April 1961.Consequences of US Cuba invasion.

sigh: revolutionary spirit is why, as the "revolution" proceeded, large numbers of Cubans have, since 1962, risked their lives to leave. If the Cubans are so "spirited" why has the government, to this day, not simply allowed people to leave if they were not happy with the workers paradise? Why has the major effort of the Cuban Navy to intercept people fleeing, as opposed to defending against the baby bayoneting Yanquis?

Dure its real simple. A place where people are confined and are not allowed to leave, and are shot or punished if they try to leave is called a prison. Some are small, some encompass an entire country.

The USA would have reduced Castro at best to a guerilla running for his life in the Sierra Maestra. The Soviets would have grumbled then shut up. How long any resistance to the new government went on would be a function of how much less corrupt they were than Batista.
 
I want to clarify my use of the terms "free", "deliver", and "liberate". Just for the record, I'm well aware that Batista was a Mafia stooge, and restoring his odious regime or another like it couldn't by any stretch of the imagination be called "liberation". But removing Castro from power wouldn't necessarily mean bringing back such a dictatorship. On the contrary, it would give the Cuban people a chance to organize competing political parties and hold free elections, something that Castro has never allowed, and probably never will.
 
sigh: revolutionary spirit is why, as the "revolution" proceeded, large numbers of Cubans have, since 1962, risked their lives to leave. If the Cubans are so "spirited" why has the government, to this day, not simply allowed people to leave if they were not happy with the workers paradise? Why has the major effort of the Cuban Navy to intercept people fleeing, as opposed to defending against the baby bayoneting Yanquis?

Dure its real simple. A place where people are confined and are not allowed to leave, and are shot or punished if they try to leave is called a prison. Some are small, some encompass an entire country.

Which takes into account frustration with the Castro regime which came after this point (it's 1961, btw, not 1962 -again, Cuban Missile Crisis perhaps confused with the Bay of Pigs-, and Castro has only been in power since 1959), not before. Castro has a lot of public support by this point IIRC correctly, and if not that, at least a public aversion by the Cuban people to the previous order of things, which America supported gleefully while the Cuban people suffered. Similarly, if I recall, many of Castro's harsher policies which alienated those who opted to try to leave evolved out of this as it was in the OTL and fear of America it induced.

The USA would have reduced Castro at best to a guerilla running for his life in the Sierra Maestra. The Soviets would have grumbled then shut up. How long any resistance to the new government went on would be a function of how much less corrupt they were than Batista.
See my previous post. Again, this was not going to be some massive US invasion, or some US "conflict" or official anything. This oversimplification of international fighting is starting to annoy me. The invasion was always to be centered on the exiles. The original plan, which Nixon would have likely followed, would involved a limited Marine and airforce backing (limited in the way that it was only a small portion of each group and not the entirety of them as so many of you guys seem to be arguing), and have been reliant on the exiles for the success of the mission. This was a covert action. The US could neither afford to have it known to the Soviets their degree of involvement if they could help it (although they'd obviously suspect) and the administration did not, and would not grant much visibility on this to the people and I believe Congress to boot. And as we had seen, the exiles failed to gain support (the United States was expecting the Cuban people to "greet us as liberators" and join the exiles in overthrowing Castro), and failed. And, as Marine and airforce backing was limited (again, not this massive invasion force, nor one that took up the bulk of the mission as many of you guys are saying), and the mission based on the exiles, this gambit would still lose. It would not be successful, only bloodier.


I want to clarify my use of the terms "free", "deliver", and "liberate". Just for the record, I'm well aware that Batista was a Mafia stooge, and restoring his odious regime or another like it couldn't by any stretch of the imagination be called "liberation". But removing Castro from power wouldn't necessarily mean bringing back such a dictatorship. On the contrary, it would give the Cuban people a chance to organize competing political parties and hold free elections, something that Castro has never allowed, and probably never will.
Fidel gave up the presidency due to health. Raoul Castro is in power now, and democratization actually seems a possibility.
 

