Was Fidel Castro a bad guy?

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

He was a dictator who somehow made life better for people whilst repressing them.

[Rosmana]

He was a dictator who somehow made life better for people whilst repressing them.

Plus he supported some pretty nasty folks.

[Fedel]

Not on NS.

[Rosmana]

Not on NS.

At least not in some regions, but than again, some even support Kim Jong Un....

[Valrifell]

Fuck him. Had Batista not been overthrown, Cuba likely would've transitioned to democracy in the '90s just like Argentina and Chile did. Japan, Taiwan and South Korea, which didn't succumb to communism, are all thriving, prosperous liberal democracies today. All were right-wing dictatorships in the past. Had the Viet Cong not overrun South Vietnam, Saigon would be on par with Seoul today and South Vietnam would be a liberal democracy.

Hong Kong was much better off under the British capitalist yoke than it is under the Chinese communist yoke.

Fuck Sukarno as well. He was a communist, nationalist prick who went to war with my country and bankrolled a communist insurgency in my home state.

Communism has a track record of leaving nothing but death, destruction, famine, poverty, and genocide in its wake. See the link in my sig for further details.

Fidel Castro, like every communist leader by definition, was unambiguously a bad guy. No ifs. No buts.

Why do I almost completely agree with GHK?

You shouldn't, his entire argument relies on counterfactuals, which means it's real bad.

"If x didn't happen, then y would have" is an unfalsifiable premise, I can't tell you you're wrong because there's a lot of factors to history. Anything derived from that premise is thusly also inarguable (but not for good reasons), so it's something that we shouldn't really contemplate too hard.

[Ever Victorious Iron Willed Commanders]

He did some good things and some bad things. Overall though I think he overstayed his welcome and was, well, a dictator. Not that dictators can't do good things... but it's a major stain on his record.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Compared to the average communist ruler Castros aren’t really bad. However by Latin American (which is not known for extremely brutal regimes such as Nazi Germany) standards it is less clear.

[Picairn]

Had the Viet Cong not overrun South Vietnam, Saigon would be on par with Seoul today and South Vietnam would be a liberal democracy.

Not a snowball's chance in hell. If there are things the Vietnamese refuse to compromise on, those are independence and unification of the country. The South Vietnam regime was a puppet of the US and couldn't live without US support. The people didn't support it either. The Viet Cong more or less would have continued to fight the war if it had came to a stalemate. The people would have continued to protest. South Vietnam would have become like another corrupt Afghanistan dependent on US aid and in endless war.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Had the Viet Cong not overrun South Vietnam, Saigon would be on par with Seoul today and South Vietnam would be a liberal democracy.

Not a snowball's chance in hell. If there are things the Vietnamese refuse to compromise on, those are independence and unification of the country. The South Vietnam regime was a puppet of the US and couldn't live without US support. The people didn't support it either. The Viet Cong more or less would have continued to fight the war if it had came to a stalemate. The people would have continued to protest. South Vietnam would have become like another corrupt Afghanistan dependent on US aid and in endless war.

Are you implying that South Korea is a puppet state?

[Picairn]

Are you implying that South Korea is a puppet state?

What? I'm discussing South Vietnam here. It was a puppet state created from a rigged election through and through. North Vietnam was led by the Communist Party that had fought for the Vietnamese since the 1930s.

Both Koreas today were puppet states in origin. Kim Il-sung was propped up by the Soviets and Syngman Rhee was brought back from exile to become the head of the SK government by US forces.

The real government that was created from the people's local councils and committees was disbanded and forcibly coopted into the new governments by both sides. Lyuh Woon-hyung was the real Sun Yat-sen of Korea, not Kim or Rhee. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People% ... c_of_Korea

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Are you implying that South Korea is a puppet state?

What? I'm discussing South Vietnam here. It was a puppet state created from a rigged election through and through. North Vietnam was led by the Communist Party that had fought for the Vietnamese since the 1930s.

Both Koreas today were puppet states in origin. Kim Il-sung was propped up by the Soviets and Syngman Rhee was brought back from exile to become the head of the SK government by US forces.

