Talk:Fulgencio Batista/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Fulgencio Batista. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

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 described as 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)

Copied Text

Paragraph after paragraph of this entry as I find it today is duplicated word for word on this page: http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/batista.htm

Has it been copied from the Jerry A. Sierra essay wholesale? Or is it the other way around? 75.42.3.130 (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Sorry for my broken English... ... Our experience - old Yugoslavia - showed that what happens in one country never is the matter of that country alone. I believe people who say it is not easy to live in Cuba nowadays; I can easily believe that Castro or people close to Castro became very rich and powerful; but I also know - from what I saw and read and thought about in my life - that (Castro and/or his associates) becoming extremely rich is just one side of the coin, it is just something that WAS EXPECTED in time when USA imposed blockade and sanctions. For example, in my country - Yugoslavia and now Serbia - we had sanctions for only 2-5 years, and it was like 1,2,3 that some people become powerful over night. So when we discuss Castro (or Milosevic) we should bare in mind that it is a normal thing to become dictator, even if the person in question (Castro, Milosevic, whoever) had good intentions in the beginning. I strongly believe Castro was idealist half a century ago; now I believe that sanctions and USA politics towards Cuba CAUSED this situation where all the blame goes to Castro, at least if you're watching American media. USA presidents and USA secret services didn't succeed in overthrowing Castro's socialism; ok, now USA is in no hurry and they (USA politicians) CAN and WILL wait for Castro to die; but what about Cuban people that are caught in the middle - do they have to be prisoners of American blockade and sanctions and of Fidel's refusal to give America whatever America wants?

   What would you do if you were in Castro's shoes?

Thought experiment:

1. There is a dictator in your country.

2. No means to dethrone him, but a revolution.

3. You lead the revolution or take part in it. You win and become new leader.

4. You say: "No more exploiting! We don't want foreign (in this case: USA) companies to dictate our economy!" You become new Tito, Castro, Morales, Chavez...

  (like many Latin American, African or Asian politicians tried to say.)

5. Foreign governments impose sanctions to your country.

6. You try to survive.

7. You refuse to play their game and by their rules.

8. You refuse to give them rights to do whatever they want to do.

9. You have to fight against power that wants to eliminate you (asassination tried 637 times - from book "Fidel Kastro - jedan čovek, jedna revolucija" ("Fidel Castro - one man, one revolution") - Borislav Lalić (writer, 50 years Yugoslav news correspondent from Cuba)...

10 ...and against forces that grow in your own country (remember that CIA and the like is not only in USA, but all around the world) and that are trying the same thing, that are working against ideals you fought for, and would like to restore foreign interests and interests of the rich.

Now, apart from my bad English, I strongly believe that what we see in Cuba, what we saw in Iraq (Saddam as "American buddy" for years), what we see in Afghanistan, what we saw in Vietnam, in Korea, in Africa, in Latin America, in Yugoslavia and later in Serbia and Montenegro, and nowadays in Serbian southern province Kosovo and Metohia (from a terrorist organisation to a "Liberation Army" - how USA politicians changed oppinion or Google this article: Members of the Ministry of the Interior - Victims of Albanian Terrorism in 1998 - original page dissapeared few days ago after I wrote an article about the subject), is the same "money drills where drill won't" story: interests, interests and only interests (The Albright Group financing huge Thermo Plant in Kosovo, article in Serbian)... of the oligarchy, of course. So USA politicians can wait untill Fidel dies, and then they will "transform" Cuba into "American dream". Cuban people, hungry of normal life, will accept every promise they hear, hopeing for the best. However, wolves that have eaten their lives, and lives of their parents, will be the same wolves that will bring "new democracy" to their "new lives", and poor will still be poor, but rich will become richer.

I believe - since I saw it in action - that if you deliberately put one county under the wall of sanctions, that country will sooner (rather than later) have dictatorship of some kind. Castro's dictatorship is much better than dictatorships that USA governments backed through the history of all continents, but it is still not a good solution. The best solution would be if there were no pressures from the rich, if USA did not impose sanctions, if this world was a better place than it is now.

However, as Steven Hawking said last year in Japan: we will most probably dissapear from the face of Earth before 2100, unless... [1]

WikiNeutrino 13:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

Place of death (again)

I know absolutely nothing about Fulgencio Batista, but have just noticed a comment from User:Aldenpjohnson, on the main article:

The following two sentences are the last in the 'Youth and first rule' section and the first in the 'Aftermath' section, respectively. I don't which is correct, but suspect that he died in Spain, since there is more than one reference to his death in Spain and only one reference to Portugal. Someone needs to verify the correct place of death and make the suitable correction.
Batista died on August 6 1973, in Estoril, Portugal.

