Book Review
Response to Revolution
Response to Revolution, by Richard E. Welch Jr., is an honest and unbiased look at America’s policy towards Cuba during the Cuban Revolution. It covers the general history of and preconceived notions about the revolution in depth and gives ample attention to both sides of the relationship between the U.S. and Cuba. In addition to this Welch analyzes the reactions of America’s various factions during the early years of the revolution. Upon taking this into a change of the status quo, and of one that only played the international game of politics on its own terms.
The general idea underlying Response to Revolution is the evolution of the U.S.’s opinion of the Cuban revolution from good to bad. Yet to understand this, the author shows that it is first important to understand the events and attitudes that took place between the U.S. and Cuba in the years between 1958-1961. At the onset of the Cuban revolution we find that the U.S. government supported the Batista regime and that while it was technically a democracy it reinforced bitter class differences. Eventually various factions united under Castro and the Batista government was overthrown. While the United States for the most part stayed out of this war and even cut off arm sales to Batista before his overthrow, Welch shows that by then it was to late for the U.S. to ever create a good relationship with Cuba. The reason for this is that the years of and U.S. dominated Cuban economy, combined with the troublesome Platt Amendment, fueled the fire of class differences and created in Castro’s mind a distrust of U.S. involvement in Cuba. However, while Castro’s anti-American stance no doubt hindered relations with the U.S., it was more the fault of the Eisenhower and Kennedy presidencies reluctance to offer aid outright to Castro and accept change in Cuba. This unwillingness of Castro to adhere to the U.S. standard or democracy in turn led to unwarranted economic sanctions, which later led to Cuba’s need for Soviet economic support. “The U.S. government measures went beyond the retaliation warranted by the injuries American citizens and interests had up to that time suffered at Castro’s hands” (Welch 58). The author further contests that the problem was only furthered when Kennedy took the matter to be personal and put into act Eisenhower’s counterrevolution inva...
... middle of paper ...
...nited States’ policy towards Cuba in the years between 1958-1961 correct and well thought out? According to the book’s evidence and my personal observation of our current relationship with Cuba I would say no. The U.S. failed to see that its ideals and values were not shared by the entire world, and in Cuba’s case our values and economy lead to more social oppression that Communism would have. We as a nation were one of mixed emotions and our leaders who made decisions concerning Cuba were largely uneducated on the history and politics of Cuba, leading to a trend of bad relations. This in effect showed the U.S. to be a nation only concerned with its own interests, rather than the heroic liberator and protector of democracy. If I got anything out of all this I must say it was the realization that the U.S. as a nation was in fact no better than some of the nations I sought to ward off. In conclusion Response to revolution is an honest book that takes no sides and simply exposes the fact that the U.S. Policy towards Cuba during the Cuban Revolution was one that was not well though out, and ultimately ended any chance of reverting to favorable economic relations with Castro’s Cuba.
On July 26, 1953, the war for Cuba’s independence began, and for 6 years many Cubans fought for their freedom. The most famous of these revolutionary icons being Fidel Castro, who led the main resistance against the Cuban government. On January 1, 1959, Fidel Castro and the rest of the Cuban's succeeded. This revolutionary war went on to affect the entire world and Eric Selbin believes it is still affecting it. Throughout Eric Selbin's article, Conjugating the Cuban Revolution, he firmly states that the Cuban revolution is important in the past, present, and future. Selbin, however, is wrong.
Long before our involvement, the Cubans had been leading revolts and revolutions against Spain. The Spanish empire considered Cuba to be its jewel, not only for its beauty but also for its economics. Cuba’s main source of income was from its expansive sugar plantations that greatly contributed to its wealth (more so to the Spanish Empires wealth). Ironically, even due to the high regard to Cuba, it was neglected and oppressed, as the Spanish Empire began its decline in the middle of the nineteenth century. The Empire was falling due to it slowly loosing its control over its territories, closer to the US then to Spain, because of a lack of industrializing. The Spanish would claim ownership, but never contribute back to their land. This opened the door for what is known as the 10-year war and the struggle for Cuban Independence. The United States never got directly involved, but it sympathized greatly with the Cuban’s cause, for ...
Cuba and the U.S.: The Tangled Relationship. New York: The Foreign Policy Association, 1971. Flaherty, Tom.
The U.S.’s relationship with Cuba has been arduous and stained with mutual suspicion and obstinateness, and the repeated U.S. interventions. The Platt agreement and Castro’s rise to power, served to introduce the years of difficulty to come, while, the embargo the U.S. placed on Cuba, enforced the harsh feelings. The two major events that caused the most problems were the Bays of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis.
When U.S. covert actions in Chile began, Cuba was the sole communist regime in Latin America. The main strategic objective for operations in Chile was to prevent the emergence of another one. At the time, Chilean public support for their current government was merely moderate, supporting the case for U.S. political involvement in Chile. In addition, convincing the U.S. elites for a military intervention was very difficult speciall...
On New Year’s Day, 1959, Cuban Rebel forces, led by Fidel Castro, overthrew the existing government led by Fulgencio Batista. Castro immediately reformed Cuba’s economic policy, reducing the power of American companies over Cuba’s industry, as well as threatening American profits and influence in the area. This greatly irritated the United States as a whole, and caused the government, under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, to turn hostile towards Castro. Just a year after Castro’s rise to power, President Eisenhower was convinced that if the best interests of the United States were to be fulfilled, the new Cuban government would have to be abolished. On March 17, 1960, he approved the Central Intelligence Agency’s plan, entitled “A Program of Covert Action Against the Castro Regime.” This program’s purpose was to “bring about the replacement of the Castro regime with one more devoted to the true interests of the Cuban people an...
