Talk:Bay of Pigs Invasion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is the current Military history WikiProject Collaboration of the Fortnight!
Please read the nomination text and help us improve this article to featured article standard.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:Cuba
 Cuba Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of Top priority within the scope of Wikiproject Cuba.
Cuba To-do:

An event on this page is a April 17 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

Contents

[edit] Vandalism

"(also known in Cuba as the raping of your mother, after a beach in the Bay of Pigs where the landing took place)"

Revert?

Done. --Recnilgiarc 01:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Is this page just duplicating the content at Bay of Pigs?

No, it is content that was removed from Bay of Pigs (and thus separated from the talk page discussion of the invasion) and placed here for no apparent reason. Lacking any justification, I think I will give 24 hours notice and then move it back. Ortolan88 17:35 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

See National Security Archives site for concrete documentation.

If you have a good library find Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963 Volume X, Cuba 1961-1962. Published by the State Department. You may also be able to find it on the State Department's web site.

[edit] Cleanup requested

Since edit from Kelly Martin the article got both vandalized (wikilinks, external links removed) and updated (fallout of the invasion). It still contains words like "Phigs". Could someone take look and do cleanup? Thanks. Pavel Vozenilek 19:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Davenbelle

aside from reverting disputable issues, this user has overturned perfectly legit changes in the grammatical structure. i think you need to go revert someone else's edits for a while Dav, considering that's all you've been doing with mine for the past three months. J. Parker Stone 06:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right that some of your edits are perfectly fine, but some are questionable or unimportant, some pov and some even plain wrong. Also, it's not a good idea to just throw out text without an explanation. It's true that it isn't fair that all your changes are reverted (not just Davenbelle in this case, also Ruy Lopez). I suppose the reason is previous experience with your edits. But, like I said elsewhere, if you're 'changing your ways' then you deserve a second chance (call me a weak lefty (which I'm not), but I truly believe in second chances). It would be nice if the others were more specific in their reverts, so you can see which edits are considered acceptable (by them, at least). I've given that a try. Some issues:
It seems to make more sense to spell the U.S. as US or USA. I'd say that's standard; you also write 'USSR' and 'laser'. By the way, why is the article on the country not titled 'United States of America'?
How the invasion led to the Cuban Missile Crisis was presented a bit strange. That was indirect; the US attitude pushed Cuba in the hands of the USSR.
I don't think Castro's rhetoric against the US had much to do with the popular support he received (prior to the invasion anyway). That, and the previous and later 'escapes' to the US all had to do with economics (especially in the early 1990's); but at this moment people (those who had stayed) were better off, so why would they support an invasion led by a country that had supported their previous oppressor?
DirkvdM 12:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
My problems: U.S.-backed. This is essentially true (like i said it was true for any non-leftist government back then) but the fact is we had cut off military aid to Batista in 1958, and were hoping for a new government that would neither be communist or embarass us in the way Batista had. Then, you say that the U.S. "pushed Cuba into the USSR's arms." That's a legitimate viewpoint, but it's also a POV one. Maybe he wasn't socialist, but Castro was anti-American from the getgo -- we tried to negotiate with him and he'd just go off and make a fiery speech about U.S. imperialism in Havana. And the revolution started to take an undemocratic bent rather quickly -- see Huber Matos for example, and let's remember that Raul and especially Che were always especially into Marxism. My point is, the article should remain neutral on this point. It should not say the U.S. pushed Castro into the USSR's arms any more than it should say Castro was looking to establish a Soviet-style state since his first revolt in 1953. J. Parker Stone 06:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
You say we. Take care not to choose sides. (funny, you also make a point about neutrality :) ). But to the issues. The relevance of the (previous) US backing is that that (and other US involvements in Latin America) made Castro anti-US. Maybe that point should be made clearer. And the relevance of Castro being pushed into the hands of the USSR is that that led to the Cuban missile crisis, the next confrontation between Cuba and the US (well, really between the US and the USSR). And when Castro first started to lean towards the USSR can not be established, but if it happened years before his 'invasion', then would he not have asked the USSR for help then? DirkvdM 09:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


No if Castro has said he was a communist, this would have raised much trouble since the overt Cuban Communist Party (Partido Socialista Popular), not only supported Batista up to within six months of his defeat, but had low membership and an extremely bad reputation for devious activities such as killing members of its own party e.g. Julio Antonio Mella (see also Vittorio Vidali) and Sandalio Junco, and endless unsavory zig-zags in policy. El Jigüe 12-27-05


And also the concurrent Hungarian rising. As to the Cuban people being better off under Castro, it is quite clear now that they were not and nor would they be in the future, however, then for many propaganda and greed overrode common sense. El Jigüe 12-28-05

[edit] B-26s shot down?