Aftermath: Batista later moved to Portugal and then Marbella, Spain, where he lived and wrote books the rest of his life. He died on August 6, 1973, in Guadalmina, Spain.

Given the inconsistency, and given that the inline web-link supporting the second of these appears to be broken, I'm removing information about the place of death for the time being, until an expert can put this right. – Stuart. (Sjb90 | talk) 15:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I looked up his obit in the NYT, which I think is a pretty good reference. I'll put in what it says. Rees11 03:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed the place of death, but there are a number of other inconsistencies that I did not fix.

NYT says he ended up in Portugal, but traveled frequently to Spain. Doesn't say he ever lived in Spain (ok, I fixed this one)
NYT says three children by first marriage, five by second, and the names of the children don't agree with what this articles says.
Names of the wives don't match either.

Rees11 04:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

POV Hilarity

I think the best line was towards the bottom, "But that did not end the flow of student blood..." Good luck making this a legit article. 67.82.47.139 02:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Castro killed far more than Batista, although this does not justify Batista's killings, this is an fact. If you view this as POV you need to widen your reading. El Jigue208.65.188.149 04:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Critics of this article have demonstrated much ignorance, and they certainly have had time to do something about it. Enough is enough I removed the POV tag, and will start to insert corrections, e.g. Batista's claim to Native American inheritance is sound and should replace the mulatto label. The role of the communist party in supporting Machado needs to be made clear... El Jigue208.65.188.149 04:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care how many people he killed. If Castro's article has ridiculous wording like that, it should be changed, too. Flow of student blood you've got to be kidding me. Let's make it sound even more dramatic. Personally, I don't care how much of his atrocities/murders/whatever are covered in this article, it's just that wording that absurd is usually only found in articles for bands and videogames. Anyways, good luck making this a legit article, a step above the typical band/videogame ones. General Epitaph 04:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"In the words of scholars..."

I just want to say this is the most ridiculous sentence I have ever read:

In the words of scholars like Justo Carillo, Felipe Pazos, José Miró Cardona, Hugh Thomas and Louis Horowitz: "Al frustrarse la Conspiración de los Puros a Cuba le tocó perder. Sin Batista no hay Fidel (With the frustrated coup Cuba lost. Without Batista there is no Fidel)."

"In the words of scholars just like..."? For Pete's sake, you cannot invoke a random quotation and say this is LIKE what scholar X or scholar Y WOULD have said. Either credit the quotation to a specific author or take it out. What IS this, a middle school English paper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.43.50 (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I took it out, but the rest still needs a lot of work. Rees11 (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

batista killed 20,000 cubans. el che and fidel maybe 2,000. that is your answer. batista hung people in public and pulled there eyes out. el che and fidel shot people against a wall. both are bad. one is worse.170.170.59.138 (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Any citations for this?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"el che and fidel maybe 2,000"

Is my understanding that the Cuban regime has executed almost 10,000 people since its installation and it was responsible also for over 13,000 deaths for Castro`s failed foreign wars to "expand socialism in the world".

In all some say close to 30,000 victims of the socialist dictatorship.190.45.74.50 (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Any citations for this?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Mafiosi

meyer lansky and his compadres ran havana like a whorehouse. it was the las vegas for rich gringos from america. batista was not even allowed in some casinos. there should be more about the mafiosos of cuba and how they fled to miami and now spread lies about cuba and castro. to them batista was great cause he did not get in there way. 170.170.59.138 (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cuba va —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.215.11 (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

Yes also suspened the constitution when he took over Cuba with a coup backed by the Auban army and tortured and killed anyonme who was against his rule. I was statiopned in Cuba in the 50s and know more about Cuba than you do. You only know about Havana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.171.96 (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"U.S.-backed Cuban Dictator" (Batista)

User: Luis Napoles has attempted to remove the above information recently claiming:

"What comes to your word choice, nowhere in your source it says "backed". Try to find a historian who substantiates how he was "backed".

Now leaving aside the fact that the NPR audio report I utilized the given link ---> (click on the first "Listen Now") states in the first 13 seconds (00:9-00:13) this EXACT verbatim phrase ... in anticipation of a likely deletion forthcoming again, per - WP:VERIFY - I figured I would utilize this talk page to list "several" sources which corroborate the phrase "U.S.-backed Dictator" in reference to Fulgencio Batista.

