Why didn't the US intervene during the Cuban Revolution?

[AlexG]

SNIP

Excellent. Could not have put it better myself.

 

[David T]

So, I recently watched The Godfather Part II, and that has got me thinking: why didn't the US intervene during the Cuban Revolution? I mean, there was a lot of American investment in Cuba and the island was just 90 miles away from the US. It would be logic for the US to intervene against the Marxist rebels, after all, they wouldn't want what was basically their colony to become a pro-Soviet state. Also, what would Cuba look like if the US had intervened?

So, can anyone answer me this? Thanks in advance.

It was not until the collapse of Batista's offensive in mid-1958 that a victory for the 26th of July Movement seemed imminent. The US was concerned about this, but not too alarmed; both the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the CIA doubted that the rebels were Communist-dominated. (Fidel Castro himself was not generally thought to be a Communist, though there was concern about his brother Raul and about Che Guevara.) The State Department did try to find alternatives to both Batista (whose days were obviously numbered) and Castro but it was too late. See Lars Schoultz, *That Infernal Little Cuban Republic,* pp. 79-81 for details. http://books.google.com/books?id=37LopzbPotYC&pg=PA79

Cuba was far from being at the center of US concerns at this time, one must remember. The government was much more concerned about Berlin. Also, the illness of John Foster Dulles (who was soon to die and be replaced as Secretary of State by Christian Herter) and the rout of the Republicans in the November mid-term elections made it hard to focus attention on Cuba. It was generally assumed in Washington that while Fidel Castro might be immature and a "megalomaniac," eventually any Cuban government would realize that Cuba was economically dependent on the US for its survival.

 

[arrowiv]

Would it have made any difference if Ike decided to skip golf and actually meet with Fidel (instead, Fidel had a rather uneasy meeting with Nixon)? Did Nixon really think Castro was a communist??

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

Would it have made any difference if Ike decided to skip golf and actually meet with Fidel (instead, Fidel had a rather uneasy meeting with Nixon)? Did Nixon really think Castro was a communist??

Don't be ridiculous. President Eisenhower skipping golf is completely ASB.

 

[gaijin]

If the US overthrew Castro early on, Cuba would probably be between the level of Portugal or Spain ($20-30k per capita) and the lower level of the G7 like Italy or UK ($35-40k per capita). Cuba had a richer economy than Spain and Portugal in the 1950s. Combined with massive US investment, Cuba would develop quite well. Spain and Portugal would be laggards until they joined the EU (then the EEC) in 1986, after which they started receiving large EU subsidies to modernize their economies. So depending on how one envisions the specifics, Cuba is more or less at their level although I'd expect Cuba to have done substantially better - the per capita income might be 10-50% more.

It would be a stable democracy, and probably the leading country in Latin America in terms of development. The US would likely have ceded Guantanamo Bay back to Cuba decades ago.

Or it would have ended up like that other succes story: Haiti.

Having a government that is friendly to US interests in general does not equal succesfull economic development. Somertimes it will, sometimes it wont.

 

[arrowiv]

Ike and Nixon were no dummies. They saw Castro who he really was all along. In fact, the moment Castro walked out of Nixon's office following their tense meeting, Nixon wrote up a memorandum which stated, in effect, "Castro must be overthrown ASAP"...

 

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

Like everyone else has said, basically Batista's supporters consisted of himself and his barber. Everyone wanted to see him go, it was just that Castro caught the US by surprise when he threw his lot in with the Soviets.

A fun POD/AHC/TL/whatever would be having a Cuban Revolution that doesn't go Red (I dunno, Che falls off his motorcycle and dies or something).

It wasn't a case of surprise.

Castro openly said he was going to nationalize some foreign-owned industries to put Cuban resources in the hands of the Cuban people. This was met with extreme disfavor in Washington and absolutely no effort to accommodate Castro's policies.

It was only really after the extremely cold reception he got in the US that Castro turned to the USSR.

 

[mtg999]

If the US overthrew Castro early on, Cuba would probably be between the level of Portugal or Spain ($20-30k per capita) and the lower level of the G7 like Italy or UK ($35-40k per capita). Cuba had a richer economy than Spain and Portugal in the 1950s. Combined with massive US investment, Cuba would develop quite well. Spain and Portugal would be laggards until they joined the EU (then the EEC) in 1986, after which they started receiving large EU subsidies to modernize their economies. So depending on how one envisions the specifics, Cuba is more or less at their level although I'd expect Cuba to have done substantially better - the per capita income might be 10-50% more.