In the book that I am reading now (Derek Leebaert's The Fifty Year Wound), he talks about two US planes being shot down, but I didn't see this mentioned in the article.

As would be officially denied for seventeen years, CIA pilots also had perished during the invasion. Two unprotected, unmarked B-26s were shot down because no one on the CIA operations staff remembered that Nicaragua, whence they departed, is in the central time zone, whereas Cuba is in the eastern zon.

Can anyone back up this information with another source so I can insert it into the article?

This may be a confused reference to the B-26 flown by Arkansas National Guard pilots e.g. [1] El Jigüe 12-27-05

[edit] B-26's at the Bay of Pigs

For details regarding the air battle at the Bay of Pigs, please reference "Operation Puma" by Capt. Eduardo Ferrer. Ferrer's 1976 account of the events at the Bay of Pigs provides valuable details all too often summarized in incomplete or half true statements regarding aerial operations during the invasion.

As for the number of aircraft shot down. The number, was closer to 4.

As to where the aircraft came from. The aircraft and advisors were procured from the Alabama Air National Guard.

Please standby for further contributions to this article.


[edit] Role of William Wieland

The role of high level State Department official William Wieland seems to have been critical.


William Wieland (aka Arturo Montenegro), was involved in the rise to power of Batista in 1933m and who would later appear on the scenes of the Bogotazo [2] and then was involved in the failure of the Bay of Pigs [3] when he had reached the level of Director of Middle American Affairs of the US State Department, then lobbying for the 1958 embargo on weapons for Batista [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. makes his diplomatic debut at this time as aide to Sumner Welles. Wieland is considered have a left of center record in Latin American matters [9]. Some sources (citing 245:6572 "State Department Security: The Case of William Wieland", 1962; 245:6573 State Department Security: Testimony of William Wieland", 1962; 245:6574 "State Department Security - 1963-65: The Wieland Case Updated", 1963-1965 [10]) report that in the 1930s William Wieland, known in Cuba as Arturo Montenegro, was intimate with Sumner Welles and his successor, Jefferson Caffery, thus promoting his successful career [11].

Trying to get more info, however, the topic William Wieland seems worthy of a little stub. el Jigüe 1/17/06


these references might also be of use:

Gill, William J 1969 The ordeal of Otto Otepka. Arlington House. ISBN 0870000543

Morrison, Fred 1965 The Otto F. Otepka case: Broadcasts on Three-star extra, "the newspaper of the air." ASIN B0007FVOLW el Jigüe 1/17/06


[edit] Nonsense

The idea that the Castro forces only had few armed sports planes at the Bay of Pigs Invasion (once in the International Law section) is absurd. This kind of misinformation denies any credibility to the author. The matter was corrected. There is a comment on one revision questioning the 1,500 estimate of militia killed in this action. Quite the contrary this is a low estimate some other figures run as high as 5,000. El Jigüe 1-27-06

[edit] Completely Neutral?

Reading this over, it seems as if there is a slight controversy between whos fault the Bay of Pigs invasion actually was. But there is no section which states this, and the blame seems to go all to the Kennedy administration, and there are a handful of times where the invasion is called a shameful debacle of the Kennedy administration and so forth...

[edit] Kennedy's role

The text blames Kennedy for the failure of this operation: "under Kennedy's orders critical details were changed that removed any chance of success of the mission without US help." It goes on to say that Kennedy changed the area chosen for the beach assault. I've never heard this before from anyone. Is there support in any reputable Kennedy biography? As far as I know, CIA pushed the plan, perhaps as a way to force overt US support against Castro, and Kennedy was not prepared to deny them. If there is no serious support for Kennedy's role, it should go. Telliott 23:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muddy phrase

I have little idea what the last part of the intro means: "and now set about electoral conditions that favor the Republican Party". It needs to be rewritten. 62.31.55.223 17:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Out of place sentence?

The first sentence of the second paragraph appears to be out of place:

During debates in the United Nations Security Council, a Cuban attempt to condemn the US invasion failed due to a US veto. Gunboat diplomacy or direct military intervention by the US to overthrow the Cuban government would cause international protests against "interference with interior matters of foreign states" common in the atmosphere of the Cold War. [...]

