====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
>From my not all-inclusive knowledge on the subject, the USSR, by the >mid-Sxties, was becoming increasingly preoccupied wih the unpredictability of >the Castro regime. Supposedly, in 1967, Castro was even warned by the >Soviets that if he did not begin to adhere more closely to Soviet >interests/alignments, they were prepared to "abandon" him to the US. The Soviet's concern about Cuba during this period primarily involved the Cuban policy of export of the revolution, the increasingly unpredictable behaviour of Che, the case of Anibal Escalante and his "microfactionalism", and aactive attempts by China in the mid-Sixties to woo Cuba toward the Sino "line". There was also the problem that the "official" (pro-Moscow) communist parties in Latin America generally were not in favor of the policy of exporting revolution, nor of the flamboyant behaviour of Che. Presumably it was due to this pressure from the Soviets, that Castro, at the time of the crushing of "Prague Spring", made a significant change in policy, abandoning the "romantic" revolutionary outlook that had characterized Cuba up to that point, , in favor of becoming a more obedient, "reliable" member of the Soviet camp, a stance that did not change until Gorbachev and "glasnost". Mike G. El pueblo armado jamas sera aplastado! ________________________________ From: Louis Thiemann <kiw...@gmail.com> To: Mr. Goodman <godisamethod...@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, July 8, 2012 12:59 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Sam Farber and Cuba ====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ====================================================================== So here the same piece of information in a better-formulated manner: "If we'd won on that 26 July 1953, we wouldn't be here today. The alignment of forces in the world in 1953 was such that we wouldn't have been able to withstand them. Stalin had just died and the troika that succeeded him would never have given Cuba the support that Khrushchev did, let's say, seven years later, when the Soviet Union didn't, perhaps, equal the United States but did at least have great economic and military power" (on p.583 of the autobiography-interview with Ignacio Ramonet, *My Life*). The Cubans were using the weapons that had arrived from the USSR at Playa Giron. Castro arrived in the morning of the 18th, and spent most of the next two days commanding a number of T-34 tanks. There is a good chance that these tanks also ran on Soviet fuel, which had begun to arrive earlier that year. I am saying that much of the material the Cubans were fighting with came from the USSR. Naturally, they never expected a military intervention of the USSR. As to your second paragraph: We can discuss the history if you like. I wish you were more focused on facts. 'Stalinization' is not a technical concept I recognize - define it, give some statistics, and we will see what it's worth. About the Prague Spring and the circumstances that lead Cuba to say it went too far - after applauding in its early stage: I know much to little on that subject, excuse that I will remain quiet. ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/godisamethodist%40yahoo.com ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