The real government that was created from the people's local councils and committees was disbanded and forcibly coopted into the new governments by both sides. Lyuh Woon-hyung was the real Sun Yat-sen of Korea, not Kim or Rhee. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People% ... c_of_Korea

Sure.

However a lot of independent states started as protectorates. Does that mean they are less independent and legitimate today?

[Picairn]

Sure.

However a lot of independent states started as protectorates. Does that mean they are less independent and legitimate today?

If those states rightfully claimed the people's hearts and minds (by severing colonial links and instituting popular policies) and not continue their existence with pure brute force then sure, I can accept their legitimacy. The only legitimacy a state needs is a mandate from the people, not foreign empires.

[Radiatia]

I'm honestly not sure.

I mean, I certainly wouldn't invite him over for dinner especially considering that his corpse will probably stink up the place even worse than my cooking.

I don't think he is quite as bad as western (especially, United States) leaders portray him as being. He's certainly no hero, but he did actually do a handful of good things (particularly regarding health and education) in between committing human rights abuses.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Had the Viet Cong not overrun South Vietnam, Saigon would be on par with Seoul today and South Vietnam would be a liberal democracy.

Not a snowball's chance in hell. If there are things the Vietnamese refuse to compromise on, those are independence and unification of the country. The South Vietnam regime was a puppet of the US and couldn't live without US support. The people didn't support it either. The Viet Cong more or less would have continued to fight the war if it had came to a stalemate. The people would have continued to protest. South Vietnam would have become like another corrupt Afghanistan dependent on US aid and in endless war.

You look at other southeast Asian nations that aren't communist and they're pretty much like Vietnam in terms of development. I dont think communism is to blame for Vietnam being part of the global south.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Sure.

However a lot of independent states started as protectorates. Does that mean they are less independent and legitimate today?

If those states rightfully claimed the people's hearts and minds (by severing colonial links and instituting popular policies) and not continue their existence with pure brute force then sure, I can accept their legitimacy. The only legitimacy a state needs is a mandate from the people, not foreign empires.

A country does not have to cut off colonial lines in order to institute popular policies. Nigeria and Kenya for example are definitely democratic without having to withdraw from the Commonwealth or tear down colonial stuff. Same for India. It will be pretty weird to argue that nuclear India is actually an Anglo puppet state simply because there was institutional and political continuity from British Raj to the modern Republic of India.

When we discuss “mandate from the people” it is very hard to determine it in societies where fear instead of support mostly determines nominal political support.

[Monsone]

Yes, and no. Compared to leaders of other socialist nations, he really was a fairly okay leader and was certainly one of the more benevolent ones. Then again, this is a dictator we are talking about, and any and all dictatorships are inherently evil to one extent or another. But overall, Fidel Castro being bad is subjective to who you are, and whether you benefited, or if your situation worsened because of him. And if you have had neither of those experiences, you probably will have a middle-of-the-road approach saying Fidel Castro wasn't bad, but he certainly was far from being good.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Not a snowball's chance in hell. If there are things the Vietnamese refuse to compromise on, those are independence and unification of the country. The South Vietnam regime was a puppet of the US and couldn't live without US support. The people didn't support it either. The Viet Cong more or less would have continued to fight the war if it had came to a stalemate. The people would have continued to protest. South Vietnam would have become like another corrupt Afghanistan dependent on US aid and in endless war.

You look at other southeast Asian nations that aren't communist and they're pretty much like Vietnam in terms of development. I dont think communism is to blame for Vietnam being part of the global south.

SEA cultures including Vietnam are more chill than their northern neighbors just like South Europeans are more chill than Northern Europeans and Africans are more chill than Europeans lol. Harsh winters tend to cause people to be crazily survivalist.

It’s funny but there are people in China fleeing to Vietnam since there is better welfare even for non-ethnic Vietnamese in Vietnam compared to China. Even Ho Chi Minh and other communist Vietnamese rulers were less malevolent than their Chinese and North Korean counterparts. This is particularly obvious when it comes to treatment of their own partisans. After 1975 North Vietnamese treated Viet Cong members better than how Stalin treated his own partisans, even allowing a former Viet Cong member to be in their politburo. China and North Korea on the other hand..lol. These really happened for cultural, not ideological reasons.

