What's the effects on Africa if the Cuban Revolution fails?

Cuba sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers into Africa. They fought, most famously, in the Angolan civil war but also against the Eritrean rebels and Somalia for Ethiopia, against South Africa for Angola and Mozambique, against Morocco for Algeria, etc, etc.

There were Cuban military advisors operating in 24 African countries during the 80s, just to pick an example at random, Bob Denard attempted to overthrow Benin's government because Cuba attempted to rent a military base in Benin from them. Generally speaking communism in Africa during the cold war was supported by soviet money and arms but by Cuban manpower.

If Castro doesn't become leader of Cuba and there is no flow of Cuban soldiers into Africa, then what effect does that have on the socialist movements in Africa? Does Ethiopia collapse in the 1970s? Does apartheid hang on a little longer? Does UNITA take over in Angola?
 
Not much actually, Africa was as much a battle ground during the Cold War as Latin America or Southeast Asia. Both sides sent advisors, in many case the Cubans were just one of many. In fact Aids might come much later to Cuba as a result of this. In Africa nothing would really change, sorry.
 
Not much actually, Africa was as much a battle ground during the Cold War as Latin America or Southeast Asia. Both sides sent advisors, in many case the Cubans were just one of many. In fact Aids might come much later to Cuba as a result of this. In Africa nothing would really change, sorry.

You take out hundreds of thousands of Cubans, you need to put hundreds of thousands of other soldiers in their place to make up for it. I'm not saying that wouldn't happen, the Cubans were just the soviet's proxies, but it would make a difference to the countries they came from.

The South African retreat from Namibia and Angola only happened due to fear of the Cuban military. Likewise Somalia would have won the Ogaden war if it wasn't for the huge inflow of arms and soldiers from the communist countries to Ethiopia. The advisors were soviet, the arms were primarily from east Germany and south yemen, but of the soldiers themselves, the vast majority were Cuban. You take out 20,000 soldiers and the war will be different.
 
You take out hundreds of thousands of Cubans, you need to put hundreds of thousands of other soldiers in their place to make up for it. I'm not saying that wouldn't happen, the Cubans were just the soviet's proxies, but it would make a difference to the countries they came from.

The South African retreat from Namibia and Angola only happened due to fear of the Cuban military. Likewise Somalia would have won the Ogaden war if it wasn't for the huge inflow of arms and soldiers from the communist countries to Ethiopia. The advisors were soviet, the arms were primarily from east Germany and south yemen, but of the soldiers themselves, the vast majority were Cuban. You take out 20,000 soldiers and the war will be different.
and replace them with East Germans, Russians and others, the effect would be the same sorry. The USSR saw Cuba as a cheap, climate adapted force that could relate easier to the revolutionaries they were fighting with. Honestly the you would see a higher turn over in Europeans/Russians and you might see Central Asians, Bulgarians and peoples from around the Black sea, who are used to warmer weather and dealing with the diseases of Africa. You might even see Vietnamese forces in Africa eventually.
 
and replace them with East Germans, Russians and others, the effect would be the same sorry. The USSR saw Cuba as a cheap, climate adapted force that could relate easier to the revolutionaries they were fighting with. Honestly the you would see a higher turn over in Europeans/Russians and you might see Central Asians, Bulgarians and peoples from around the Black sea, who are used to warmer weather and dealing with the diseases of Africa. You might even see Vietnamese forces in Africa eventually.

Yeah, probably. But you think that wouldn't change things?
 
Yeah, probably. But you think that wouldn't change things?
In the long term no, the only way that it would change any thing is getting the US to stop assisting anti-Communist forces in Africa, or at least have South Africa commit genocide that would be the only ways to change things.
 
In terms of the men/gear shipped from cuba to african revolutionaries? probably little because other soviet allies could do the same.

In terms of how US policy might change, maybe they would be more willing to overtly intervene against socialist/communist revolutions without the spectre of bay of pigs in the policy makers' minds
 
Castro not coming into power in Cuba is a significant butterly. Communism no longer 90 miles off of the U.S. changes the next 30 years of Cold War activities.
 
