Talk:Bay of Pigs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cuba Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles of Cuba on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.

Facts. I wonder about facts. This article (currently) says that Kennedy approved the Bay of Pigs invasion. Yet another source (it doesn't particularly matter where) discusses how the C.I.A. had the plans underway when Kennedy took office, worried that he would cancel it if he knew, and therefore decided to present him with a fait accomplit. He was only notified at the last moment when the invasion needed air support, and chose not to give it.

That seems unreasonable. Although, Kennedy did say out loud that he would "scatter the agency to the four winds", a bit before he was assassinated. He must have been mad at them about *something*. More likely though this is one of those stories that tried to clean up Kennedy by stating he was against anything that later proved unpopular, like Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, when in fact there's no historical evidence he really disapproved of either project, and these claims show up only in the late 60s from friendly biographers.

Which is all very nice, but where's the evidence? On the table, it is clear from everything I've seen about the Bay of Pigs that it could easily have gone unreported to the president; it was a small operation done almost entriely within the Agency (no military involvement, etc.). It happened three months after he was sworn in. Quote:

President Kennedy had been in office just three months when the invasion took place. The report argued that he might not have fully grasped the details of the raid, because the CIA did not fully explain them. "Detailed policy authorization for some specific actions was either never fully clarified or only resolved at the 11th hour," it said. "Even the central decision as to whether to employ the strike force was still somewhat in doubt up to the very moment of embarkation."

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ciabay.htm the librarian

On the one hand, if a record of the executive order were available, it would ease my mind to have it on hand to refer to. On the other hand, I don't want to clutter up every article with an infinity of references.

Nor should you. That's what talk pages are for.

The whole “Cuban Exile” thing deserves a colour article of its own, since so many of them fled Cuba to flee jail time and are of low status back home.

My primary concern has to do with the re-writing of history by victors. A normal encyclopaedia is heavily influenced by social pressure to produce an unobjectionable work.

This one too. Note Talk:Bush League.

The encyclopaedia which describes Jesus Christ as a mythological figure derived from the Sumerian Tumuzu would have a short shelf life in the United States.

Or as a Jewish Osiris. Hm.

Microsoft's Encarta, with its regionally differentiated “facts” (e.g. the inventor of the telephone) is representative. While the wikipedia has a more global scope, it could be subject to even more intense normalization pressures.

That could be good. But not if most authors are still Americans.

Uh, the American version of the invention of the telephone is widely considered to be the false one. And that's not even considering Innocenzo Manzetti.

While the version of the Bay of Pigs presented shows all parties behaving reasonably, it is more likely considering the progress of the disaster that something sinister was actually in motion. I'm thinking an entry like: “Bay of Pigs: conspiracy theories” that considered and debunked them would be useful.the librarian

Here's a factual question: were the two ships that landed really code-named "Houston" and "Barbara"? If so that fingers yet another important figure... and yes there was a George Bush in the CIA at the time. Two of them. One was a researcher who never got anywhere near cover ops. The other? Guess who...

I thought there was a third ship named "Zapata". the librarian

The victor was Castro. I don't believe he wrote the article. This topic could use a lot of work. The article is far too skimpy, but no matter how much is added, I can't imagine the US will ever look good in it, or the Cuban exiles for that matter. Anyone who knows anything about land-sea-air invasions could have told them the plan was hopeless. I don't know what you're worried about. Do the research and add to the article. Ortolan88

Interestingly, there is a record of a meeting from late January, 1961 http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/baypig3.htm that shows possibly that the CIA had not yet come clean with him, or perhaps only not with the other departments. Plans for an invasion were "ready", there's no indication of "We've already spent $40million (1960 dollars!) preparing it." the librarian

[edit] Location of Discussion

I deleted wholly-unsupported text, and restored the link to Bay of Pigs Invasion. And I believe that that is where the debate over what happened belongs. Simesa 00:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)