WI: Cuba Invaded and Occupied in the 1960's?

Ah yes, that narrative -- rejecting, out of hand, the possibility of US alliance with anti-communist socialists, reformers, and democrats, because "the US has, throughout its entire history, always ever only looked to promote the bottom line of her corporate clients". Never mind the times that the US did buck massive economic interests to build good relations with third-world nations (eg the Suez Crisis) never mind that the US has allied with nations enforcing land reform; never mind that the US cut off Batista and worked to accelarate his downfall with embargoes and CIA aid to the revolutionaries; never mind...

The problem is that none of those were in South America.

As for cutting off support for Batista, and? It still does nothing about the problem of oligarchs from Cuba having far too much influence in Washington, and similar places of power.

(breathes deep) Look, I'm not saying the US never recklessly acted for the benefit of big business, at the expense of losing hearts and minds to communism -- but it wasn't a natural result of anything, but a factor competing with sane anti-communist US policy.

The problem is here there are simply too many factors going against the US doing sane policy here, and not enough encouraging it.
 
Its South America, okay.

But besides that, why would this turn out any different than South Vietnam, in regards to the competence of the government? I'm not saying it will be overthrown, or at least not in the same way, but why would it be competent?

After all, in the case of South Korea, we weren't installing a government, we were supporting one that had legitimacy, with its populace already.

By comparison, why would any Cuban government have legitimacy that is installed by the United States? Yes, there was opposition to Castro, of course, but Castro didn't just arise in a vacuum, which I really think is the key here.

For Germany and Japan, in both cases,

1. We were willing to use administrators from the previous government to run it.

2. The Soviet Union was right next door, meaning that the populaces both could turn to other countries if the US didn't improve conditions.

3. In both cases, they had aid without strings attached.

The last is important. Japan was allowed to pursue its own economic policy, as was West Germany. We have never done this in regards to countries like Cuba, demanding traditional Capitalism or similar even if it made no sense with ground conditions.

The second is also important. Cuba is in America's backyard. Since the USSR can't supply it, as you've pointed out, what reason does the US have to improve it? After all, insurgents there wouldn't be able to get outside support, right? Hence, straight up brutality seems more acceptable, and usable, because there aren't neighbors who can take advantage of that.

Vietnam suffered from a government that had no legitimacy, where as both Japan and West Germany did have legitimate governments, partially from keeping those previous administrators.

Right, you have successfully refuted one of my posts from earlier on this thread that was months ago and that I no longer adhere to.

Fine work lad.
 
I'd like to bring something up that will inevitably come up, thus I want to bring it up now.

*Coffee Talk Voice*

Dominican Republic occupation, 1965. Discuss.
 
Or the populace lurches in the other direction and becomes hardened against the attackers and starts electing governments that vow to get 'tough' on the terrorists.

I hate to drag in Israel into this because that's also a border war, which complicates things, but I think it is pretty undeniable that the long I/P conflict hasn't led to the situation you describe.

Yet, at least.

---

More realistically there would be a tension between 'Just give them what they want so they leave us alone' and 'find the bastards who dared attack us and deal with them'. Which way that tension gets resolved ultimately might depend on a whole host of factors, starting with the politicians that are the most able rally people to their causes.

I agree wholeheartedly with this message and endorse it as superior to my own post regarding the very same issue.
 
Okay, I think I was talking more about the state that would probably arise so... you've changed your view to thinking it would be a right dystopia, or what?
 
As for cutting off support for Batista, and? It still does nothing about the problem of oligarchs from Cuba having far too much influence in Washington, and similar places of power.

Well OTL, they didn't even have enough influence to get air support for the landing at Pigs, lest the world know the US was officially in favor of regime change in Cuba, then from the landing to the missile crisis, failed to get any US military action in the island. So I'd say they've got their limits influence-wise.

The problem is here there are simply too many factors going against the US doing sane policy here, and not enough encouraging it.