Soviet Bloc troops aren't really fungible. If there were really an equivalent number of GDR troops sitting around, why weren't they sent to Angola too? And my understanding is that Castro's commitment to the Angolan intervention went beyond what any Moscow puppet master might have ordered - the Third World Liberationist angle could be grasped easier from Havana. Additionally, black/brown Ibero-Romance-language-speaking troops would naturally be more effective on the ground.

Castro not coming into power in Cuba is a significant butterly. Communism no longer 90 miles off of the U.S. changes the next 30 years of Cold War activities.

But this is a salient point too.

Here is an article emphasizing that Cuba's decision was somewhat unexpected:
http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinio...stro-friend-of-Africa-/440808-3352074-tbover/
 
Last edited:

thorr97

Banned
Cuban troops were not Soviet troops and nor were they Warsaw Pact troops.

Thus there was that degree of "plausible deniability" to allow Moscow to get away with having troops it controlled do its biding in Africa.

Having Soviet or Warsaw Pact troops in Africa in place of the Cubans would NOT have worked. That would've been far too direct an involvement and escalated things either to a direct superpower confrontation level and / or gotten US & NATO troops involved in Africa. Which, again, would've been unacceptable to either side.

Butterfly away Cuban troops in Africa and you wind up with a much more stable southern and central Africa with a lot more Africans alive today.
 

ben0628

Banned
and replace them with East Germans, Russians and others, the effect would be the same sorry. The USSR saw Cuba as a cheap, climate adapted force that could relate easier to the revolutionaries they were fighting with. Honestly the you would see a higher turn over in Europeans/Russians and you might see Central Asians, Bulgarians and peoples from around the Black sea, who are used to warmer weather and dealing with the diseases of Africa. You might even see Vietnamese forces in Africa eventually.

The Soviets wouldn't have sent these forces to Africa. Castro's decision to send troops to fight in Africa was voluntary out of his own free will. I don't think that Warsaw Pact nations would voluntarily send large quantities of troops to Africa and I don't think the USSR would force them to.

Not only that, but even if they did, that doesn't mean the results would be the same. I was reading a book on the Angolan Civil War. The Cuban military advisers and soldiers did a much better job at training/leading the communist Angolans than the Soviet advisers (the tactics that the Soviet Advisers were telling the Angolans to use in battle were not as effective as Cuban tactics).
 
The Soviets wouldn't have sent these forces to Africa. Castro's decision to send troops to fight in Africa was voluntary out of his own free will. I don't think that Warsaw Pact nations would voluntarily send large quantities of troops to Africa and I don't think the USSR would force them to.

Not only that, but even if they did, that doesn't mean the results would be the same. I was reading a book on the Angolan Civil War. The Cuban military advisers and soldiers did a much better job at training/leading the communist Angolans than the Soviet advisers (the tactics that the Soviet Advisers were telling the Angolans to use in battle were not as effective as Cuban tactics).
Do you want me to say that communism would not have been as widespread in Africa? That there would not have been as many deaths. Because this is getting to the point where we honestly do not know. You are telling me that the Vietnamese would have done nothing though? I doubt that.
 
Do you want me to say that communism would not have been as widespread in Africa? That there would not have been as many deaths. Because this is getting to the point where we honestly do not know. You are telling me that the Vietnamese would have done nothing though? I doubt that.

The MPLA is totally awful, but where's the evidence that UNITA would have produced an Angola that is any better? Meaning, I'm not sure you could predict the number of "deaths" simply based on the Cuban intervention.

Also, the Vietnamese had their hands full.
 
Last edited:
Cuban troops were not Soviet troops and nor were they Warsaw Pact troops.

Thus there was that degree of "plausible deniability" to allow Moscow to get away with having troops it controlled do its biding in Africa.

Having Soviet or Warsaw Pact troops in Africa in place of the Cubans would NOT have worked. That would've been far too direct an involvement and escalated things either to a direct superpower confrontation level and / or gotten US & NATO troops involved in Africa. Which, again, would've been unacceptable to either side.

Butterfly away Cuban troops in Africa and you wind up with a much more stable southern and central Africa with a lot more Africans alive today.

It may also have implications for internal South African politics. Angola was, in some ways, white South Africa's Vietnam.

