‘During the bloody civil war of 1948-1953, a group of bandits burned the home of a wealthy Conservative landowner, killed his foreman and two sons, ravished his daughter, and left the owner wandering dazedly before his flaming hacienda. In shocked horror, the man mumbled over and over, “¿Pero porqué?” — “But why, why?”
“And the scornful answer was: “Porque usted es rico y blanco” — “Because you are rich and white”‘
Vernon Lee Fluharty, quoted in Guerrilla Movements in Latin America
Readers of this blog (see, for example, War to the Death) know that violence and savagery in South America was inaugurated, not by Spain, but by men such as Simón Bolivar and his French Revolutionary ideology. Note that the reply quoted above addressed envy and race, “You are rich and white”. It said nothing about El Bogotazo.
“Certain techniques of death and torture became so common and widespread that they were given names, such as ‘picar para tamal‘, which consisted of cutting up the body of the living victim into small pieces, bit by bit. Or ‘bocachiquiar‘, a process which involved making hundreds of small body punctures from which the victim slowly bled to death. … quartering and beheading were … given such names as the ‘corte de mica‘, ‘corte de franela‘, ‘corte de corbata‘, and so on. Crucifixions and hangings were commonplace, political ‘prisoners’ were thrown from airplanes in flight, infants were bayoneted, schoolchildren … were raped en masse, unborn infants were removed by crude Caesarian section and replaced by roosters, ears were cut off, scalps removed….” (ibid).
Readers might think that we are dealing with violence and ferocity unparalleled in modern times. However, if one includes the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution in “Modern Times”, as most historians do, then such savagery as cited above is not unparalleled. A cursory reading of The Black Book of Communism will disabuse anyone of thinking such violence was unique to South America. It is a common thread throughout the history of Jacobinism, whether Robespierreist, Marxist, Maoist, or whatever stripes.
As the avalanche of savage murders and violations crashed down on Colombia, blaming such on El Bogotazo ought to have been seen for what it was: a diversion from its actual antecedents.
But history persists in blaming that event of early April, 1948, for a “decade of mayhem” except that the mayhem began at least two years before. What it lacked was a pretext. El Bogotazo provided that.
The immediate aftermath of El Bogotazo were the deaths of at least 3,000 persons.
By the mid-1950s, that toll had risen to 135,000 direct killings, the vast majority of which were peasants. One thing about Communism: it is historically consistent in mostly killing the people they claim to represent.
Students of this period, known as La Violencia, estimate that the toll was closer to 200,000 when one includes those who died from their wounds. And these figures do not include the tolls of forced displacements and disappearances.
One thing is very clear for anyone willing to put the effort to read beyond Wikipedia, The New York Times, and the like: La Violencia was in no way, shape, or form an “indigenous uprising”, nor was it something in the “genes” of Spanish-American descendants. This was the product of an ideology alien to our upbringing; an ideology which, as Simón Bolívar himself put it, served to destroy centuries of a civilization which was truly a wonder once one steps back and considers (So Close to God).
Fidel Castro returned to Havana having understood the scope of the vast upheavals caused by inflaming envy and unleashing mob passions. He put this understanding to good use throughout his career, including in Venezuela.
Schoolchildren “conscripted” by Communist guerrillas, Colombia, circa 1953 Displacements are a toll that’s difficult to quantify, but we must note its harsh reality.Manuel Marulanda (seated), known as “Tiro-Fijo”, one of many maniacal murderers unleashed during La Violencia (see Playa Hicacos).
Fabio Grobart arranged for a delegation of four University of Havana “students” to go to Bogota. Two would participate as delegates to the “anti-imperialist” Latin American Student Congress which, portentously, was organized to occur simultaneously with the conference inaugurating the Organization of American States (OAS). See El Bogotazo II for details.
The other two were sent as “matones”, gangsters to engage in sabotage and disturbances in the streets.
Grobart’s intent, in line with the Comintern’s instructions, was to ensure the hand of the Soviets was nowhere to be seen in the events in Bogota, albeit should his actions succeed, the Soviet objective of forestalling the creation of the OAS would be realized.
