WI: Falangist Cuba

Fidel Castro was fond of Franisco Franco and as a child admired Benito Mussolini.

What if, upon taking over Cuba, Castro established a Falangist state rather than a Communist one?
 
I know there'e the theory that Castro only became Communist as a result of American intransigence, and people debate that back and forth.

But was he REALLY such an ideological question-mark that he could've opted for Falangism after taking power?

And what happens to the movement he led to overthrow Batista? Do they all just say "Falangism? That's not QUITE what we expected, but, okay Fidel, you're the boss". Or is the idea that they were all devout Falangists too?
 
Treating this as an AHC, Fidel Castro gets recruited by the CIA to overthrow Batista for....reasons. Maybe Batista tries to shut down a casino or something. This gets you your quasi-fascist Cuba.
 
Castro's always been too left wing for this type of thing. It's easier to get someone like Baptista to become Falangist.
 
Castro's always been too left wing for this type of thing. It's easier to get someone like Baptista to become Falangist.
If he had a slightly different radicalization process it probably wouldn’t be that difficult to turn him into a Falangist, it goes along horseshoe theory.
 
That averts the Cuban Missile Crisis for one - Khrushchev isn’t playing ball with a fascist, so either he tries to coup some Central American nation or he tries a different tack.

I also wonder if America tolerated a fascist Cuba the way they ultimately stomached communist Cuba. America was no friend to communism but they also never dropped a nuke on a communist or liberated communist extermination camps - fascism was a huuuuuuuuge pot of fuck-no in America. And if the Bay of Pigs fails, is there a better chance America learns from its mistakes, kicks Castro out and turns Cuba into America Light?
 
That averts the Cuban Missile Crisis for one - Khrushchev isn’t playing ball with a fascist, so either he tries to coup some Central American nation or he tries a different tack.

I also wonder if America tolerated a fascist Cuba the way they ultimately stomached communist Cuba. America was no friend to communism but they also never dropped a nuke on a communist or liberated communist extermination camps - fascism was a huuuuuuuuge pot of fuck-no in America. And if the Bay of Pigs fails, is there a better chance America learns from its mistakes, kicks Castro out and turns Cuba into America Light?
They tolerated Pinochet and Franco, so they'd definitely tolerate a fascist Cuba , especially one that pays into the interests of corporate and mafia America as Cuba did so before Castro took power.
 
If he had a slightly different radicalization process it probably wouldn’t be that difficult to turn him into a Falangist, it goes along horseshoe theory.

Horseshoe Theory is more about methoidolgy/the Authoritarian-Libertarian spectrum, and while the authoritarian tendencies do indeed probably stick easily (especially in an environment like Cuba) there's some fundimentally different values between Falangism and Communism that might be hard to swallow. Local government responsibilities for one,race and gender relations another, ect. That would probably result in him not quite getting the same level of support against Batista to the point he can't get total control over the state, especially since the liberal-democratic faction would be cleanly separated and liable to get US backing
 
Sidebar thought: if we grant that somehow Castro goes Falangist, and that the Soviets try to flip a Central American nation, would they try Panama--or would the already-strong American presence make them shy away from what might devolve into a direct confrontation?
 
Horseshoe Theory is more about methoidolgy/the Authoritarian-Libertarian spectrum, and while the authoritarian tendencies do indeed probably stick easily (especially in an environment like Cuba) there's some fundimentally different values between Falangism and Communism that might be hard to swallow. Local government responsibilities for one,race and gender relations another, ect. That would probably result in him not quite getting the same level of support against Batista to the point he can't get total control over the state, especially since the liberal-democratic faction would be cleanly separated and liable to get US backing
That’s what I meant. The political extremes use the same tactics and appeal to similar groups of people, just aimed at different targets.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Sidebar thought: if we grant that somehow Castro goes Falangist, and that the Soviets try to flip a Central American nation, would they try Panama--or would the already-strong American presence make them shy away from what might devolve into a direct confrontation?
No, Panama is out. The US maintained far too many permanent forces there. And the jungle warfare school was located there as well with units constantly rotating through. If the USSR tried to coup Panama it would be child's play for the US to counter-coup the new government and reinstall their preferred dictator.

Though the USSR trying this also likely has the US decide to abrogate the treaty returning the canal to Panamanian control. Probably with the reasoning being given that "Panama is far too unstable to properly supervise such a strategic asset as the canal." At best, Panama nominally regains sovereignty over the Canal Zone and then immediately signs a 99 year lease with the US to allow continued American Adminstration of the Zone.
 
There was no Falangist group in Cuba to provide Castro with cadres the way the PSP did in the first years of the Revolution. (Yes, eventually Castro did replace most of the "old" Communists but that doesn't mean they hadn't been of considerable use to him at first.) And while Spanish defiance of the US embargo did help Cuba, Spain had nothing like the military and economic power of the Soviet bloc to stand up to the US.

Castro did have some admiration for Franco--but mostly that was one Gallego's admiration for the political shrewdness and independence of another.
 
That’s what I meant. The political extremes use the same tactics and appeal to similar groups of people, just aimed at different targets.

Similar groups, yes, but different groups that are more or less think on the ground depending on the exact conditions of the state. What I'm saying is the dissidents on the Right in general (compared to the Batista regime) as less prevalent than the Libertarian Left who were weilling to co-operate with the Communists/Authoritarian Left in overthrowing the current government. If Castro is running on Fascists principals, than he can't appeal to the those Liberterian Leftists on ideological grounds and so won't be able to get the kind of universal support required to gain hegemony over the island, especially since these dissenters will have the backing of the US.
 
There's a vaguely fascist flavor to third world nationalist regimes that nationalize foreign assets to "take back" the country from foreign imperialists. Rhetorical differences aside, a fascist Cuban economy could look close to PRI Mexico with nationalization of foreign assets and some dirigiste and statist practices like state-owned companies, but with private property and market mechanisms largely left in place.

Cuba expended massive amounts of human and economic resources providing troops and advisers for conflicts around the world where the USSR had some interest, there were Cuban troops in places like Ethiopia and Angola. It's hard to see how that directly benefitted Cuban security or the Cuban people, they would be better off with Castro's interventions abroad.

Whether the US would do business with an ideological fascist in Havana is an interesting question. Cuba on its own isn't a threat to the US, its danger is in providing a base for for foreign powers in the US's backyard. If the US goes against them, a geopolitically Cuban government would need to rely on a combination of a native military industry and support from a foreign power to ward off US intervention. Castro could still end up making friends with Mussolini instead of Khrushchev, maybe Fidel would be nicknamed el duquito (the little duce, an italian cognate of Duke in English) by his detractors ATL.

Castro's political style of dictatorship was closer to Juan Perón or Mussolini than Stalin and Mao. As homegrown communist regimes go, it seems to be much less bloody than horror stories like Russia, China, and Cambodia. Geography plays a role here, it's easier for Cubans to flee to the US

Cuba's population could be about 10% larger without communism, most of the ~1 million people who left between '59 and the early '90s would still be in Cuba. Most of Cuba's small jewish community has been allowed to leave for Israel, but I don't see antisemitism becoming a major cause of Latin American dictators. The situation of public health would be vastly different, Cuba treats healthcare as showcase for the socialism's success like Soviet Olympic medals, and there's a similar gaming of the system and manipulation of statistics. Doctors have an incentive to under-report infant mortality and treaty health statistics like Gosplan production quotas.
 
Top