Talk:Fulgencio Batista

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

	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.	Cuba Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of High priority within the scope of Wikiproject Cuba.
Cuba To-do: edit  Task list New article announcements Requests: Sport in Cuba, Yaguajay Stubs: Dollar store (Cuba), Celia Sánchez Verify: History of Cuba, Fulgencio Batista Update: 2006 Cuban transfer of presidential duties NPOV: History of Cuba, Delfin Fernandez, Armando Valladares Copyedit: Bay of Pigs invasion, Julio Antonio Mella, Fabio Grobart, Armando Peraza Wikify: Merge: Cleanup: Bay of Pigs invasion, History of Cuba, War Against the Bandits, Abelardo Colomé Ibarra, List of Cubans, Máximo Gómez, Antonio Maceo Grajales Style: Fidel Castro Expand: Cuban-Soviet relations, Chivatos, Baseball in Cuba, Religion in Cuba, Havana's International Book Fair, Cuba-Venezuela relations, Antonio Sánchez de Bustamante y Sirven

Contents 1 Opening comments 2 Batista vs. Guevara/Castro 3 Castro and Guevara vs. Batista 4 What did he do after he was ousted? 5 Wrong Date 6 Ideology? 7 Wrong Place of Death 8 Fulgencio Batista succeeded by himself? 9 Carlos Manuel de Céspedes 10 Batista's Regime was socially pleasing?

[edit] Opening comments

Batista remains to this day the single most important personality in Cuban history, more so than Castro himself. Jaime Figueras

Why is Fulgencio Batista a "semi-constitutional" leader? Perhaps it could be better explained that he was constitutional at one point and unconstitutional at another. I think the best would be to eliminate this word, "semi-constitutional," entirely. --Daniel C. Boyer

Does anyone know of a specific source linking FDR to the Sergeant's revolt? - Hephaestos 05:25 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Hammer away at your forge lame one and try Welles, Benjamin. 1997.Sumner Welles; FDR's global strategist. St. Martin's Press, NY starting on page 156. There is much more but this a start. There is also talk of a US secret operative said to be Cuban-American (more of that later) (El Jigüe, 9/24/2005).

I think that this page needs more information on Batista's life and activities after his exile. Rvinall 21:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Batista essentially retired to the Dominican Republic, where much of his money was stolen by Trujillo, and he ended up in the Portugal. He wrote a few books.....trying to justify his life. (El Jigüe, 9/24/2005)

[edit] Batista vs. Guevara/Castro

I'm trying to decide if Batista was any better than the regime that replaced him. Che Guevara is described as torturing and killing members of Batista's government, but I want to know if Batista did the same kinds of things. I have a poor opinion of Che Guevara, and I want to decide if he was at all justified in overthrowing Batista. Any Comments?

I think it's pretty much a toss-up. Batista was known for having his army mutilate opponents and display their dead bodies on television. So Guevara may be justified for wanting to execute his goons. On the other hand, Guevara seems to fit the definition of a crazed Marxist revolutionary willing to imprison/torture/execute anyone who dissents, not just criminals. 64.7.89.54 19:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure such a big deal should be made of U.S. diplomatic recognition, as it also recognized the governments of Ramon Grau and Carlos Prio Socarras despite their opposition to Batista. J. Parker Stone 20:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

MAJOR ERROR- Batista was never politically affiliated with the Communist Party of Cuba. This is a gross misinterpretation of the practice, at the time in Cuba, of forming a coalition of many parties for the purpose of political election/support- akin to what presently occurs in the U.S. More specifically, prior to the formation of this coalition, the Communist Party of Cuba was outlawed, and Batista legalized the party so that it might commence political activity alongside many other political parties in a legal manner. In fact, the political party to which Batista always belonged was the "PAU- Partido de Accion Unitaria".