I'd say the early 1960's were -- remember, without intervention in Cuba, the island's elite lose just about everything, so they're not in the best of negotiating positions if the US President decides supporting moderate reformers in Cuba is the better move. (I can see a typical response like "We just pulled you out of the way of a speeding freight train, and you're bitching about a scraped knee?"; granted, if they didn't, it'd TTL's more modern history, when the government was pushed around by a bunch of ingrate oligarchs.)
 
Well OTL, they didn't even have enough influence to get air support for the landing at Pigs, lest the world know the US was officially in favor of regime change in Cuba, then from the landing to the missile crisis, failed to get any US military action in the island. So I'd say they've got their limits influence-wise.

While this is true, the problem is that it wasn't caused by the lack of influence by these elites, but rather the elephant in the room that is possible nuclear weapon usage, and before it, JFK not being as willing to use foreign intervention.

I'd say the early 1960's were -- remember, without intervention in Cuba, the island's elite lose just about everything, so they're not in the best of negotiating positions if the US President decides supporting moderate reformers in Cuba is the better move. (I can see a typical response like "We just pulled you out of the way of a speeding freight train, and you're bitching about a scraped knee?"; granted, if they didn't, it'd TTL's more modern history, when the government was pushed around by a bunch of ingrate oligarchs.)

Again though, that isn't how this ends up working out, especially since... where's the opposition to them being able to gain back oligarchy status? The populace? Anti-Communism could blind that just a bit, to say the least.
 
I'd say the early 1960's were -- remember, without intervention in Cuba, the island's elite lose just about everything, so they're not in the best of negotiating positions if the US President decides supporting moderate reformers in Cuba is the better move. (I can see a typical response like "We just pulled you out of the way of a speeding freight train, and you're bitching about a scraped knee?"; granted, if they didn't, it'd TTL's more modern history, when the government was pushed around by a bunch of ingrate oligarchs.)

Pretty much this, goes with my argument earlier about how an occupation of Cuba would be a different animal than Vietnam. We're not working with something that's already there, we're overthrowing one group and rebuilding the system from the ground up. The issues with doing this to Cuba are going to look more like the Iraq War than the Vietnam War when it comes to what we're dealing with. The Cuban exiles won't be this entrenched, all-powerful group that jealously guards its possessions, the Cuban exiles have nothing, and without US goodwill, will remain with nothing. Effectively, until the US puts them back, the US can tell them to jump, and they have to say how high.
 
Pretty much this, goes with my argument earlier about how an occupation of Cuba would be a different animal than Vietnam. We're not working with something that's already there, we're overthrowing one group and rebuilding the system from the ground up. The issues with doing this to Cuba are going to look more like the Iraq War than the Vietnam War when it comes to what we're dealing with. The Cuban exiles won't be this entrenched, all-powerful group that jealously guards its possessions, the Cuban exiles have nothing, and without US goodwill, will remain with nothing. Effectively, until the US puts them back, the US can tell them to jump, and they have to say how high.

Oh, that's how your views have changed. Basically, you've gone to a more middle position between right wing dystopia and South Korea style economic success.
 
While this is true, the problem is that it wasn't caused by the lack of influence by these elites, but rather... JFK not being as willing to use foreign intervention.

Again though, that isn't how this ends up working out, especially since... where's the opposition to them being able to gain back oligarchy status?

Ah, but there it is -- JFK was unwilling to us foreign intervention despite their pleas, meaning there was something (Kennedy's own good sense, the sense of many in the FP establishment, media support for the anti-Batistas) that the elites had to fight against.

The populace? Anti-Communism could blind that just a bit, to say the least.

Ah, but anti-communism comes in many flavors, not just right-wing elitist paranoia...
 
Ah, but there it is -- JFK was unwilling to us foreign intervention despite their pleas, meaning there was something (Kennedy's own good sense, the sense of many in the FP establishment, media support for the anti-Batistas) that the elites had to fight against.