It would be a stable democracy, and probably the leading country in Latin America in terms of development. The US would likely have ceded Guantanamo Bay back to Cuba decades ago.

I was always under the impression that it is generally Argentina/Uruguay/Chile (particularly the latter two) that have been consistently viewed as the Latin American nations most likely to have Western level development, not least because they are basically the Western Hemisphere versions of Spain.

Not doubting what you say, as you seem to know a lot about this, but my own view was that Central America/The Caribbean was the laggard area of Latin America. Or is this just a perception brought about by the last few decades of history in that region?

 

[Expat]

I was always under the impression that it is generally Argentina/Uruguay/Chile (particularly the latter two) that have been consistently viewed as the Latin American nations most likely to have Western level development, not least because they are basically the Western Hemisphere versions of Spain.

Not doubting what you say, as you seem to know a lot about this, but my own view was that Central America/The Caribbean was the laggard area of Latin America. Or is this just a perception brought about by the last few decades of history in that region?

Oh he's definitely right about Cuba's early 20th century trajectory. I believe it was consistently behind Argentina and ahead of everyone else in development. I disagree with him on Cuba's ability to sustain that, given its very specialized agrarian-focused economy, and I also disagree that there's clear evidence that Castro meant to go full-on Soviet puppet from the get-go. That seems more like a political position than fact. But yes, Cuba was doing very well before the revolutin; well, before Batista, anyway.

 

[Spare Change]

The Reasons stated why the US did not oppose Castro were correct.

However US Oppression forced Cuba to do it! Are not. Cuba's Relation with the United States most closely resembles that of a 1950s Puerto Rico not a place like Guetameala (sp?). In fact they were more intimate than the close ties the US has w/Mexico today.

I believe Cuba was the Wealthiest nation in Latin America when the revolution swept into power. Now it is the among the poorest in the Hemisphere.

It did free Cuba from its US Orientation, if one feels that is necessary, but at a terrible price.

 

[Spare Change]

Oh he's definitely right about Cuba's early 20th century trajectory. I believe it was consistently behind Argentina and ahead of everyone else in development. I disagree with him on Cuba's ability to sustain that, given its very specialized agrarian-focused economy, and I also disagree that there's clear evidence that Castro meant to go full-on Soviet puppet from the get-go. That seems more like a political position than fact. But yes, Cuba was doing very well before the revolutin; well, before Batista, anyway.

Cuba would not still be a sugar island. Havana would likely be what Miami is today. The capital of Latin American Finance, and given some stable politics the place that Latin Americans flee to when things in the home country get rough.

 

[Blackfox5]

I was always under the impression that it is generally Argentina/Uruguay/Chile (particularly the latter two) that have been consistently viewed as the Latin American nations most likely to have Western level development, not least because they are basically the Western Hemisphere versions of Spain.

That quote was me speculating on the future development of Cuba without Castro. It was not a statement of fact on Cuba's relative position in 1959. In 1959, Cuba was definitely one of the top tier of Latin American economies, but one can easily make the case that Argentina was ahead. Probably more controversy compared to others.

Cuba had the third-highest per capita income in Latin America, exceeded only by Argentina and Venezuela (which was oil rich). This made Cuba almost as rich as Italy. Cuba ranked fifth in Latin American manufacturing, and had more railroads per square mile than any other country in the world. Its one telephone for 38 persons was exceeded only by the U.S. with one for every 3 and Argentina with one for every 13. Cuba was "the most heavily capitalized country in Latin America" according to a 1956 U.S. Department of Commerce analysis. Cuban literacy rates were the fourth-highest in Latin America after Argentina, Chile and Costa Rica. It had the lowest mortality rates, and its doctors per capita were only behind Argentina and Uruguay.

This is a country that is well placed to grow and develop in the next decade.

As we know, Argentina self destructs under Peronism. Most of the rest of Latin America does well during the commodities boom, but autarkic economic policies and overly generous welfare state create severe problems after the oil crisis for non-petroleum economies and after the oil price crash for petroleum economies. Most of Cuba's peers in Latin America basically cut their own achilles tendon.

