Anyone Read Any Good Books on Che Guevera Recently?

[fred_smith]

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.

So how would this differ from a group of gangsters running from the law after robbing a bank? The only reason that it is the stuff of legend is because it was deliberately made into one by communist propaganda machines. In fact, most of Cuba was so fed up with Batista that they were ready for anyone else. The Army included. Most of these “battles” involve no fighting to light resistance among lazy demoralized soldiers who just surrender. Throughout the “campaign” we have a series of shoot outs followed by the surrender of hundreds of Batista soldiers.

Does anyone have any figures on just how many died on each side? What the casualties were? If so, I would be willing to re-examine my support for the Newsmax statement. Otherwise, I would tend to agree with that author that shoot outs between gangs like the Bloods and Crips have probably been fiercer? Do those count as battles too?

[Chewycorns]

netforcuba.org/Columnists/MTorres/Devil.htm

The first instrument taken by Castro in his campaign has always been Jose Marti, Cuba’s national hero who opposed the Spanish rule through his writing and in action. Marti was declared by Castro as the intellectual author of his actions, policies and measures. Everyone knows that Jose Marti always wanted liberty for Cuba and if he were alive he would have died again fighting against the dictator.

One real legendary figure for the Cuban people was Camilo Cienfuegos, a man who really signified and represented that perfect society the Cubans were looking for when they welcomed Castro. Camilo was a man from the people; he was in charge, like Che, of one of the guerrilla fronts in the war against Fulgencio Batista and sometimes it seemed as if the people preferred Camilo as a leader rather than the very Fidel. After the triumph of the system, several military officers from the Revolutionary Army showed different ideas from the ones they were already suspecting Castro had and Castro gave the order of arresting them.

One of these officers was Commander Huber Matos, now in US exile after years in jail for showing anti-communist ideas. Matos was in the city of Camaguey and Commander Camilo Cienfuegos was sent there to arrest him. The popular leader never returned from Camaguey. He disappeared and Castro later said that his plane had fallen into the sea but never were any remains found. It seems that Castro killed two birds with one shot in another of his evil moves against anyone, no matter who, had ideas other than his own. Ironically, year after year later he made the people throw flowers into the sea on the day of his mysterious disappearance. Many Cubans are sure that Camilo alive would not have allowed Castro to carry Cuba to these conditions or would have anyhow died.

[Mother_Theresa]

Fred, I know you’re just trying to add humor to the situation in light of having been proved so decisively wrong, and that’s fine, I’m in good spirits and I understand that you relied in good faith on an Internet source not knowing it was false. I’ve got no ill will against you; I just wish you would read a real book about the subject instead of relying on false, hate-filled Internet rumors.

If you want to read about an impressive battle, read about how Che and his troops captured the army barracks at Santa Clara. As I noted above, those barracks housed over over 2,500 soldiers and ten tanks, another thousand troops were stationed on the city outskirts, and reinforcements were on the way in a train carrying 400 well-equipped soldiers, 14 machine guns and loads of other weapons. Yet Che’s men took them on with just 300 men, and prevailed. Regardless of how one feels about his politics or other matters, that’s a remarkable feat of courage and military prowess.

Moreover, Che and Fidel didn’t just win a few battles. They won the war. They raised the men and arms sufficient to defeat a military government and take control of the country. When you and others say “Che is a total failure, what did he ever accomplish,” there is your answer. He and Fidel were a fantastic success in overthrowing the Batista regime. You may not like the government that followed, but there is no question that accomplishment was a huge success. Could you pull together the resources and overthrow a government? Somehow I doubt it.

[fred_smith]

Actually, while I am still not too impressed with Che or the “battles” that he fought in, I am going to concede that I was wrong to say that he had never fought in any battles. I am not going to pull a MFGR and then get into the definition of what a battle is or is not.

MT: Your point is therefore taken. I said that he had never fought in any battles, your post proved that I was wrong to make this assertion so score one for you. I conceded that I was wrong to say Che had never fought in any battles.

[Comrade_Stalin]

Isn’t Jorge Castaneda just another Communist?