Okay, there is that, and what could, in theory, save Cuba is media presence. However... eh, that could cause issues, depending on how it goes.

Ah, but anti-communism comes in many flavors, not just right-wing elitist paranoia...

While this is true, right wing elitist paranoia is what we chose to court too often, especially in South America.
 
Okay, there is that, and what could, in theory, save Cuba is media presence. However... eh, that could cause issues, depending on how it goes.

Oh yeah, it'll get messy complicated, no argument here (even with a fairly small intervention ground force).

While this is true, right wing elitist paranoia is what we chose to court too often, especially in South America.

I can see that point being made regarding OTL's full Cold War history -- but even if we granted it being the case, this is a PoD back in the early 60's, before a lot of these bad habits were fully developed...
 
Oh yeah, it'll get messy complicated, no argument here (even with a fairly small intervention ground force).

I can see that point being made regarding OTL's full Cold War history -- but even if we granted it being the case, this is a PoD back in the early 60's, before a lot of these bad habits were fully developed...

The problem is that, again, what established our good foreign interventions aren't in place in Cuba. Namely, these were,

A. The threat of Communists right next door forcing the US to improve economic conditions,

B. The countries, in question, actually having successful economics before hand, and not being under Imperialist occupation.

The last does have an exception, with South Korea, however that require a Nationalist government that was already in place, rather than a puppet.

Cuba doesn't have any of these, and has the baggage of bad relations with the United States. Additionally, since it's in the US's backyard, it has every reason to go to bad habits, because of the paranoia it caused.
 
I can see that point being made regarding OTL's full Cold War history -- but even if we granted it being the case, this is a PoD back in the early 60's, before a lot of these bad habits were fully developed...

Those bad habits were firmly in place, and in regards to Latin America, long before the Cold War. If Cuba was invaded and occupied, the island would have been raped, and an insurgency raged for at least the better part of the 60s. It would end with the US pulling out, leaving behind a shaky government that would either be plagued for decades after by guerrillas, surviving by eventually coming to an accord with rebel forces similar to El Salvador and Iraq, or its collapse and overthrow like those governments of Southeast Asia. With the former, you might see things stabilize by the 90s.

PS: The rebels could also morph into criminal-guerrillas such as in Colombia, and have an effective never ending insurgency transforming into something completely different than the original conflict.

Also, if the war spreads to US soil, especially during the Civil Rights movement, you have all sorts of tragic consequences springing from that as well.
 

NothingNow

Banned
Or the populace lurches in the other direction and becomes hardened against the attackers and starts electing governments that vow to get 'tough' on the terrorists...

...More realistically there would be a tension between 'Just give them what they want so they leave us alone' and 'find the bastards who dared attack us and deal with them'. Which way that tension gets resolved ultimately might depend on a whole host of factors, starting with the politicians that are the most able rally people to their causes.

That there would be. Successful Insurgencies are pretty much all about PR management, and brutal tactics.
If it gets nasty in Cuba, which by all means it probably will, (same as what happened in the Dominican Republic at the time or Vietnam in a few years,) that's going to get on the news stateside, in a very big way. You'll have Journalists like Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather covering all of it, and they're not going to be too fond of US actions in Cuba. This, combined with a steady stream of Casualties over say five to twelve years, and the odd high-profile attack in the states, means you'll likely get the same sort of response in the States as the Algerians got out of the French, and public perception of the war would likely be similar to Vietnam after the Tet Offensive.

Did I do something to a beloved pet of yours to make you so hostile?
No, you just have this inherent ability to piss me off.

This could just as easily turn straight around and become that patriotic rallying point where Americans are chanting "Remember X", X being whatever building or gathering that got bombed to smithereens by Cuban guerrillas. The psychology of fear is an awfully finicky thing. It's unpredictable really, you can just as easily disillusion people into wanting an end to the bloodshed, but you can also merely set the resolve of the public to see the war through to its end.
That resolve never develops when you're playing whack-a-mole with insurgents. Look at the Philippine War, Algeria, Kenya, the Portugese Colonial Wars, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the list goes on. And as soon as the media turns against the war, the nation will too.