MORE ERRORS in earlier comments - 1. "Batista was known for having his army mutilate opponents and display their dead bodies on television" this is simply not true, though quaint if compared to GW Bush. 2. "pretty much a toss-up" the crimes (and stupidity) of Castro, Guevara and associates has been much greater and longer lasting, destroying the society and economy. 3. Since Messrs Grau and Prio were duly elected, they would normally be and were recognized, "despite their opposition to Batista" is a non-sequitur. Ardipithecus Maximus 03:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Castro and Guevara vs. Batista

Just read the question about who was worse, Guevara or Batista. If you haven't already, please take a look at Jon Lee Anderson's biography of Che Guevara. I agree with the answer that both regimes were pretty bloody. There were numerous "trials" of Batista supporters where ordinary Cubans would accuse their neighbors of being traitors to the revolution. But Batista was swift to end any opposition to his regime violently and without trial as well. 63.26.71.242 03:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Anna

Yeah, Castro's government is really confusing - it begs the question of anyone who hears about it, "Which government is better?" and basically causes a lot of almost-silent dissent among the people who think about it. The fact is, the answer is not simple (or actually, it can be - "Neither") and as such, it is not easy to say just how much bias should be given one way or another. I read this article and I thought it was biased against Castro, making Batista sound better and Castro sound worse... but then at the same time, it's sorta biased against Batista. It's complex. It's really complex. So yeah... what's most important is that people think about as many sides of the story as they can... do they now? I don't know. - 61.9.204.168

Castro and Che were worse than Batista. Cuba was able to function economically under Batista. As stated in the article, Havana had more tv's, telephones and Cadilacs per household than any city in the US. The regular citizen was able to go to school, choose their own carriers and have hope for a future. Under Castro, no one has any hope, Cuba's average citizen has no civil rights and is destined to poverty. Under Castro, Cubans are throwing themselves into the ocean on rafts made of inner tubes and anything that floats. Castro has taken hope away from the Cuban people, without hope, there is nothing.

"Castro has taken hope away from the Cuban people, without hope, there is nothing." It's convienant to ignore economical sanctions on Castro's regime. It's because of conflicting opinions that it is difficult to determine which regime would've been better. It comes done to Cuban propaganda vs. propanganda from Florida's cubans who are anti-Castro. In my opinion Batista was a brutal dictator and this article speaks well of him despite that.

"Castro and Che were worse than Batista. Cuba was able to function economically under Batista. As stated in the article, Havana had more tv's, telephones and Cadilacs per household than any city in the US. The regular citizen was able to go to school, choose their own carriers and have hope for a future. Under Castro, no one has any hope, Cuba's average citizen has no civil rights and is destined to poverty. Under Castro, Cubans are throwing themselves into the ocean on rafts made of inner tubes and anything that floats. Castro has taken hope away from the Cuban people, without hope, there is nothing."

This remark is so stupid I'm surprised I even find myself responding to it. Under Batista, poverty under the population was more widespread by far than under Castro, Havana was nearly completely in the posession of the American mafia, and the wealth was owned by an even smaller portion of the population than is the case nowadays. 82.176.194.151 14:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the vast majority of Cubans weren't even born yet when Castro took power, so saying that he is improving the lives of cuban citizens vis-a-vis Batista is a moot point. Maybe there was some improvement for the lower classes back in the early 1960s, but that ancient history now. furthermore, while the sanctions have been a factor, it would be incorrerct to simply blame all of Cubas economic woes on "yankee imperialists"--Dudeman5685 00:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Under Batista, poverty under the population was more widespread by far than under Castro, Havana was nearly completely in the posession of the American mafia, and the wealth was owned by an even smaller portion of the population than is the case nowadays." That is a shockingly misinformed statement. The writer might just as well have said man never landed on the moon.

1) Economically, Cuba was a powerhouse pre-Castro, with a huge middle class and a substantial upper class. You're talking about what was once one of the most prosperous nations in the western hemisphere, where huge growths in infrastructure marked the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s.