Cuba on the other hand has several advantages they don't. Its close ties with America and massive involvement by American companies give Cuba an advantage those other countries don't have in access to the American market, managerial expertise, and a diversified economy. Absent someone like Castro, Cuba is likely to do well. As Argentina declines under Peronist policies, I think Cuba will overtake it sometime in the late sixties, definitely by seventies.

I am not saying Cuba was a paradise, or that there wasn't mass poverty or inequality in many places. There was, but a lot less than what people think. Cuba was a member of the most developed nations in Latin America, and one that compared favorably to many southern European countries.

 

[Blackfox5]

I disagree with him on Cuba's ability to sustain that, given its very specialized agrarian-focused economy

Cuba was not a actually a very specialized agrarian-focused economy by 1958. It was semi-industrial country well placed to moved up in the value added chain.

Cuba was still a developing nation, but by 1959 it was rapidly industrializing and had begun to diversify its economy by a lot. Agriculture was still important, but sugar represented only 27% of agricultural income, much less GDP. Cattle, mining, tourism, and manufacturing were all reducing dependency on agriculture.

Cuba ranked fifth in Latin American manufacturing with industrial wages being the highest in Latin America and 9th highest in the world. Cuba possessed world class infrastructure in its roads, railways, and ports.

The following statistics indicate the rate of production before Castro. It is the % increase between 1951 and 1958:

Agricultural Production
raw sugar .......... 11
plantains ........... 30
rice ................ 120
leaf tobacco ...... 50
potatoes .......... 28
flour ............... 114

Industrial Production--non-Sugar
cement .............. 55.5
fertilizer ............. 48.8
cotton ............... 33.6
sulfuric acid ........ 32.3
artificial silk ........ 18.1
rubber goods ...... 65.5
construction ..... 120.8
gas and electric . 157.5
manufactures .... 118.7

This is very significant growth in key industrial commodities. Several key sectors more than doubled output. According to the Banco Nacional, investment in Cuban industrial installations exceeded $600 million from 1952 to 1956. Of this amount, $324 million was invested in 154 new plants and $288 million in the expansion of existing plants. The $600 million increase in manufacturing compares well against the accumulated industrial capital stock in the sugar sector of $1,159 million.

Of the fixed capital goods purchased abroad in 1957-58, 63 percent was invested in industry, 10 percent in diversified agriculture, 13 percent in motorized transport, and an equal share represented construction equipment. This shows that Cuba was investing in its manufacturing sector, and that agriculture was becoming less important.

The US made direct investments of $403 million in 1946-59. Petroleum refining accounted for $129 million, manufacturing for $75 million, public services for $60 million, and commerce for $32 million. New investments in diversified agriculture, mining, and hotels account for the remaining $107 million. We see the most money being invested outside agriculture.

Thus we see that by 1959, Cuba was a semi-industrial nation whose future was increasingly industrialized. Because of limitations of Cuba’s island resources, Cuba was never going to be a large heavy industry country. However, it was well placed to meet its own industrial needs in oil refining and food processing, while being well placed for light manufacturing and probably value added industries in the future.

Furthermore, despite this investment, more of the Cuban economy was being owned by Cubans themselves. The U.S. share of Cuban sugar production declined from 62 percent in 1935 to 37 percent in 1958 while those of other foreign investors fell from 25 to almost nothing. Cuban small farmers grew only nine percent of Cuba’s cane in 1932, but by 1958 their share was well over 50 percent. Cubans controlled three-fourths of the sugar mills which produced 62 percent of the island’s sugar. Cubans had taken over several industries from the Americans including sugar, banking and insurance, and air transportation. Basically, as foreigners built new industries in Cuba, the Cubans were taking over the old ones, and we'd likely see this repeated in the future.

All of this promising start was destroyed by Castro who essentially turned the entire nation into a monocrop sugar plantation on behalf of the Soviet bloc.

 

[Blackfox5]

Or it would have ended up like that other succes story: Haiti.

We already know what it takes to turn Cuba into Haiti. It is Castro, since this is what he did IOTL.