Here is an interesting graph haha:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_V ... es_Map.svg

[Picairn]

A country does not have to cut off colonial lines in order to institute popular policies. Nigeria and Kenya for example are definitely democratic without having to withdraw from the Commonwealth or tear down colonial stuff.

The Commonwealth is a political association, not a colonial entity. Countries can leave it at any moment. Nigeria and Kenya did fight for their independence, and gained it. They are now full soveireign states in a voluntary association with Britain and other Commonwealth countries.

Same for India. It will be pretty weird to argue that nuclear India is actually an Anglo puppet state simply because there was institutional and political continuity from British Raj to the modern Republic of India.

Again, India did sever colonial links. In 1947 it was partitioned into 2 independent dominions, then in 1950 it passed the Constitution and became a fully soveireign federal republic.

When we discuss “mandate from the people” it is very hard to determine it in societies where fear instead of support mostly determines nominal political support.

If a state relies purely on fear, not support, to rule then I don't view it as a legitimate representation of the people.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

A country does not have to cut off colonial lines in order to institute popular policies. Nigeria and Kenya for example are definitely democratic without having to withdraw from the Commonwealth or tear down colonial stuff.

The Commonwealth is a political association, not a colonial entity. Countries can leave it at any moment. Nigeria and Kenya did fight for their independence, and gained it. They are now full soveireign states in a voluntary association with Britain and other Commonwealth countries.

Same for India. It will be pretty weird to argue that nuclear India is actually an Anglo puppet state simply because there was institutional and political continuity from British Raj to the modern Republic of India.

Again, India did sever colonial links. In 1947 it was partitioned into 2 independent dominions, then in 1950 it passed the Constitution and became a fully soveireign federal republic.

When we discuss “mandate from the people” it is very hard to determine it in societies where fear instead of support mostly determines nominal political support.

If a state relies purely on fear, not support, to rule then I don't view it as a legitimate representation of the people.

I thought your criteria for determining whether a state is a puppet state is whether it is composed of former colonial officials. By that criteria India and Nigeria are continuation of British India and British Nigeria, modern Burma, South Korea and Indonesia are continuation of Japanese occupations / colonies while modern Vietnam and Zimbabwe are actually independent states.

By your standards South Vietnam was not really continuation of French Indochina either. Bao Dai was the last real French puppet. Diem and Thieu were anything but French or American puppets to the point that US even supported the assassination of Diem.

Thanks for letting me know that no iteration of China in history has ever been legitimate.

[Picairn]

By your standards South Vietnam was not really continuation of French Indochina either.

Not really, French Indochina was gone with the Geneva Conference of 1954. The US propped up a dictator in the South with a rigged election.

Bao Dai was the last real French puppet. Diem and Thieu were anything but French or American puppets to the point that US even supported the assassination of Diem.

Diem was propped up by the US in a rigged election. It was the fact that he was a hardcore Catholic and prosecuted the majorily Buddhist population that the US supported his assassination. Since then Thieu and his ilk loyally towed the American line.

Thanks for letting me know that no iteration of China in history has ever been legitimate.

Careful, you were banned for a week for this kind of threadjack.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

By your standards South Vietnam was not really continuation of French Indochina either.

Not really, French Indochina was gone with the Geneva Conference of 1954. The US propped up a dictator in the South with a rigged election.

Bao Dai was the last real French puppet. Diem and Thieu were anything but French or American puppets to the point that US even supported the assassination of Diem.

Diem was propped up by the US in a rigged election. It was the fact that he was a hardcore Catholic and prosecuted the majorily Buddhist population that the US supported his assassination. Since then Thieu and his ilk loyally towed the American line.

Thanks for letting me know that no iteration of China in history has ever been legitimate.

Careful, you were banned for a week for this kind of threadjack.

This is true. However that does not make Diem puppet.

Minh, Khanh, Thieu and other SV rulers were ineffective and dependent on US aid without being able to either stamp out Viet Cong or reach peace with them. The experience of 1975 showed that American weaponry had not made their military significantly more effective. That being said, they were US allies instead of puppets as they just like other US/Soviet allies had a lot of policies that didn’t have much to do with US or Soviets.