[fred_smith]

Fred, I know you’re just trying to add humor to the situation in light of having been proved so decisively wrong, and that’s fine, I’m in good spirits and I understand that you relied in good faith on an Internet source not knowing it was false. I’ve got no ill will against you; I just wish you would read a real book about the subject instead of relying on false, hate-filled Internet rumors.

I conceded that I was wrong about Che never having fought in any battles. I should have phrased my words more carefully. This was not even the point of the Newsmax article and I overstated it. That said, I am still not too impressed with most of these “battles,” however I am not going to let the definition of such make a MFGR out of me. As far as I am concerned you proved my point wrong and I admit it.

If you want to read about an impressive battle, read about how Che and his troops captured the army barracks at Santa Clara. As I noted above, those barracks housed over over 2,500 soldiers and ten tanks, another thousand troops were stationed on the city outskirts, and reinforcements were on the way in a train carrying 400 well-equipped soldiers, 14 machine guns and loads of other weapons. Yet Che’s men took them on with just 300 men, and prevailed. Regardless of how one feels about his politics or other matters, that’s a remarkable feat of courage and military prowess.

Yes, I have read about this battle. The train was derailed, the soldiers inside gave up quickly. Those in the barracks also gave up after the train that was supposed to reinforce them was taken out. Again, most of the morale among these troops was very low. What were the actual figures on killed and wounded in this “battle?” And please separate out any deaths and injured from the train wreck. I would like if possible to know how many of these 2,500 and 400 soldiers respectively were actively fighting. Do you see where I am going with this? I am implying though I do not have the numbers yet, that this great battle was in fact pretty much a case of demoralized soldiers giving in pretty quickly rather than fighting it out. I may be wrong but I would like to see those numbers first.

[quote]
Moreover, Che and Fidel didn’t just win a few battles. They won the war. They raised the men and arms sufficient to defeat a military government and take control of the country. [/quote]

Fair enough.

When you and others say “Che is a total failure, what did he ever accomplish,” there is your answer.

Point made.

He and Fidel were a fantastic success in overthrowing the Batista regime.

Hmmm will accept with qualifications. Most of the population was against Batista, but yet, Fidel was the one heading up the military forces that overthrew him.

You may not like the government that followed, but there is no question that accomplishment was a huge success. Could you pull together the resources and overthrow a government? Somehow I doubt it.

Yes, you are absolutely right. I hate the government that followed. Would you list the Cuban Revolution as an accomplishment? In the end, was this a “win?” That really is the crux of the matter.

I too could admire Hitler and Stalin and even Mao for their successes but would I say that their systems were “wins?” I know but what would you say?

Also my one key point about all this is still that I find it incredible that you can find so many excuses and ready answers to look at this man and his many evil deeds with compassion. You find him admirable in so many ways. Do you also find Jesse James? Billy the Kid? Al Capone? admirable? handsome? charismatic? Popular? Nice to children and small animals? It is this willingness to see the good in this man and balance out his good and bad deeds that amazes me more than anything. Will you now be willing to do the same for someone who has delivered so much good to the world? Will you re-examine your harsh, blanket condemnations of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan?

[Mother_Theresa]

Before we go any further I want to bask in this historic moment.

@fred smith

I conceded that I was wrong . . . I should have phrased my words more carefully. . . I overstated it. . . you proved my point wrong and I admit it.

@fred smith

Fair enough.

@fred smith

Point made.

@fred smith

will accept with qualifications.

@fred smith

Yes, you are absolutely right.

Ah. . .

I really ought to retire from Forumosa at this point, but. . .

In response to your primary questions, do I consider it a win that the rebels ousted the Batista regime and took control of the country? Absolutely. They planned, prepared, organized and set about to accomplish that far-fetched goal and they succeeded. It was a military success. It was the accomplishment of an extremely difficult objective and it is unreasonable to say they failed in that task because you do not like the government that followed. The creation and administration of the new government was the next goal.