In 1959, Cuba had the third largest GDP per capita in Latin America. Now it is barely above's Haiti. Health care is way better in Cuba than Haiti of course, but that was the case in 1959 as well. It is a sad situation when the best thing that can be said about Castro is that he made modest improvements in Cuban health care statistics while destroying everything else in Cuba.

Cuban GDP declined all throughout the 1959-1970 period, experiencing a slight increase during the commodities boom of the 1970s and massive Soviet subsidies that ended in 1989 before crashing once again. Per capita electrical consumption in Cuba is now 1/6 what it was before Castro. That is a good indicator of the extent of the decline.

In 2008, Florida International Univeristy economist Jorge Salazar-Carrillo estimated that in constant dollars, the Cuban economy is only 5% of what it was in 1958, indicating a gigantic destruction of wealth.

Having a government that is friendly to US interests in general does not equal succesfull economic development. Somertimes it will, sometimes it wont.

I agree, but there are vast differences between Haiti and Cuba in 1959. Why make the comparison? Might as well compare Cuba versus Latveria or Syldavia.

We have plenty of real world comparison of comparable people in a market economy and Communist economy. In not one case has the Communist economy been better.

Nor do we have any reason to believe why Cuba would not continue the progress it made from 1900 to 1959 and all of a sudden self destruct. There are very good reasons to believe Cuba would continue the economic growth it had shown.

It is very important to remember Castro did not gain power in Cuba because of economic reasons. He gained power because of political ones. People were not upset about Batista because the country was becoming worse off economically. They were upset because he violated the Cuban constitution and ruled as a dictator. Most of the opposition against Batista was not Communist or even socialist inspired, but constitutional liberals who wanted democracy restored. That is why Castro posed as one until he secured the military power to force a Communist government.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Beware neoliberal propaganda, wellfare states do not 'need petroleum' or anything, and are not a 'disaster'.

We have seen what neoliberalism can do, and a certain chilean dictator did NOTHING actually to improve the economy, the real economy.


Rosey sunglasses aimed at the past of Cuba.
I am a critic of Castro, but also of the USA - for once I agree with anarchists, who pointed both sides screwed cubans.


The alt Cuba could have become very well at least a land of the 1% to use current terminology, just with a more.. subtile leader. And the poors wouldn't have gained much. So...

 

[Expat]

Cuba was not a actually a very specialized agrarian-focused economy by 1958. It was semi-industrial country well placed to moved up in the value added chain.

Cuba was still a developing nation, but by 1959 it was rapidly industrializing and had begun to diversify its economy by a lot. Agriculture was still important, but sugar represented only 27% of agricultural income, much less GDP. Cattle, mining, tourism, and manufacturing were all reducing dependency on agriculture.

Cuba ranked fifth in Latin American manufacturing with industrial wages being the highest in Latin America and 9th highest in the world. Cuba possessed world class infrastructure in its roads, railways, and ports.

The following statistics indicate the rate of production before Castro. It is the % increase between 1951 and 1958:

Agricultural Production
raw sugar .......... 11
plantains ........... 30
rice ................ 120
leaf tobacco ...... 50
potatoes .......... 28
flour ............... 114

Industrial Production--non-Sugar
cement .............. 55.5
fertilizer ............. 48.8
cotton ............... 33.6
sulfuric acid ........ 32.3
artificial silk ........ 18.1
rubber goods ...... 65.5
construction ..... 120.8
gas and electric . 157.5
manufactures .... 118.7

This is very significant growth in key industrial commodities. Several key sectors more than doubled output. According to the Banco Nacional, investment in Cuban industrial installations exceeded $600 million from 1952 to 1956. Of this amount, $324 million was invested in 154 new plants and $288 million in the expansion of existing plants. The $600 million increase in manufacturing compares well against the accumulated industrial capital stock in the sugar sector of $1,159 million.

Of the fixed capital goods purchased abroad in 1957-58, 63 percent was invested in industry, 10 percent in diversified agriculture, 13 percent in motorized transport, and an equal share represented construction equipment. This shows that Cuba was investing in its manufacturing sector, and that agriculture was becoming less important.

The US made direct investments of $403 million in 1946-59. Petroleum refining accounted for $129 million, manufacturing for $75 million, public services for $60 million, and commerce for $32 million. New investments in diversified agriculture, mining, and hotels account for the remaining $107 million. We see the most money being invested outside agriculture.