Xen

Banned
See my previous post. Again, this was not going to be some massive US invasion, or some US "conflict" or official anything. This oversimplification of international fighting is starting to annoy me. The invasion was always to be centered on the exiles. The original plan, which Nixon would have likely followed, would involved a limited Marine and airforce backing (limited in the way that it was only a small portion of each group and not the entirety of them as so many of you guys seem to be arguing), and have been reliant on the exiles for the success of the mission. This was a covert action. The US could neither afford to have it known to the Soviets their degree of involvement if they could help it (although they'd obviously suspect) and the administration did not, and would not grant much visibility on this to the people and I believe Congress to boot. And as we had seen, the exiles failed to gain support (the United States was expecting the Cuban people to "greet us as liberators" and join the exiles in overthrowing Castro), and failed. And, as Marine and airforce backing was limited (again, not this massive invasion force, nor one that took up the bulk of the mission as many of you guys are saying), and the mission based on the exiles, this gambit would still lose. It would not be successful, only bloodier.

The problem here is the OP mentioned Nixon ordering an invasion of Cuba, not sticking to the original plan of limited US involvement in the way of Marines and Air Force. This is why people are mentioning massive US invasion (doesnt have to be too massive a couple thousand Marines are likely to do the trick with air support of course).

Were just trying to stick to what the op requested, nothing more, nothing less.
 

Xen

Banned
Bloody guerilla quagmire. It limits Nixon´s options in Vietnam,. I assume he hasn´t escalated Vietnam yet.

Why? It would be over in no time, if Vietnam still escalates it won't be until the mid-1960s so Nixon may have a good full term to wrap up Cuba.
 
The problem here is the OP mentioned Nixon ordering an invasion of Cuba, not sticking to the original plan of limited US involvement in the way of Marines and Air Force. This is why people are mentioning massive US invasion (doesnt have to be too massive a couple thousand Marines are likely to do the trick with air support of course).

Were just trying to stick to what the op requested, nothing more, nothing less.

I'd debate whether that meant an alternate invasion or actually referred to the original marine backing in clumsy language (no offense) as it clearly references Bay of Pigs. The latter has been dealt with. The former wouldn't happen. The US was trying to keep Bay of Pigs covert because it was CIA backed, not Congressionally backed, and Nixon would have no reason to do so. Even Vietnam had an casus bellum (Tonkin). There exists none for Cuba save political disagreement. In the Cold war environment, you don't invade nations you dislike if you can help it. You have their leader killed, fund a coup, fund rebels, or other, all the while hiding your involvement. To invade, you'd need a cause of war, Congressional support for war, and have to take a covert action you want to keep hidden (BoP) and throw it into the public arena, which Nixon would not do. At most, he'd screw around with Cuba secretly and behind Congress' back causing more damage, but no success in ousting Castro.
 
A number of points to be addressed on this topic.

I must concur with the position that a U.S. invasion of Cuba in '61 (an important distinction compared to the next year, when the dynamics of the situation are dramatically different), being as it was squarely in the U.S. sphere of influence and not yet possessed of sufficient Soviet backing to provide a deterrent, would have yielded little in the way of response from the Soviet Union save for a significant propaganda victory.

This itself is enough, however.

One must understand that this was at a time when the U.S. was going to great lengths to promote its image as a beneficent, and importantly, non-imperialist power. Interventionism was the Soviet game, and the U.S. did not want to be seen as playing it, particularly engaged as it was in attempting to woo potential allies in the highly-sensitive third world. Eisenhower in particular cleaved to this image, as can be evidenced in his response to British and French intervention against Nasser in the Suez.
Further, Eisenhower had deep reservations about the viability of intervention as a tool for containment, citing the costly and largely inconclusive war in Korea. During the planning stages of a hypothetical invasion of Cuba, commanders expressed concern over their ultimate ability to root out guerrillas deeply enmeshed in the Cuban countryside, again citing their experiences in Korea. It was for these reasons that Eisenhower chose to adopt covert CIA operations as the primary instrument of combating global communism, seeing in it a cost-effective and (again importantly) largely deniable alternative to military intervention.
All of this was obviously predicated on the assumption that these CIA jobs were successful, which at the time it was believed they were, based upon the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran and the overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatamala, both of which were orchestrated by the CIA and which came to form the core of its covert operations doctrine. The last instance in particular, having been conducted in Latin America, was heavily drawn upon in the planning of the Bay of Pigs operation.