The first sentence appears to be talking about discussions at the UN after the invasion, while the rest of a paragraph is about the geopolitical situation *before* the invasion. Am I just misunderstanding what is being said here? Molinari 20:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources?

I would like to know what sources were used when the author stated that this operation was pushed by Nixon, and that Nixon feared his involvement would surface come election time. Such assertions should not be made without credibility

You're absolutely right, so I removed:
Vice President Richard Nixon, not Eisenhower, reportedly pushed the plan forward.

If someone can get a citation, feel free to restore it. Jtpaladin 19:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few steps beyond slanted?

This page should be locked, the historical documents reviewed, and some attempt made to clean up the garbage. The well known facts of the Bay of Pigs invasion begin with it was concocted during the Eisenhower administration and CIA brass lied to the incoming Kennedy administration and obfuscated their reports so that Kennedy's administration were fooled into extending provisional support for a clearly doomed project. Not that Kennedy wasn't easily prey to anti-Castro schemes, but no one acquainted with the facts of the scheme expected success. Read the CIA report. Of course all the auto-biographies of Kennedy administration members touch on the topic as well.

There's an awful lot of "Kennedy aministration subverted it this way, Kennedy administration subverted it that way", none of which can be supported by historical reference because it's simply untrue. Most of the cited changes originated within the CIA. Lord knows there's plenty to criticise about the Kennedy administration, but we do ourselves no favors by blindly incorporating Ann Coulter's speeches into the project.

"Under Kennedy's orders critical details were changed that removed any chance of success of the mission without US help." So, author is alleging there was some other never-published plan in which the invasion could succeed without US help? etc.

imho: the failure of the CIA was primarily one of wishful thinking and groupthink, somewhat akin to cherry-picking intelligence failures w/ Chalabi (an Iranian agent) leading up to the Iraq war. The failure of the Kennedy Administration seems to me more like the Columbia disaster or 9/11: there were people on the inside who suspected the truth in time, but out of a fear of violating protocols, tromping on toes, offending other agencies they (or their bureaucratic superiors) ended up letting it all play out.

I also think these exile-driven schemes should get some demographic analysis. In part the Bay of Pigs was about former plantation owners lobbying Congressmen and officials to help them reclaim their family property, but to what extent was it motivated by a desire to return to the plantation lifestyle?

[edit] structure is wack

that intro is way too long and doesn't get into the meat of what happened. castro's in the hospital and the ny times article mentioned 1100 captured in the bay of pigs. i was all like "WTF?! 1100?! i thought it was much smaller" and am looking forward to reading the rest of the article. however the intro sort of turned me off to it; it seems to be missing a pithy statement about what happened, estimates of casualties etc. the "setting the tone for the republicans in cuba" is interesting but should be way further down on the page, as imho much of the intro ought to be. just my $.02

The article is indeed scattered and unclear. I'll do what I can to clarify.--Zleitzen 13:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

"It is generally presumed by some that during the Bay of Pigs Invasion Cuba's losses were high. Triay (2001 p. 110) mentions 4,000,000,000 casualties; Lynch (p. 148 50X or about 5,000). Other sources indicate over 2,200 casualties. 7 infantry battalions were eliminated." uhh, 4 billion Cuban casualties? --88.112.30.245 18:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

wow, Cuba is like China then.

What is the section "It is obvious that we must completely destroy them.SOON. This is your mission. DO IT NOW.NOW!" about? Can we not delete this?

Vandalism really seem to be the game in town nowadays.

[edit] Who paid for release of prisoners?

The German version of this article points out that the money (53 million $) to give machinery, medications etc. to Cuba in exchange for the ~1100 POWs was not paid by the US government but had to be brought up by the relatives and supporters of the exiles themselves. This english article, however, makes it appear as if the US paid for it. Please clarify if you know the details. Tempel 15:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Soviet Advisors to Cuban forces

Castro militia, artillery, and intelligence service were trained and directed by Spanish speaking Hispano-Russian officers, by Raul Castro's admission these were necessary to field a regular army [12]; the most senior of these were Francisco Ciutat de Miguel, Enrique Lister, and Alberto Bayo (Paz, 2001, pp 189-199). Ciutat de Miguel (Masonic name: Algazel; Russian name: Pavel Pablovich Stepanov; Cuban alias: Ángel Martínez Riosola) is said to have arrived the same day as La Coubre explosion was wounded in the foot during the War Against the Bandits, the type of wound that is common to senior officers observing combat at the edge of effective rifle range. Date of wound is not given in references cited [13], [14].