The following below are all book titles (accessible by Google books) followed by the page number and verbatim phrase contained within the source:

Cuba: idea of a nation displaced - page 77 .... "US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Born in blood and fire: a concise history of Latin America‎ - Page 262 .... "US -backed military dictatorship"

The Columbia history of Latinos in the United States since 1960‎ - Page 149 .... "US -backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista"

Breaking the real axis of evil: how to oust the world's last dictators by 2025‎ - Page 231 .... "overthrow of the US -backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista"

America's other war: terrorizing Colombia‎ - Page 27 .... "overthrowing the US-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista"

The Puerto Rican movement: voices from the diaspora‎ - Page 39 .... "the fall of US -backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Rockets and Missiles: The Life Story of a Technology‎ - Page 74 .... "overthrown US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Colonialism: an international, social, cultural, and political encyclopedia‎ - Page 157 .... "against US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Encyclopedia of Latino popular culture‎ - Page 75.... "overthrow of US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

The Greenwood Dictionary of World History‎ - Page 41 .... "overthrow of US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Che Guevara: In Search of Revolution‎ - Page 46 .... "US -backed Cuban government led by Fulgencio Batista"

Perils of Empire: The Roman Republic and the American Republic‎ - Page 127 .... "the US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

The Cold War, 1945-1991: Leaders and other important figures in the Soviet Union - Page 134 .... "Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista … against the US-backed Batista regime"

Facts about the 20th century‎ - Page 285 .... "overthrew US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Latino/a Thought: Culture, Politics, and Society‎ - Page 542 .... "oust the US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Cuba and the coming American Revolution‎ - Page 65 .... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs, and the Press‎ - Page 122 .... "with Fulgencio Batista, the US-backed dictator"

Children of Cain: violence and the violent in Latin America‎ - Page 111 .... "US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

The Iraq war: causes and consequences‎ - Page 36 .... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Robert F. Kennedy and the death of American idealism‎ - Page 54 .... "The US -backed dictator, General Fulgencio Batista"

Changing the history of Africa: Angola and Namibia‎ - Page 105 .... "US-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista"

Endless enemies: the making of an unfriendly world‎ - Page 256 .... "Fulgencio Batista, the US -backed dictator"

If you don't prefer books, a quick web search also lists these web articles from the

Telegraph ... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Reuters ... "overthrow U.S.-backed dictator"

Washington Post ... "U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Capitalism Magazine = (now there's a bastion of Communism) ... "U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Boston Globe ... "US-backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista"

CNN ... "toppled a longstanding U.S.-backed dictator."

Irish Times ... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

BBC ... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

National Post ... "U.S.-backed dictator"

Miami Herald ... "U.S.-backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Now Luis Napoles, I trust that you would agree that listing all of the above ref's in the lead might "be a bit much", thus if you can not provide any evidence to dispute this well known and accepted historical fact (which I document above) per Wp:Undue, WP:Verify, Wp:Reliable - and if there is not editor Wp:Consensus to dispute the above material or its inclusion - then please refrain from removing this important historical detail from the article going forward. Thanks Redthoreau (talk)RT 15:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

None has denied that the US viewed him with diplomatic approval until the mid-1950s. But when the regime collapsed on January 1, 1959, it was under embargo, diplomatic cutoff, and there was a covert mission to replace him, which greatly contributed to the collapse. The article should substantiate what is meant by "backed" and how "backed" he was after 1958 elections.Luis Napoles (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Luis, [1] Batista was in power in Cuba for 18 years (33-44, 52-59). He was indisputably backed by the U.S. for 17-17.5 years of that time, thus we use "U.S.-backed", as do the majority of sources. [2] All of the refs I provide above are speaking of Batista ON JAN 1 1959, not in the mid 1950's. Per WP:Verify and Wp:Undue that is thus the description we would go with. [3] Batista received military aid from the U.S. for the first 2 years of the Guerrilla conflict against J26M (1956-58). The U.S. ambassador was only "pulled" when it became obvious that Batista was about to be toppled, at the very end of the conflict. [4] Sure, you can find a few minor sympathetic or partisan sources which paint Batista in a positive light (not as a dictator accused of killing 20,000 Cubans) or as someone 'betrayed' by the U.S. who wanted him to be overthrown for Fidel Castro (a view common among some of the CIA in late 1958, but not the U.S. State Dept or Govt), but the majority of Wp:Reliable sources do not provide all of the "stipulations" and caveats that you are wishing to include. This is a "summary" of the situation, and the fact that Batista was (and was viewed) as being backed by the U.S. (i.e. a puppet, lackey etc) by the Cuban people, was a key "selling point" for those rebelling against his rule during the Cuban revolution. In my view, you are not attempting to WP:SUBSTANTIATE, rather you are trying to "revise" or "muddy" the historical record, to conform to your ideological view (Wp:pov) and anti-Castro sentiments (Wp:bias) (which are on full display with nearly every edit you make). Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Writing books

The last sentence in the opening section of this guy's page says that he wrote 6 books. This doesn't really fit with the rest of the section and isn't much of an achievement anyway, so is it alright to remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen214 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Portrayals in popular culture

New section on portrayals in popular culture as per other wikipedia biogs eg per Tony Blair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair#Portrayals_and_cameo_appearances If I was a carpenter (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Revolution Disinformation

He died of a heart attack on August 6, 1973 at Guadalmina, near Marbella, Spain,[29] two days before a team of assassins from Castro's Cuba could carry out a plan to kill him.[9]

...right. Someone's fibbing here. This claim doesn't even make sense.