Why is this important? Because I would argue that Nixon, having been Eisenhower's Vice President, would have been more inclined to pursue the covert route in Cuba which led to the Bay of Pigs than JFK was. To really make the invasion decision a plausible one you will need an earlier PoD.

Putting that aside momentarily and postulating specifically on the substance of an American invasion of Cuba, my earlier point about military reservations yet stands. While it is certainly possible that an effective blockade could have isolated the guerrillas from supplies, the fact remains that dislodging the communists from Cuba would be a messy, messy exercise in asymmetric warfare.

Sorry if this is rambling, I'm sleep-deprived.
 
Why? It would be over in no time...

Well, at least you didnt say we'd be "welcomed as liberators...."

Why would it be over any sooner than the Sandinistas, or the Castroites previous campaign vs Batista? Please tell us it's not just a "USA is number one!" argument.
 

Xen

Banned
Well, at least you didnt say we'd be "welcomed as liberators...."

Why would it be over any sooner than the Sandinistas, or the Castroites previous campaign vs Batista? Please tell us it's not just a "USA is number one!" argument.

Castroists were not that numerous in 1961, yes Cubans were happy to get rid of Batista but that doesnt mean they were all that happy with Castro. Castro's popularity was a result of his defeat of the American supported Bay of Pigs Invasion.

It would be seen as most Cubans as just another regime change, they would be unhappy with it of course, but as I said earlier most of them are not going to risk themselves or their family or their livliehood.

Castroists in the jungle can be a pain, but they are going to be limited on supplies to wage an effective war. Cuba after this scenario at its worst will probably have Castroists turning to terrorist-like activities. Pipe Bombs killing pro-Government officials, car bombs exploding at government buildings. It would be a gamble to destabilize the government, but I believe most average Cubans will be turned off to those tactics which will ultimately hurt the Castroists cause.

Any escalation of military action will be minimal and overshadowed by the Vietnam War. I would see American military action in Cuba as being similiar to what occured in Korea in the same time frame.
 
Castroists were not that numerous in 1961, yes Cubans were happy to get rid of Batista but that doesnt mean they were all that happy with Castro. Castro's popularity was a result of his defeat of the American supported Bay of Pigs Invasion.

It would be seen as most Cubans as just another regime change, they would be unhappy with it of course, but as I said earlier most of them are not going to risk themselves or their family or their livliehood.

I bet that in 1961 Castro was more popular in Cuba than the USA. You are obviating that Batista's regime was closely related to the americans not only in the facts but also in the popular imaginery.

Maybe many cubans are not going to risk their lives for Castro, I don't know, but they are not going to be very collaborative with the occupying americans.



Castroists in the jungle can be a pain, but they are going to be limited on supplies to wage an effective war. Cuba after this scenario at its worst will probably have Castroists turning to terrorist-like activities. Pipe Bombs killing pro-Government officials, car bombs exploding at government buildings. It would be a gamble to destabilize the government, but I believe most average Cubans will be turned off to those tactics which will ultimately hurt the Castroists cause.

Well, they had experience in the matter, remember Sierra Maestra. And, if as I am guessing, most of the population is not going to be collaborative with the americans, although not belligerant, the castroist will have logistical support from many cubans like they had during the guerrilla war against Batista (that finished only two years before).
 

Deleted member 5719

Basically this is the jist of what would have happened

1) US Forces get involved
2) Cuban military resists at first but eventually is steam rolled by US Army
3) Castro flees to jungle with his closest comrades
4) The Soviet Union condemns the invasion as American Imperialism all attacks on the US is purely verbal and rhetorical
5) The USSR may posture militarily but again this is purely for show
6) Pro-American government set up in Havana
7) Castro and his staunchest supporters make trouble for the US friendly government
8) US Army goes into jungle to flush Castro out
9) Castro is killed in a US assault
10) Castro becomes this TTL Che
11) Things settle down in Cuba
12) Things return to normal

Possible, but not inevitable. The US was not the unstoppable juggernaut it would become, and a hostile invasion of an island can go very, very wrong.

This way, the US alienates all of Latin America except the extreme right, we'll say a much more left wing 70's in South and Central America.
 
Top