Thus we see that by 1959, Cuba was a semi-industrial nation whose future was increasingly industrialized. Because of limitations of Cuba’s island resources, Cuba was never going to be a large heavy industry country. However, it was well placed to meet its own industrial needs in oil refining and food processing, while being well placed for light manufacturing and probably value added industries in the future.

Furthermore, despite this investment, more of the Cuban economy was being owned by Cubans themselves. The U.S. share of Cuban sugar production declined from 62 percent in 1935 to 37 percent in 1958 while those of other foreign investors fell from 25 to almost nothing. Cuban small farmers grew only nine percent of Cuba’s cane in 1932, but by 1958 their share was well over 50 percent. Cubans controlled three-fourths of the sugar mills which produced 62 percent of the island’s sugar. Cubans had taken over several industries from the Americans including sugar, banking and insurance, and air transportation. Basically, as foreigners built new industries in Cuba, the Cubans were taking over the old ones, and we'd likely see this repeated in the future.

All of this promising start was destroyed by Castro who essentially turned the entire nation into a monocrop sugar plantation on behalf of the Soviet bloc.

And when I moved in with my fiancee the number of cats in my household increased by 200%. Take *that*, Cuba's gas & electric industry!

Sorry, it's not fair, but I couldn't resist. Your stats are impressive, but the info is circumstantial without knowing how this actually affected Cuba. Normally I wouldn't think to ask someone to provide more info, as this is just a message board, but you seem to have numbers at your fingertips. If so, do you have anything on the workforce makeup of Cuba? Hard numbers on agricultural labor vs other sectors in addition to change over time?

Please don't take this as me trying to deflect your arguments, I'm actually just asking for more. But again, if you don't have it, you've already put in more effort than most people would for a message board post (you don't work for Cuban Twitter, by any chance?)

There's also matters of corruption under Batista: how much of this investment had its intended effect? How did quality of life/freedom measures change from 1950-1958 or so? For a POD with a truly prosperous Cuba, I think you have to void Batista's coup.

And anyway, I completely agree that Castro screwed over the economy in a truly spectacular fashion. I still disagree that Castro went into the revolution- or took power- as a communist, or that he always intended to climb in bed with the Soviets. I'm not a fan of the guy, but I've not seen the evidence that puts his Soviet ties any earlier than post-charm offensive.

 

[Kung Fucious]

And when I moved in with my fiancee the number of cats in my household increased by 200%. Take *that*, Cuba's gas & electric industry!

Sorry, it's not fair, but I couldn't resist. Your stats are impressive, but the info is circumstantial without knowing how this actually affected Cuba. Normally I wouldn't think to ask someone to provide more info, as this is just a message board, but you seem to have numbers at your fingertips. If so, do you have anything on the workforce makeup of Cuba? Hard numbers on agricultural labor vs other sectors in addition to change over time?

Please don't take this as me trying to deflect your arguments, I'm actually just asking for more. But again, if you don't have it, you've already put in more effort than most people would for a message board post (you don't work for Cuban Twitter, by any chance?)

There's also matters of corruption under Batista: how much of this investment had its intended effect? How did quality of life/freedom measures change from 1950-1958 or so? For a POD with a truly prosperous Cuba, I think you have to void Batista's coup.

And anyway, I completely agree that Castro screwed over the economy in a truly spectacular fashion. I still disagree that Castro went into the revolution- or took power- as a communist, or that he always intended to climb in bed with the Soviets. I'm not a fan of the guy, but I've not seen the evidence that puts his Soviet ties any earlier than post-charm offensive.

Getting Batista out of the way is key. Keep him marginalized, have him get hit by a truck, anything that keeps him from taking power and I think Cuba has a real shot. From what I understand the Partido Autentico, despite the corruption allegations, was making real strides in modernizing Cuba. If a the dice had rolled a bit differently I don't think it's particularly difficult to get Cuba to a place where it's pretty well off compared to the rest of Latin and Central America.

 

[zoomar]

The main reason is that the Batista regome was already unpopular in the US and the full nature of Castro's Marxist leanings was not fully appreciated by US leadership.