No Cubans in Angola also means that UNITA probably wins the Civil War - who knows what butterflies that will have in the region.
 
The MPLA is totally awful, but where's the evidence that UNITA would have produced an Angola that is any better? Meaning, I'm not sure you could predict the number of "deaths" simply based on the Cuban intervention.

Also, the Vietnamese had their hands full.
True, as did the Russians for a time.
 

thorr97

Banned
No Cubans in Africa means fewer Soviet weapons there and less training of the various "national liberation" groups in how to use their weaponry and how to fight their insurgencies. That, overall, makes them less efficient and less lethal to the people in the region.

It does not, mind you, make them non-lethal. Just less lethal. Plus, no Cuban troops means there's fewer fighters in the region overall.

This might, as a whole, not make the situation much better but those reductions - number of well trained and capable foreign troops, number of better trained local troops, amount of Soviet weaponry on hand - would greatly help in not making things worse.
 
No Cubans in Africa means fewer Soviet weapons there and less training of the various "national liberation" groups in how to use their weaponry and how to fight their insurgencies. That, overall, makes them less efficient and less lethal to the people in the region.

It does not, mind you, make them non-lethal. Just less lethal. Plus, no Cuban troops means there's fewer fighters in the region overall.

This might, as a whole, not make the situation much better but those reductions - number of well trained and capable foreign troops, number of better trained local troops, amount of Soviet weaponry on hand - would greatly help in not making things worse.

I would agree that, assuming no other soviet allied force can be found to replace them, their absence is going to reduce the military effective of communist forces in various place.

In Southern Africa the main benefits of that absence will be UNITA and apartheid South Africa. In the Horn of Africa, it will be Somalia and the Eritrean Liberation Front (you might prevent them being replaced by the Eritrean People's Liberation Front).

The twin questions are how much those forces can take advantage of the Cuban absence (bearing in mind they might receive less funding from the west to compensate) and what they would do with victory if they could achieve it?

I think it's naïve to assume a UNITA run Angola with an armed MPLA resistance will be that much nicer a place than the reverse but it will be different.
 

thorr97

Banned
Youngmarshall,

I think it's naïve to assume a UNITA run Angola with an armed MPLA resistance will be that much nicer a place than the reverse but it will be different.

"Nicer?" No, at no point did I even hint at that. Without all those added troops, their training efforts, and the weapons they brought along however, the ability of the peoples in the region to render violence would be commensurately reduced. Think of it this way, reducing the amount of fuel for a fire to burn would make that fire less intense and damaging. It might well not snuff the fire out but it would tend to limit what damage it would be able to do.
 
and replace them with East Germans, Russians and others, the effect would be the same sorry. The USSR saw Cuba as a cheap, climate adapted force that could relate easier to the revolutionaries they were fighting with. Honestly the you would see a higher turn over in Europeans/Russians and you might see Central Asians, Bulgarians and peoples from around the Black sea, who are used to warmer weather and dealing with the diseases of Africa. You might even see Vietnamese forces in Africa eventually.

I've read that Cuba was a major driver in getting the USSR involved (or maybe more deeply involved) in the conflicts in Africa. In other words, Castro was really good at being the tail that wagged the dog.

As such, while you are right that the USSR saw Cuba as a source of cheap manpower, I think that absent Cuba, the USSR would have been less involved in the 3rd world.

Soviet Bloc troops aren't really fungible. If there were really an equivalent number of GDR troops sitting around, why weren't they sent to Angola too? And my understanding is that Castro's commitment to the Angolan intervention went beyond what any Moscow puppet master might have ordered - the Third World Liberationist angle could be grasped easier from Havana. Additionally, black/brown Ibero-Romance-language-speaking troops would naturally be more effective on the ground.

+1 to this. The value of Cuba as a source of cheap manpower was exactly why Cuba was able to influence Soviet policy as much as it did - the Soviets needed give Cuba +X happiness to maintain it as an annoyance to the US and +Y happiness to give the Soviets manpower for where the Soviets really wanted to intervene, and the easiest way of adding to Y was to let Castro pull the USSR into some conflict more deeply than they would have wanted to on their own.

fasquardon
 
Top