In some ways one could even say they succeeded in that next goal – after all, that government is still in power 50 years later. I realize you would not deem longevity of the new regime sufficient to call it a success, prefering to look at other criteria, such as strength of the economy and rights of the citizens and I agree, those probably should be considered when judging whether the new government is/was a success.

And I can understand how you would then deem Cuba’s government a failure (even though Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the US), but, on the other hand, we can never know what might have happened if the rebels had never prevailed. Perhaps Batista’s regime might have endured to the present and exacted far worse hardships, brutality and oppression on the people. By comparison to that hypothetical situation Fidel’s Cuba might be deemed an obvious success. All things are relative. You don’t like Fidel’s Cuba, but we don’t know what alternative future the country might have had, so one can’t honestly say whether it was good or bad that they prevailed.

Also my one key point about all this is still that I find it incredible that you can find so many excuses and ready answers to look at this man and his many evil deeds with compassion. . . . Will you re-examine your harsh, blanket condemnations of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan?

First, I would need to know what evil deeds by Che you are talking about. As we learned, the Internet (and the real world) is rife with angry people who hate Fidel and Che (perhaps as a result of real injustices they suffered in Cuba, perhaps due to an intense hatred of communism, etc.) and will make all kinds of false statements to defame them. I won’t accept unsubstantiated uncredible claims, but I will accept credible, substantiated ones as true.

Second, it’s not that I “make excuses” for his alleged evil deeds, it’s that I’m trying to understand his motivations – based on the state of the world and his knowledge at that time. As I said before, it’s not fair to judge his favorable attitude towards communism from a 2005 perspective. We’ve learned a lot over the past 50 years about the effect of communism in the USSR, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc. He didn’t have the advantage of that knowledge. One also should view his actions from the perspective of a Latin American citizen of that time who had witnessed the corruption, oppression and injustices meted out by US companies and US-supported regimes in the region and was looking for an alternative for the people. While one can criticize actions by Che and Fidel, if one views their actions from the only perspective available to them (as just described) I think they were far less horific than you and others have claimed.

As for Bush and Reagan, I will concede that they both seem/ed like likable guys (as persons, not presidents), and I concede that for the most part they both sincerely believe/d that they are/were acting in the best interests of the country and the world, but I still dislike most of the major policies of both of them and I still feel Bush is not very honest. But I forgive them for their evil deeds, because I recognize that they are/were trying their best with what God gave to them.

Group hug? :hubba:

[fred_smith]

And I can understand how you would then deem Cuba’s government a failure (even though Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the US),

Actually no one really knows that. One of the myths constantly trotted out is that Cuba and Nicaragua (Sandinistas) had higher literacy rates and better medical care but we only have the Cuban and Sandinista government records and statistics to go one and those were…

but, on the other hand, we can never know what might have happened if the rebels had never prevailed.

Actually, Cuba was one of the richer, more literate countries in Latin America. I would therefore expect that without Castro, we could be looking at something like Costa Rica? Mexico? Chile? Colombia? Now, I mean economic and standard of living.

Perhaps Batista’s regime might have endured to the present and exacted far worse hardships, brutality and oppression on the people.

I would not say that Batista’s regime was particularly bad by Latin American standards at the time. He was no development giant though.

By comparison to that hypothetical situation Fidel’s Cuba might be deemed an obvious success.

Economically, politically, socially or culturally, can Castro’s Cuba be labeled a success?

All things are relative.

No, actually they are not. Cuba under Castro is not the moral equivalent of the US under Bush or even Cuba under Batista. It is in fact worse.

You don’t like Fidel’s Cuba,

That’s the truth. My great aunt actually lived in Cuba pre-Castro for many years.

but we don’t know what alternative future the country might have had, so one can’t honestly say whether it was good or bad that they prevailed.

Yes, actually we can. We can compare Vietnam under communism with Thailand for example. We can compare Cuba with Costa Rica. We can compare Cuba with Mexico. I think that we can say that Castro’s Cuba is a record of failure.

First, I would need to know what evil deeds by Che you are talking about. As we learned, the Internet (and the real world) is rife with angry people who hate Fidel and Che (perhaps as a result of real injustices they suffered in Cuba, perhaps due to an intense hatred of communism, etc.) and will make all kinds of false statements to defame them. I won’t accept unsubstantiated uncredible claims, but I will accept credible, substantiated ones as true.