2) Havana was nearly completely under the posession of the American mafia? Where on Earth do you get that idea from? While I understand that a great deal of propaganda has been put out by the Castro regime over the years regarding this, it's rather silly, as I have personally met many of the folks who owned casinos and major businesses in pre-castro Cuba. They were Cuban, not American, nor were they "mafiosos." Furthermore, they'd be rather offended to hear someone saying that Cubans were not capable of running their own businesses and thus needed American mafia bosses to do the job for them. Please, don't base your views of history on Godfather II re-runs. LOL

3) "wealth was owned by an even smaller portion of the population than is the case nowadays" I can't even begin to address this ludicrous statement but I'll refer you to bullet point number 1.

Batista was an undemocratic dictator, we all know that, but let's not short-change Cuban hard work, ingenuity and love for their country. The statements in the previous post really strike me as a bit prejudicial against latin americans - as if the region's population can't be expected or trusted to build prosperous economy's for their citizens and thus require brutal dictators to keep them in line - ala what some have said about Saddam Hussein/Iraq. Silly, really silly.

Respectfully,

Goatboy95 21:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What did he do after he was ousted?

The article should mention what he did after his ouster. Did he plot his return to power? Travel the world? Gamble at Monte Carlo? Work on his knitting?......A2Kafir 04:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Batista tired of being robbed by Trujillo went to Spain and Portugal, where he wrote his own apologia and then died. Will try to find time to reference these. El Jigüe 12-28-05

[edit] Wrong Date

In October, 1938, Batista, who formed a coalition with the Cuban Communist Party [4] was elected President of Cuba. During his tenure, he drafted the 1940 constitution (later approved by President Grau), widely regarded as a progressive document with regards to labor, unemployment, and social security, and implemented several liberal economic reforms.

I believe it was 1940.

[edit] Ideology?

It would be interesting to know to which political camp Batista belonged. Was he a fascist or a socialist, was he left wing or right wing or something completely different? 62.46.177.113

Batista, born poor of Taino and Black stock, is best described as a left of center strongman. See Argote-Freyre, Frank, 2006 Fulgencio Batista: Volume 1, From Revolutionary to Strongman. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey ISBN 0813537010 El Jigue 7-28-06

Definitely not left-of-center. His policy was right-winged authoritarianism. Basing yourself on one academic text, which incidentally is of questionable level, is unprofessional and unintelligent. 82.176.194.151 14:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Batista was right-leaning. Ambassador Earl E.T. Smith, the last U.S. ambassador to Cuba, described him as a "Rightist dictator." He was also staunchly anticommunist. Smith mentions that, among other things, Batista outlawed the Cuban Communist Party, broke off relations with every single communist country, and established a Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities.

If Batista was staunchly anticommunist - why did he form an alliance with the communist party in his first government? --Zleitzen 20:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

At that time, communists were considered the allies of the West. Remember, this was the Nazi/WWII era. Even then, he was anticommunist, though, as he admits in his memoir. I suggest you read The Fourth Floor if you want proof Batista was anticommunist.

Most south American caudillos were/are firmly alligned with one specific ideology -- personalism. And one overarching national goal -- promotion of themselves--Dudeman5685 00:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Very good point. A2Kafir 06:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Place of Death

Batista died in Guadalmina a place in the city of Marbella in Spain. In the article it says 'Guadalamina' instead of 'Guadalmina' which is the correct way to write it. I'm 100% sure because I live in Guadalmina in the city of Marbella and it is well known that the correct way of writing it is 'Guadalmina' and not 'Guadalamina'.

[edit] Fulgencio Batista succeeded by himself?

Clicking through the President of Cuba "Succeeded by:" links, I got:

Fulgencio Batista - succeeded by - Ramón Grau - succeeded by - Carlos Prío Socarrás - succeeded by - Fulgencio Batista

The link just leads in a circle. How was he succeeded (eventually) by himself?