149.99.76.176 (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Communist infiltration?

This support was mainly due to Batista's labor laws and his support for labor unions, unions which the communist movement had infiltrated.

Infiltrated? Communist members in labor unions have been around since the 1920s (IWW). They did not "infiltrate" the unions. They were already union members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.61.23 (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

1946 Mob Summit

The paragraph about the 1946 Mob Summit seems out of place: according to the rest of the article, Batista wasn't in power and wasn't even in the country when it happened. Any objections to axing it (or moving it to a more germane article)? Francis Lima (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference to Constitution of 1940

I deleted the following text from the article:

"Under Batista's rule a new constitution was drafted. It called for government intervention in the economy and provided a social safety net."

The statement was under the section concerning his first term as president. Batista became president on Oct 10, 1940. The 1940 Constitution was drafted before that and was adopted in July of 1940. He was elected under that constitution. It was drafted and adopted before his election. Franklin Moore (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comments argue for rephrasing the statement, and possibly relocating it a bit earlier. They don't really justify complete removal. The statement itself is lifted pretty closely (almost to the point of plagiarism) from the PBS piece used to reference much of this article. The sentence says "[u]nder Batista's rule", not "during Batista's presidency" (though the 1940 Constitution of Cuba article does use the latter formulation and should probably be corrected; the Constitution of Cuba article uses the phrase "de facto presidency", which is probably as accurate as anything). Arguably, the 1940 Constitution was implemented under his rule - certainly under his auspices - since not much happened in Cuba from 1933–34 'til 1944 without Batista's approval. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that at the very least any statement to this effect should be moved up in the article. But I think it needs to be reworded, if included at all. At the time the Constitution was drafted Batista held no official title. He had resigned as Army Chief of Staff in 12/39 and he was not even a signatory to the Constitution. I have spent much of the last two hours reading telexes from the US embassy in Habana to the State Dept at the time of the Constitution's drafting (all available online) and am attempting to draft some appropriate language to replace this section. My problem with the lnaguage as it stood prior to deletion is not only the timing (although that was a part of my problem) but also that it implied that Batista was interested in the provisions that included the social safety net. My reading of the record discloses no such interest. (Indeed I see no evidence that he supported any language in the Constitution and seems only concerned that it would not render him inelligible to seek the Presidency. Indeed the record seems to indicate that the Constitution reflects the ideas of Grau and the opposition not those of Batista and it is the implication that Batista supported those ideas which I think are most in need of clarification.) If you will give me a bit of time, I think that I can draft language which will be based upon the public record. Franklin Moore (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

General??

The lede refers to Batista as a General. Everything I have read always states that the highest rank he ever held was that of a Colonel. He was chief of staff of the Cuban Army from 1933 until 1939, so one might argue that he was a de facto general, but considering the issue, I would propose replacing "General" with the phrase "military leader." Is there any objection? Franklin Moore (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha. As soon as I saw the one-word edit summary, I knew what the issue would be, and was mentally closing in on "military leader" as I started to read the actual comment, so I say that sounds fine to me. I know colonel is documented; he may have forced through a promotion to general somewhere along the way, but "military leader" works until we find a source that supports "general". Fat&Happy (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; if someone has a source showing a promotion then General can be added back; until then I have changed it to military leader. Franklin Moore (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Intro

I attempted a shorter expansion of the intro in an attempt to make it a concise summary of the entire article. Comments please! Kaisershatner (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I made a few adjustments, some for content and others for clarity and tighter wording. Let me know what you think? I am pretty content with how it stands now and appreciate your efforts. Redthoreau -- (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Redthoreau, thanks, and I think it is much better now too. I have two questions for you: is "US-backed" necessary as the primary adjective for Batista, especially when the rest of the intro and article emphasizes in multiple places that the US backed him? I would say he was a "Cuban dictator, military leader, President, etc., backed by the United States. And second, why remove the cited sentence about Castro's plan to assassinate him? I thought that was very interesting. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Kaiser, as for "U.S.-backed" I opened a new thread below for that to be discussed in more detail. As for the assassination plan, although the PBS source is reliable, I think we should track down at least 2 more corroborating the story (which seems just a little too convenient) - otherwise, yeah it is very "interesting" and could be included. Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"U.S.-backed" status (Batista)

Resolved

Per - WP:VERIFY - I figured I would utilize the talk page to first list several sources which corroborate the phrase "U.S.-backed Dictator" in reference to Fulgencio Batista.