The record on Che’s executions is not in doubt. You are not challenging those figures are you? Also it was primarily me not the Newsmax article that overstated the claim that Che NEVER fought in any battles. The article compared these small engagements with Crips and Bloods gang battles. I wrongly overstated this to say no battles but that does not change the factual accuracy of the rest of the information posted. He did execute hundreds and maybe even thousands PERSONALLY.

Second, it’s not that I “make excuses” for his alleged evil deeds, it’s that I’m trying to understand his motivations – based on the state of the world and his knowledge at that time. As I said before, it’s not fair to judge his favorable attitude towards communism from a 2005 perspective.

But you are making excuses for his behavior which is far worse than anything that any American president has done. I want to know why you are so much more amenable to understanding his motivations rather than say Nixon’s in Vietnam, Reagan’s in the Cold War and Bush’s in the Middle East.

We’ve learned a lot over the 50 years about the effect of communism in the USSR, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.

So you now agree that Communism is a failed system and those who espouse its tenets are morally wrong?

He didn’t have the advantage of that knowledge. One also should view his actions from the perspective of a Latin American citizen of that time who had witnessed the corruption, oppression and injustices meted out by US companies and US-supported regimes in the region and was looking for an alternative for the people.

Point taken.

While one can criticize actions by Che and Fidel, if one views there actions of 50 years ago from that perspective I think they were far less horific than you and others have claimed.

An execution is an execution and 60,000 to 80,000 political prisoners and the worst human rights record in Latin America is not open to “interpretation” or historical revisionism. Do you think that it is?

As for Bush and Reagan, I will concede that they both seem/ed like likable guys (as persons, not presidents), and I concede that for the most part they both sincerely believe/d that they are/were acting in the best interests of the country and the world,

So you do not believe that Bush or Reagan acted in the best interests of the world? This is not about them being likeable. This is about them being resolute and pushing through unpopular policies that in hindsight were proved right. Clinton was likeable but what did he ever do. This is not the quality that I want or value most in an American president. I don’t want someone to like. I want someone to deliver the goods. To me, Carter was a disaster though no doubt very “nice” and Clinton was no doubt very charismatic and “nice” but too lazy and irresolute to take the necessary action required of a decisive American leader. I see Reagan, Bush and even Nixon being the opposite of this.

but I still dislike most of the major policies of both of them

Which policies?

and I still feel Bush is not very honest.

But do you have any substantial evidence or reason to believe that he is not honest?

But I forgive them for their evil deeds, because I recognize that they are/were trying their best with what God gave to them.

What were their evil deeds and what do you need to forgive them for?

[Chewycorns]

This Che shirt is pretty cool

[fred_smith]

Where can I buy it?

fred

[Chewycorns]

thoseshirts.com/

[Shenme_Niao]

Looking at the picture and articles here,
maddox.xmission.com/
I see that Che Guevara has re-incarnated.
Viva la Revolution!

[/img]

[TainanCowboy]

- <-- a link

Che Guevara gave his life fighting for worker’s rights in a country that was not even his own.
Today his legacy is revered by communist ideologues from Beijing to Berkeley.

Liberace was a late-capitalist nightmare of excess and bad taste.
He fought tirelessly for the rights of closeted homosexuals everywhere, insisting till the bitter
end that gay people CAN live happily ever after and be just as FABULOUS as they wanna be,
INSIDE their spacious, well-appointed closets.

And now you too can help spread the inspirational message of the Rhinestone Revolution with your
very own Liberache shwag! Imagine the looks on your comrades’ faces when you show up to the meeting
in a fabulous Liberache t-shirt! Liven up those fascist street signs with Liberache stickers!
And Liberache shwag makes a great gift for that budding young revolutionary who insists on taking
it all too seriously. You know the one…

Help your friends find liberation with the Rhinestone Revolution!
The revolution will be satirized!

[TainanCowboy]

New pictures found