Repercussions of a successful Bay of Pigs?

[Chapman]

This is a bit of an AH cliche at this point, but most threads on this topic seem to revolve around the unlikeliness of the Bay of Pigs succeeding, rather than just speculating on what if it had succeeded.
So let's say that some way or another, the Kennedy Administration was able to pull off the Bay of Pigs invasion and overthrow Castro, installing José Miró Cardona as the de-facto President of Cuba. How would the world react? What would the Soviet response be like, in particular?

 

[trajen777]

The world was in 2 camps (with some of the non aligned which had no power).
1. The soviet camp would saber rattle and maybe look at trying harder to destabilize something else supported by the USA
2. The western world would be happy that USA stood up and brought freedom to CUBA

I would say that is would be a similar response to what the Cubans did in Angola. The difference is the USSR would have much less room to find alternative solutions, except for invasion of Europe, or full nuc war. Which no one wanted.

 

[sloreck]

The immediate effect would be a lot of Soviet huffing and puffing, but the Soviets knew that this was an area of specific interest to the USA - an analog would be just a few years before when the Soviets went in and crushed the Hungarian Revolution. The Soviets most certainly would not go to war to reinstitute a communist government in Cuba. Long term, lots of butterflies - South/Central America, Angola, no Cuban missile crisis (which may mean no Oswald assassination of JFK)...big Mothra flaps.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

You've launched an unprovoked war of overt aggression against a weak Latin American nation. You've just alienated the Organization of Latin American States, who view this as a return to the Banana Wars, and a violation of amicable US relations with Latin America since the Franklin Roosevelt administration. You've alienated our European allies, who will view this as a war of aggression, and the French and British will question why the US abandoned them on Suez while hypocritically committing to such an action. You've given the Soviet Union a propaganda tool of the United States as an expansionist, imperialist power at war with the Third World. You've alienated the Third World at a pivotal period of decolonization and independence by having the United States violate that independence, endangering their loyalty to the West and potentially pushing them to the Communist sphere.

 

[GDIS Pathe]

You've launched an unprovoked war of overt aggression against a weak Latin American nation. You've just alienated the Organization of Latin American States, who view this as a return to the Banana Wars, and a violation of amicable US relations with Latin America since the Franklin Roosevelt administration. You've alienated our European allies, who will view this as a war of aggression, and the French and British will question why the US abandoned them on Suez while hypocritically committing to such an action. You've given the Soviet Union a propaganda tool of the United States as an expansionist, imperialist power at war with the Third World. You've alienated the Third World at a pivotal period of decolonization and independence by having the United States violate that independence, endangering their loyalty to the West and potentially pushing them to the Communist sphere.

So why didn't it happen in OTL? It was pretty clear the US-funded and supplied Cuban rebels yet nothing like the sort happened it was pretty clear the US tried to overthrow a legitimate government The US did this in OTL and failed so why didn't this result happen. The great powers are all fucking hypocrites and that is fact.

 

[Histor32]

So why didn't it happen in OTL? It was pretty clear the US-funded and supplied Cuban rebels yet nothing like the sort happened it was pretty clear the US tried to overthrow a legitimate government The US did this in OTL and failed so why didn't this result happen. The great powers are all fucking hypocrites and that is fact.

welcome to the real world where the powerful get to do as they wish with little to no consequence and the weak .. well. they get bent over at will with out much lube if any at all
look at Africa, the middle east, latin and parts of south America where the great powers intervene and mess things up in incredible fashion

 

[GDIS Pathe]

welcome to the real world where the powerful get to do as they wish with little to no consequence and the weak .. well. they get bent over at will with out much lube if any at all
look at Africa, the middle east, latin and parts of south America where the great powers intervene and mess things up in incredible fashion

The people with the big sticks make the rules it's been that way since what 6000 BCE? And considering the soldiers of most western countries are all volunteers they can sustain these brush fire wars for decades having a professional soldier class makes it so

 

[Histor32]

The people with the big sticks make the rules it's been that way since what 6000 BCE? And considering the soldiers of most western countries are all volunteers they can sustain these brush fire wars for decades having a professional soldier class makes it so

this i am acutely well aware of .. doesn't make it right though.

