunk we were able to fool him. Fidel stepped forward and, looking very indignant, said he was an army colonel who had come to find out why the rebels had not yet been wiped out…Sheepishly, Chicho Osorio admitted that the guards spent all their time inside the barracks, eating and doing nothing…He told us how he had killed two men…Fidel asked Osorio what he would do if he ever caught Fidel Castro and Osorio, with a very expressive gesture, replied “We’ll have to cut his____ off…Look,” he said, showing us his shoes…“these shoes belonged to one of those sons of _____ we killed.”…he agreed to accompany us to the barracks in order to surprise the soldiers and prove to them they were badly prepared and were neglecting their duties.’ (ibid)

They had 22 weapons for the attack. They were so short of ammunition that if they failed to take the barracks they would have been left defenceless. The rebels’ Brazilian hand grenades failed to go off and they had to risk their lives by approaching close to the barracks to set the houses on fire. After initial resistance the rebels took the barracks with no casualties on their side. They freed all the prisoners and armed with the weapons they had captured started for Palma Mocha and from there they sought out the most inaccessible zones of the Sierra Maestra[/quote]

rcgfrfi.easynet.co.uk/ratb/cuba/history4.htm