The United States embargo of Cuba has its roots planted in 1960, 53 years ago, when “the United States Congress authorized President Eisenhower to cut off the yearly quota of sugar to be imported from Cuba under the Sugar act of 1948… by 95 percent” (Hass 1998, 37). This was done in response to a growing number of anti-American developments during the height of the cold war, including the “expropriation of United States-owned properties on the island… [and] the Soviet Union [agreeing] to purchase sugar from Cuba and to supply Cuba with crude oil” (Hass 1998, 37). Bad sentiments continued to pile up as Cuba imposed restrictions on the United States Embassy and especially when, after the United States “officially broke off diplomatic ties with Cuba, and travel by United States citizens to Cuba was forbidden ... Castro openly proclaimed his revolution to be ‘socialist’” (Hass 1998, 38). The day after this, the Bay of Pigs invasion occurred, but it failed in its job to topple Castro (Hass 1998, 38). Left with no diplomatic options and a failed military attempt, the United States decided that the only way to end Castro’s socialist regime was to sever all ties, and from 1961 to 1996, a series of acts were passed prohibiting the majority of trade and interaction with Cuba. (Hass 1998, 38).
Clarke, Philip. “Cuba’s Newest Revolution Bloodless but Plenty Bewildering as New President Breaks Army Grip, Aims at Democracy.” The Washington Post. 22 July. 1945: B3. ProQuest. James Madison University library. 16 September 2003
Frustrated by the economic domination and policing of the United States, Castro started to cut the U.S. out of the economy and find sources elsewhere, the Soviet Union. This eventually led to the end of diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba. Castro’s popularity grew considerably, making him a “heroic symbol of anti-imperialism.” (Charlip)
On Revolution, a book Hannah Arendt published in 1963, after Eichmann’s trial. The book didn’t gain a lot of popularity at first due to the remarkable Eichmann in Jerusalem notability. On Revolution is a work of dichotomies. Arendt compared and differentiated between the French and the American Revolution. How one was successful and how the other was less successful according to her perspectives. To begin with, Arendt defines revolution as a new beginning, a novelty, an irresistible force, something that is unprecedented that cannot be controlled. She also stressed further more on this point that a revolution should have the ability to create something new that would result in more space of freedom. Arendt does not favor the liberal view of freedom, as it is the case in the American model: “pursuit of happiness”. Freedom, according to Arendt, is the freedom of participating in the political life, being an active member in politics instead of being partially active during the elections only. Arendt observed these revolutions and wanted to know what they signify. On Revolution is a narrative of the French and the American revolutions. The book received criticism and Arendt’s historical account came under-attack by historians and experts from the both side. The fact that she referred to the American Revolution as a revolution instead of calling it the war of independence stunned many. Hence not only her views and claims were problematic to some but also the title. In this paper, I’m going to argue and point out the differences between the French Revolution and the American Revolution in line with Arendt’s theory of revolution.
On this day 191 years ago John Quincy Adams expressed his prediction for the future of Cuban-American contact. The Cuban wars of independence were only 15 years away from his prediction when he estimated. These independence wars continue to influence Cuba’s cultural and political attitude toward Europe and the United States; This in part due to the externalities involved in the remodeling of social structure in the aftermath of the revolution. The intentions and motives of each faction: rebels, United States government, Spanish government, United States public, and the Cuban public, varied widely to an extend that caused even more concern in the future. Depending on the point of view of an outsider the situation in Cuba seemed to be a continuation of revolution...
The tropical island of Cuba had been an object of empire for the United States. Before the Missile Crisis, the relationship between Castro and the US were strained by the Bay of Pigs occurrence in 1961. This was where counterrevolutionary Cubans were American funded and tried to invade Cuba and overthrow Castro. However, the counterrevolutionaries failed. Castro then found an alliance with the Soviet Union and an increase of distrust that Castro had on the US. On January 18, 1962, the United States’ Operation Mongoose was learned. The objective would be “to help the Cubans overthrow the Communist regime” so that the US could live in peace. Consequently, Castro informed the Soviet Union that they were worried about a direct invasion on Cuba, thus longed for protection against th...
Castro’s involvement with the foreign and domestic politics during the early Cold War period greatly influenced the outcome of the Cuban Revolution. Without the actions taken by foreign powers like the United States and Russia, some events on the domestic front may have had very different results. It is important to understand how every nation’s foreign policies can influence more than just one other nation, and this was especially true for Cuba. It was because of these events that produced the communist Cuba that we are familiar with today.
When looking back at the crisis that happened in Cuba, many things can be blamed. A stance that could be ...
However the US played a much larger role in Cuba’s past and present than the building of casinos and the introduction of the first taints of corruption. In the past, even before Batista, Americans were resented by Cubans because the Americans made a lot of Cuba’s decisions. Under Batista, 80% of Cuban imports came from the US, and the US controlled at least 50% of sugar, utilities, phones and railroads. If Cuba was a business in the stock markets, then the US would have been close to owning 50% of its shares. When combined with a long history of US-backe...