Applying a general principle to a specific example without changing the topic is not threadjacking.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Yes, and no. Compared to leaders of other socialist nations, he really was a fairly okay leader and was certainly one of the more benevolent ones. Then again, this is a dictator we are talking about, and any and all dictatorships are inherently evil to one extent or another. But overall, Fidel Castro being bad is subjective to who you are, and whether you benefited, or if your situation worsened because of him. And if you have had neither of those experiences, you probably will have a middle-of-the-road approach saying Fidel Castro wasn't bad, but he certainly was far from being good.

+1

I don’t like communism. However he is pretty chill by East European or Chinese/North Korean standards.

[Monsone]

+1

I don’t like communism. However he is pretty chill by East European or Chinese/North Korean standards.

To be fair, it depends on which leader you compare Fidel Castro too. Arguably Ulbricht was comparable to Fidel, as was Kádár. Though still, this is basically saying they were bad, just not as bad as some of their other counterparts.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Also I may as well say that the castro regime was a mistake. Not as a matter of ideology, but geography: it's in the US's backyard, while the Soviet Union was a world away. When it comes to who to bend the knee to that's a no brainer, and it's a decision that all small countries unfortunately have to make. And in any case, it was clear that the US would have kissed hella ass to any incoming regime after bautista, even if they talked talk about nationalising some US business. Castro as a US friendly dictator would have gotten a nice birthday bouquet and some chocolates from Kennedy himself had he stuck with nationalising mafia business's and just taxing the hell out of the rest, since the threat of him going red in their backyard coupled with their distaste of the previous administration would have left them little choice but tolerate em.

Yes, there actually was a point in his history where he could have possibly gone down the Non-Aligned path, and courted favours from both East and West.

I strongly agree with Ethel Mermania.

Dude I seriously doubt Fidel would have changed, into a western style, multi political party capitalist leader, with all its faults and merits. But I respect your rights to your views.

My Family in Cuba was middle class, we had houses, cars, farms, faily businesses, the Hotel Bar and Restaurant, but Voltaire was the rich $ upper Class Padrino of my family in Cuba, a member of high society. He had 5 family style restaurants in La Habana, not Havana, in La Habana and many investments in many businesses.

He had a private account at the Tropicana Night Club in La Habana, he would let the family sign their expenses under his name at the Tropicana Night Club and his 5 family style restaurants.

I could have been his General Manager of a chain of restaurants across Miami and Cuba my native nation.

Voltaire once told me in Miami, we were ready, able and willing to help Fidel, but he betrayed us and nationalized all our businesses. When Voltaire told me this, I thought he might have been one of the Cubans who helped finance $ Fidel Castro thinking he was not a communist. But out of personal respect for Voltaire as family, I did not bring up the very sensitive subject and I kept my big mouth shut.

He spent x numbers of years in prison in Cuba for trying to leave Cuba on a raft with his family, the raft was secretly built on a farm near the coast, a person I know personally who was supposed to join them on the raft, told Voltaire a few days before they planned to leave, I think they know about us, I think someone told on us, I saw x and he seemed very nervous, don't go, but Voltaire did not listen, and when they set sail the Cuban coast guard was right there waiting for them.

He spent x numbers of years in prison in Cuba, Voltaire says they gave them Gusanos - Worms for dinner.

While the privileged communist, socialist, elite, live like rich $ upper class Capitalists, as this link proves:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=844667

Later on when one of my cousins who emigrated legally to the USA and Miami the right way emigrated after I did, I showed him and told him all about NS, and he said to me, be careful what you say about our family still in Cuba, because if the Cuban government regime finds out who you are, they can make life Hell for our family still in Cuba, my cousin did not have to tell me this, I know this personally, but it is good that he remined me of it. This is the true nature of the eternal Cuban revolutionary regime that calls itself the continuity of the revolution, this statement says it all and proves it all.

Crazy Cuban Alberto - GMS - Greater Miami Shores.

[Risottia]

I feel like this is a discussion that's happened before but needs to happen again. If there's one dictator all people of the Americas know well and are acquainted with

Curiously enough, I would have thought it would have been Pinochet or Galtieri or Videla or Vargas.