 

[trajen777]

Im not so sure "right has every existed in politics". Wether Muslim slave raiders in Russia, Greece, or Italy. France in Germany, GB in Indian, USSR in eastern Europe, ZULU in southern Africa, any time one power exists it can pretty much do what it wishes. In Cuba Castro picked a fight he could not win. The better course was not to pretend a communist country but just tell it like it is a dictatorship. He could have in theory been a benv. dictator.

 

[Deleted member 9338]

This could butter fly away support for Israel in the 70s as the US looks inward to Latin America

 

[173rd LRRP]

The Batistiaites would be back in power and another cycle of revolution would probably occur.

In November 1961, CIA Inspector-General Lyman B Kirkpatrick, authored a report 'Survey of the Cuban Operation', that remained classified until 1996. Conclusions were:[179]

1. The C.I.A. exceeded its capabilities in developing the project from guerrilla support to overt armed action without any plausible deniability.
2. Failure to realistically assess risks and to adequately communicate information and decisions internally and with other government principals.
3. Insufficient involvement of leaders of the exiles.
4. Failure to sufficiently organize internal resistance in Cuba.
5. Failure to competently collect and analyze intelligence about Cuban forces.
6. Poor internal management of communications and staff.
7. Insufficient employment of high-quality staff.
8. Insufficient Spanish-speakers, training facilities and material resources.
9. Lack of stable policies and/or contingency plans.

In spite of vigorous rebuttals by CIA management of the findings, CIA Director Allen Dulles, CIA Deputy Director Charles Cabell, and Deputy Director for Plans Richard Bissell were all forced to resign by early 196

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The US 'got away with it iOTL' because 1) they failed, 2) it really was CIA support for Cuban rebels (as claimed), not involving significant US military forces.

ITTL, there's got to be a major invasion with full backing of the US military, because that's the only conceivable way it could succeed. And even that's ... not guaranteed.

 

[GunsCarsGuitars]

not involving significant US military forces.

Didn't JFK wuss out on airstrikes to support the invasion?

 

[Emperor Norton I]

not involving significant US military forces.

Didn't JFK wuss out on airstrikes to support the invasion?

Airstrikes would have overtly demonstrated that the United States was complicit and completely involved. The operation was based on plausible deniability that the United States was not involved, and that it was an independent operation by mercenaries of their own free will, which would then ask the US for "support" when, as the CIA believed, they would disappear into the countryside, lead to a popular uprising against Castro among the people and so forth. The debate has been if the CIA actually believed this, or if the CIA and military lied to Kennedy that it was plausible and thought they could force the president into sending complete and overt American military force to invade Cuba when the exiles would surely falter. The evidence has pointed to the latter. Kennedy refused to have a war erupt overnight 90 miles from the United States.

 

[calvinhobbesliker]

You've launched an unprovoked war of overt aggression against a weak Latin American nation. You've just alienated the Organization of Latin American States, who view this as a return to the Banana Wars, and a violation of amicable US relations with Latin America since the Franklin Roosevelt administration. You've alienated our European allies, who will view this as a war of aggression, and the French and British will question why the US abandoned them on Suez while hypocritically committing to such an action. You've given the Soviet Union a propaganda tool of the United States as an expansionist, imperialist power at war with the Third World. You've alienated the Third World at a pivotal period of decolonization and independence by having the United States violate that independence, endangering their loyalty to the West and potentially pushing them to the Communist sphere.

Sorry, is this the OAS that voted to expel Cuba after it became Communist?

 

[RanulfC]

Airstrikes would have overtly demonstrated that the United States was complicit and completely involved. The operation was based on plausible deniability that the United States was not involved, and that it was an independent operation by mercenaries of their own free will, which would then ask the US for "support" when, as the CIA believed, they would disappear into the countryside, lead to a popular uprising against Castro among the people and so forth. The debate has been if the CIA actually believed this, or if the CIA and military lied to Kennedy that it was plausible and thought they could force the president into sending complete and overt American military force to invade Cuba when the exiles would surely falter. The evidence has pointed to the latter. Kennedy refused to have a war erupt overnight 90 miles from the United States.

I seem to recall that the "Bay of Pigs" was actually a substantial change from the 'original' plan which had the landing in a spot where they invaders specifically COULD 'retreat' into the hills if things went bad which was not possible at the new landing site.

Randy