He did have two rules. When Machado fell in 1933 due to general strikes, Batista and his armed forces gained control and then there were presidents before he assumed power in 1940-44 and then again from 1952-59. Presumably Grau and Prio Socarras were the presidents in between his rule

It is also worth mentioning that Dr. Andres Rivero Aguero won the presidential elections of 1958. Of course, the revolutionaries put an end to the elections rather quickly. lol

Goatboy95 22:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carlos Manuel de Céspedes

FYI, the link to Carlos Manuel de Céspedes points to an article about the father of the person that this article refers to.

[edit] Batista's Regime was socially pleasing?

Sorry but I find it kind of hard to accept that Batista's second rule was economically and socially beneficial to Cubans. This article kind of makes it seem like he was a good leader not a dictator that Kennedy later regretted the US had backed. Castro couldn't gain the support he did and literally walk into power if there hadn't been something wrong with the Batista regime. It's true that illiteracy was at 25% (but not the 4% Castro made it by 1970) and Cuba had, for example, the greatest ownership of televisions in Latin America. Yet behind this, the economy was failing and the US was controlling more and more of this economy. Sugar, Cuba's main export, provided 1/10 of the global market. However, in the nineteenth century, they had provided 1/3 of the market. Wealth and living standards were unevenly distributed and this is why Castro's ideology of Socialism was so appealing. 75% of arable land was owned by foreigners and 250,000 servants served the foreigners in the playground that was Havana. This article also states that the Cuban people were tired of corrupt governments and repression? It was because of Batista's brutal execution of Castro's followers after the Moncada Barracks affair that Castro gained so much more support. Not to mention, when Castro finally did get to power, he asked a crowd of thousands if he should imprison and execute Batista followers and they replied in a unified "Yes!". It seems that the rule wasn't quite as admired as expressed in this article.

Good lord, where on Earth are you getting your information? The economy was failing? Not even close - For much of the late 1950s, the Cuban peso was valued above the American dollar, Cuban infrastructure went through incredible development in the 1950s and the economy was a powerhouse. As for standard of living - Cuba had a huge middle class and substantial upper class.

Sadly, Fulgencio Batista seized power undemocratically and suspended the 1940 constitution while dealing with the revolutionaries in a 100% undemocratic, brutal manner. However, let's get our facts straight.

Best,

Goatboy95 22:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"250,000 servants served the foreigners in the playground that was Havana"--can you elaborate on what you mean by "servants", if you mean something other than "paid employees"?St. Jimmy 16:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

/"something wrong with the Batista regime" yes, a dictatorship, most decent people wanted him out.
/ "Wealth and living standards were unevenly distributed" think: the richest people would hardly have been even close to the richest Americans, and the poorest, at least in the sense of not freezing to death or lynched, would have been better off than the poorest Americans; illogical but repeatedly bleated comment.
/ "75% of the land... 250,000 servants" sources please; think: if in a population of less than 1M in Havana, 1/4 were servants, that'd be about 1/2 to 1/3 of the adults (after excluding children and the elderly), just can't be, physically impossible, you would not have the income to support mailmen or firemen.
/ "brutal execution of Castro's followers after the Moncada Barracks affair that Castro gained so much more support", since Fidel (who did not participate in the attack, stayed safely behind and took refuge with the local cardinal), Raul and the rest are still around, the number of those executed (i.e., after the attack) from the small band would have had to be small, the brutality debatable; these barracks included a medical facility where it has been said the assailants stabbed and killed patients. Publicity was years after the fact and hardly emotionally charged.
/ Whatever Castro would ask of a fanaticized mob would be taken as holy, as with Hitler and such, and is mindless and irrelevant. We have seen similar effects recently, in the USA, in the 21st. century.
/ As noted earlier, most decent people wanted Batista out, not a trade down to a perennial communist dictatorship. Apologies on the formatting. Ardipithecus Maximus 04:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)