The best aid the Soviet union could provide to the reborn M-26-J in such a case is setting up a front group, and financing a PR campaign in the US and Western Europe.

Ah yes, that narrative -- rejecting, out of hand, the possibility of US alliance with anti-communist socialists, reformers, and democrats, because "the US has, throughout its entire history, always ever only looked to promote the bottom line of her corporate clients". Never mind the times that the US did buck massive economic interests to build good relations with third-world nations (eg the Suez Crisis) never mind that the US has allied with nations enforcing land reform; never mind that the US cut off Batista and worked to accelarate his downfall with embargoes and CIA aid to the revolutionaries; never mind...
Yeah, except pretty much everyone you listed got lumped together under the Label communist sympathizers in Latin America, and got shot for it, unless they were little old ladies.
But the problem really is you're conflating US policy in the rest of the world with US Policy in the Caribbean and later on Latin America as a whole. It's the politics of empire, admittedly normally more subtle than traditionally practiced, but on occasion the gloves did come off, and the CIA would find someone to do their dirty work for them. Batista isn't reliable? Work to oust him. The new guy isn't so hot either? Kill him.

(breathes deep) Look, I'm not saying the US never recklessly acted for the benefit of big business, at the expense of losing hearts and minds to communism -- but it wasn't a natural result of anything, but a factor competing with sane anti-communist US policy.
There was no such thing as sane anti-communist policy back then. US Policy at the time led to witch hunts at home and in Latin America, backing the Junta in Greece, everything associated with Operation Gladio in Europe, and backing South Vietnam instead of trying our damnedest to lever the North out of it's Soviet orbit, which would've been easier and cheaper.
 
1320529223886.jpg


Yeah, no. This is '60s Latin America. Democracy is what they called it when they pushed you out of a Helicopter. Now, roving execution squads? Well, to the CIA, not having them was a sign that your government was full of Communist Sympathizers who hated Chiquita Banana, and thus must be replaced. And the Next guy? He wouldn't skimp on the Death Squads.

That point could have been made just as well without an image macro. Don't do that again.
 
No, you just have this inherent ability to piss me off.


That resolve never develops when you're playing whack-a-mole with insurgents. Look at the Philippine War, Algeria, Kenya, the Portugese Colonial Wars, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the list goes on. And as soon as the media turns against the war, the nation will too.

The best aid the Soviet union could provide to the reborn M-26-J in such a case is setting up a front group, and financing a PR campaign in the US and Western Europe.

So what happens when Cuba, a nation whose revolution was again, fought on the scale of hundreds, starts having the civilians who could support a guerrilla movement get placed into internment facilities? The precedent is there, the British war in Malaya is recent history for the crowd that would be in charge here, and without a meddling government to deal with like there was with the Strategic Hamlet program, the likelihood of something like this succeeding becomes higher, and even if the populace isn't won over by it, it at least stops an insurgency. At which point you cease to have Unwinnable War of the Day and you start seeing the end of a conflict.
 

NothingNow

Banned
So what happens when Cuba, a nation whose revolution was again, fought on the scale of hundreds, starts having the civilians who could support a guerrilla movement get placed into internment facilities? The precedent is there, the British war in Malaya is recent history for the crowd that would be in charge here, and without a meddling government to deal with like there was with the Strategic Hamlet program, the likelihood of something like this succeeding becomes higher, and even if the populace isn't won over by it, it at least stops an insurgency. At which point you cease to have Unwinnable War of the Day and you start seeing the end of a conflict.
You're seriously low-balling those numbers by not figuring in the Escopeteros, and the urban underground. So you're talking thousands, not Castro's little band.
And even if you put a strategic hamlet program in place, You'd still have to deal with the Urban side of the insurgency, which if anything is the more dangerous of the two.
 
Top