Batista Regime Survival

Waiving away the Castro brothers pre 1955 & their organization, how long could the Batistia government survive vs the other revolutionary movements? Assuming those of the 1950s are suppressed what is the viability of Batistas government & its core supporters into the 1960s.

I've assumed internal division would result in some sort of coup in the mid 1960s and different set of crooks would take over. Alternately a new adapted revolution would succeed before the end of the 1960s.
 
The biggest problem with the Batista regime, as I understand it, is that the people running the show had little to no competency in their roles. It wasn't just that they were corrupt, but they were incapable as well. This is particularly true of the armed forces under Batista, and is part of the reason that his regime collapsed so quickly; many of the officers fighting Fidel Castro and his revolutionaries just didn't know what they were doing.

There's also the fact that Batista's regime lacked any real ideology of any sort. The goal of his government, plain and simple, was to generate wealth. Primarily for himself and those bankers at the top, but also with the belief that enough wealth generation could assuage the masses. In keeping with this, Batista actually allowed a reasonable amount of opposition to operate in the public sphere (though obviously not armed) in hopes of making himself look more benevolent both to the people and to the US government, which increasingly (and accurately) saw him as a liability. This undermined him severely, and again, is part of why his government collapsed as quickly as it did.

With these factors in mind, I don't see Batista lasting much longer than he did IOTL. There were a number of attempted coups within his government before Castro et al ever marched on Havana, and he would've been taken out sooner rather than later. As to who would've/could've taken him out successfully, i'm not sure, and whether or not they would run an equally incompetent government will determine if a different revolutionary group could overthrow them.

This (Chapter 5 specifically, beginning on page 113) is a good look at the things I outlined here briefly.
https://books.google.com/books?id=rPNSnRYzIdgC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=batista+regime+sultan&source=bl&ots=jfhJsAbs8S&sig=XyQPTBcXsx46SJTn4UF2Clap5ZY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiI5vK74qLeAhVJ1oMKHe5gCokQ6AEwDHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
 
Hmm... Looks like the old boy won't last long.

I'm envisioning Micheal Corleone taking over the entire 'operation'.

Yeah, it's unlikely that he'll be in power for much longer even without Castro in the picture. Your best bet to have a Cuba that defeats the revolutionaries and remains semi-stable would seem to be having the 1956 coup involving Colonel Ramón Barquín and the few other remaining professional officers succeed. With people in charge who knew what they were doing, it's possible that they could restore order. Though they would probably have to make significant concessions to the rebels, depending on how competent they are themselves without Castro.
 
I was not thinking of stability, just how long before Batista & Co could continue their kleptocracy. A year, two years, five, whatever?

Depends on a lot of different factors, but I'd say 5 years would be optimistic short of completely revamping his government. Eventually the US is going to seize any opportunity they can get to take him out of power, much like Diem in South Vietnam.
 
The Castros had a different business plan, selected better managers/enforcers, & were probably better salesmen.

bottom line here is Batistas regime was not going to last long. the early 196s still being a time of change in Cuba. The main question being the nature of the replacement. I'm not favoring more of the same at least not for long, nor the Corleone option. Either another group of revolutionaries, or some sort of US sponsored group of well dressed thugs.
 
I imagine there's a very real chance he retires to his comfortable villa in Daytona Beach, probably after the 62' election assuming, sans the Communists, the optics remain good enough for the US to keep tolerating him. As for his sucessor, you'll probably see a reformer type if still autocratic (Think more White Revolution Iran)
 

kernals12

Banned
I imagine there's a very real chance he retires to his comfortable villa in Daytona Beach, probably after the 62' election assuming, sans the Communists, the optics remain good enough for the US to keep tolerating him. As for his sucessor, you'll probably see a reformer type if still autocratic (Think more White Revolution Iran)
Cuba, unlike Iran, had a history of democratically elected presidents (The United States did try to impose its system of governance on all its colonies). Batista himself in fact served from 1940 to 1944.
 
I'm reminded of Marcos, who could not stick with the PI tradition of rotating the Presidency among the prominent families every four years. He had to hang on & shut the others out.
 
Cuba, unlike Iran, had a history of democratically elected presidents (The United States did try to impose its system of governance on all its colonies). Batista himself in fact served from 1940 to 1944.

I meant in terms of ideology/policy, not the imposition of an actual monarchy. Batista's presidency and Cuba's democratic tradition is precisely the reason I'd argue he can simply retire once he feels the need: he has a legitimate "out" and existing semi-loyal opposition that most tin pot dictators don't
 

kernals12

Banned
I meant in terms of ideology/policy, not the imposition of an actual monarchy. Batista's presidency and Cuba's democratic tradition is precisely the reason I'd argue he can simply retire once he feels the need: he has a legitimate "out" and existing semi-loyal opposition that most tin pot dictators don't
I meant that you shouldn't assume the next President would be an autocrat.
 
I meant that you shouldn't assume the next President would be an autocrat.

I'm making a prediction of a probable event, not declaring that WILL be what happens. However, I can't see how youre likely to get a leader unlikely to utalize strongmam tactics or surpress the opposition (though less so than Batista) given the political instability and protest
 
After a bit more random reading I'm favoring Batista departs in a few years, & the odds are he & Co. are replaced by much the same. While I don't see the 'Corleone Takeover' as a viable option I am certain US organized crime would be one supporter of many of the replacement options. This includes some of the leftist counter revolutionary movements. There are fair odds of a leftist coalition taking over, but if the Castros are not in a position to do this at all then I'd think the odds are another group similar to Batisitas would slip into power. The trouble the leftist groups would have is the strong anti Communist sentiment among US leadership. At this point the US government would rather see another crowd of the usual suspects take over than a genuinely reformist leftwing government.
 
Top