Che Guevara was in Oriente Province (or was it Pinar del Rio) lured away by Nino Diaz’s feints. El Jigue 2-5-07

[edit] Cover up of Soviet Involvement

Ignoring referenced additions there has been an attempt to coverup Soviet involvement in Bay of Pigs Invasion even though one of the references is to a Cuban Government source quoting Raul Castro. El Jigue 2-7-07208.65.188.149 19:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Air action

Aviation is commonly considered the deciding factor during the Bay of Pigs Invasion. The first airplane of the Cuban Armed forces was obtained in 1913; Cuban pilots, such as Francisco Terry Sánchez and Santiago Campuzano fought combat missions as early as WW I [15]. The 1931 Gibara landing against Machado was defeated in great part by Cuban Aviation [16]. However, by the end of January 1959 most Cuban pilots and support technicians from the Batista era were in jail [17] or in exile.


During the Bay of Pigs invasion, the first Cuban exile attack with B-26 left Castro forces with "two B-26C, two Sea Furies, and two T-33A at San Antonio de los Baños Airbase, and only one Sea Fury at the Antonio Maceo Airport" and two of the attacking bombers were damaged [18]


Some Castro pilots Alvaro Galo (fired his rockets into the water Lagas p. 93) and Willy Figueroa were jailed for cowardice (see also ibid p. 04), for not flying B-26 (Lagas p. 60); Captain Evans was accused of poisoning crews and also jailed (Lagas, p. 89).


Castro force pilots included Carlos Ulloa Rauz who was Nicaraguan; Jaques Lagas who flew a B-26 and survived is from Chile' Alfredo Noa died in battle in a plane piloted by Luis A. Silva Tablada (ibid p. 61) also killed (ibid p. 63). Of course Rafael del Pino (ibid p. 64). de Varens died in a B-26 accident in Camaguey (ibid p. 90). Laga (ibid p. 78) lists dead Castro fliers as: Noa, Silva, Ulloa (also p. 104), Martin Torres (ibid p. 97), Reinaldo Gonzalez Calainada (ibid p. 97), and Orestes Acosta (in Santiago flying a T-33). On page 81 Lagas mentions Enrique Carrera Rola (T-33) and Gustavo Borzac (a Seafury pilot, who did not fire his rockets, ibid p. 98).


On page 82 Lagas mentions 16 exile planes in first attack, presumable B-26 bombers. Kraus mentions eight B-26 piloted by Cuban exiles [19]. Lagas (p. 88) mentions Castro pilot Alberto Fernandez (T-33). Juan Suarez Plaza (B-26 ibid p. 109) Ernesto Carrera is mentioned as flying a Seafury (ibid p. 108), and another Nicaraguan (ibid p.137); Seafuries were also flown by Castro pilots including Douglas Rood and Sanchez de Mola (Lagas p. 59). Lagas (p. 121) states he was the only B-26 pilot left on the 19th of April. By April 21 ten of twelve exile B-26B had been destroyed [20], this seems to have been when the four US pilots (Alabama National Guard pilots?). replacing exhausted Cuban exile pilots were killed. Eight Castro pilots survived, only one from the B-26 (Lagas p. 141). El Jigue 2-15-07208.65.188.149 18:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


There are problems, for instance the reference:

Klaus, Erich 2003 (accessed 2-15-07) Cuba Air Force History. Aeroflight Countries of the World. http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/americas/cuba/Cuba-af-history.htm

mentions Mirage Jet fighter in Angola where there were apparently none:

e.g. "The MiG-23MLs consider that the first Mirage has been shot down and attempt to pursue the fleeing Mirage, but they had already reached the limit of their fuel supply, and had to head back to base"


this and other material in his paper suggest that he is uncritically accepting Cuban Government material. However, the material on this matter is difficult to obtain, El Jigue 2-15-07208.65.188.149 21:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC) There are problems, for instance the reference:

Klaus, Erich 2003 (accessed 2-15-07) Cuba Air Force History. Aeroflight Countries of the World. http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/americas/cuba/Cuba-af-history.htm

mentions Mirage Jet fighter in Angola where there were apparently none:

e.g. "The MiG-23MLs consider that the first Mirage has been shot down and attempt to pursue the fleeing Mirage, but they had already reached the limit of their fuel supply, and had to head back to base"


this and other material in his paper suggest that he is uncritically accepting Cuban Government material. However, the material on this matter is difficult to obtain, El Jigue 2-15-07208.65.188.149 21:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC) There are problems, for instance the reference:

Klaus, Erich 2003 (accessed 2-15-07) Cuba Air Force History. Aeroflight Countries of the World. http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/americas/cuba/Cuba-af-history.htm

mentions Mirage Jet fighter in Angola where there were apparently none:

e.g. "The MiG-23MLs consider that the first Mirage has been shot down and attempt to pursue the fleeing Mirage, but they had already reached the limit of their fuel supply, and had to head back to base"


this and other material in his paper suggest that he is uncritically accepting Cuban Government material. However, the material on this matter is difficult to obtain, El Jigue 2-15-07208.65.188.149 21:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


There are problems, for instance the reference:

Klaus, Erich 2003 (accessed 2-15-07) Cuba Air Force History. Aeroflight Countries of the World. [21]

mentions Mirage Jet fighter in Angola where there were apparently none:

e.g. "The MiG-23MLs consider that the first Mirage has been shot down and attempt to pursue the fleeing Mirage, but they had already reached the limit of their fuel supply, and had to head back to base"


this and other material in his paper suggest that he is uncritically accepting Cuban Government material. However, the material on this matter is difficult to obtain...El Jigue 2-15-07208.65.188.149 21:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 71.75.180.42 deletes concurrent actions without comment

Contributor 71.75.180.42 deleted: "Very active in this period e.g. April 3rd 1961 bomb attack on milicia barracks in Bayamo kills four militia and eight more are wounded; April 6th Hershey Sugar factory in Matanzas is destroyed by sabotage; April 18th Directorio guerrilla Marcelino Magaňaz dies in action in Sierra Maestra (Corzo, 2003 p. 79-89)."

No comment or explanation was offered. Since contributor 71.75.180.42 has no previous record of activity and since war activity during this period was not limited to the Bay of Pigs, would this contributor be so kind as to explain her/his actions. El Jigue 2-17-07208.65.188.149 16:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Who Is Mister Morgan?'

The link "William Morgan" points to a disambiguation page which contains no suitable Morgan (guess, he was neither the Medal of Honor recipient killed in Vietnam, nor the translator of Bible). Perhaps, the link should be coloured in red or Cuban Morgan should be added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Morgan ? Guess, the same confusion holds true for all Cuban revolution-related articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.128.67.199 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Hagerman see [[22]] I put him there eons ago. El Jigue 2-20-07208.65.188.149!

Btw Note:

  • Franqui, Carlos 1984 (foreword by G. Cabrera Infante and translated by Alfred MacAdam from Spanish 1981 version) Family portrait with Fidel. 1985 edition Random House First Vintage Books, New York. ISBN 0394726200 p. 56 Guevara ”surrenders” to Camilo during la ofensiva. p. 123 “We lost a lot of men. This frontal attack of men against machines (the enemy tanks) had nothing to do with guerrilla war; in fact it was a Russian tactic, probably the idea of the two Soviet generals, both of Spanish origin (they fought for the Republic in the Spanish Civil War and fled to the Soviet Union to later fight in World War II. One of them was a veteran, a fox named Ciutah* (*p. 182 a.k.a. Ángel Martínez). He was sent by the Red Army and the Party as an advisor and was the father of the new Cuban army. He was the only person who could have taken charge of the Girón campaign. The other Hispano-Russian general was an expert in antiguerrilla war who ran the Escambray cleanup. But the real factor in our favor at Girón was the militias: Almejeira’s column embarked on a suicide mission, they were massacred but they reached the beach.”
  • de Paz-Sánchez, Manuel 2001 Zona de Guerra, España y la revolución Cubana (1960-1962), Taller de Historia, Tenerife Gran Canaria ISBN 8479263644 pp. 198-203, analyzes the career of Francisco Ciutat de Miguel (correct spelling). El Jigue 2-20-07208.65.188.149 01:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Hagerman Mr. Morgan is William Alexander Morgan El Jigue 2-21-07208.65.188.149 15:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fabian tactics

In what surely is not a process of Fabian alterations, the reference to (Paz-Sanchez, 2001, pp 189-199) was removed. No claim of malice can be inferred from that; however, such a tactic could be used to claim there is no reference, to the particular point made (the introduction of Soviet Block military advisors into Cuba) and then in a third step the complete topic could be removed. Let is be "careful out there!" El Jigue 208.65.188.149 15:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/y/Talk%7EBay_of_Pigs_Invasion_60fb.html"