By looking at the events in Bogota with a critical eye on the age-old Cui bono analysis, contemporaries would have had a good idea who and what were behind the tragic events. But surely, with seven decades worth of hindsight, the Cui bono is clear to all except those who will not see.
Fidel Castro was one of the two “gangsters” whose orders were to create havoc in the streets of Bogota. The other was, like Castro, a member of the violent Unión Insurreccional Revolucionaria (UIR). The teams traveled separately to Bogota.
Castro met with Jorge Eliécer Gaitán on April 7, 1948, and arranged to meet with him again two days later to finalize arrangements for his speech at the “anti-imperialist” congress of students meeting alongside the OAS conference.
On April 9, Gaitán had spent most of the morning at his office, near the OAS conference. After noon, he left his office and headed towards the newspaper offices of El Tiempo where Castro had arranged to meet with him. He had not gotten very far before a man rushed up to him and shot him three times at point blank range.
The alleged assassin was found inside a drug store and a frenzied mob dragged him out and literally kicked him to death, disfiguring him so badly that his features were unrecognizable and identification had to be made from documents in his person: Juan Roa Sierra, a Gaitán supporter with a history of mental illness. He had been heard begging the police to not let the mob kill him and witnesses claim he was not near the scene at the time of the murder.
To quote from Keesing’s Contemporary Archives:
“Within a few minutes [of the assassination], armed mobs began looting and setting fire to buildings and stores in the centre of the city, the United States Embassy being the object of a fierce attack …. The Capitol which housed the [conference inaugurating the OAS] was also devastated and a great quantity of the equipment of the conference, together with its records, destroyed or looted …. Delegates suffered considerable hardships due to the interruption in food supplies, power and light services, and other services in Bogota where fires raged for days.”
According to Weyl’s Red Star Over Cuba, two witnesses testified they had heard Roa Sierra say he was going to serve as bodyguard for two foreigners who were going to a desolated area of the country. One of the foreigners was Rafael Del Pino, who was known to have been in contact with Roa Sierra 90 minutes before the murder. Del Pino was one of the “matones” sent from Cuba along with Fidel Castro. These two Cubans fled to the Cuban legation in time to avoid arrest.
To this day, Castro’s presence, let alone participation, in El Bogotazo, is denied or obfuscated. But his fingerprints are all over that murderous event, and even Fidel-friendly accounts by such as Herbert Matthews confirm his presence. The events in Bogota were a great success for the objectives of the Communists in that they destabilized society for well over a decade, while also eliminating Gaitán, who although a fervent leftist, would not support the Communists. These horrible events created the sandbox in which Communist mischief could flourish. Such has been repeated, before and since, globally, especially in Venezuela (not to mention recent chaotic events in the United States, such as the destructive summer riots in 2020).
Although for many, El Bogotazo may seem to be ancient history, of interest to a small coterie of Cold War buffs, it actually speaks to us today, because we continue seeing the same strategies and tactics. When you read about “massacres” and “mass graves” and “assassination plans” and “spontaneous eruptions of oppressed peoples” and so forth, you are well-advised to consider the source and follow the money or at least the Cui bono.
And, especially, consider whether the usual suspects are involved.
The prior post in this series (El Bogotazo I) reviewed Fidel Castro’s violent career in Cuba during high school and college, including arrests and questioning for suspicion of murder and more. This is important background for today’s post, which picks up in 1948, when the United States, concerned by Communist infiltration throughout Latin America, recommended the creation of the Organization of American States (OAS), an idea which was quickly seized upon by South American countries.
The function of this new organization was to provide a forum for the nations in the American continent to meet to discuss and address regional problems. For example, fast forward to 1962: President Rómulo Betancourt demanded and got the expulsion of Cuba from the OAS given repeated, proven attempts by Fidel Castro to subvert and overthrow the government of Venezuela, including shipments of armaments and men to Communist guerrilla groups operating under Castro. See Spurning Fidel.
The OAS was to be inaugurated during an international conference taking place in Bogota, Colombia in April, 1948. Although one could argue the site was appropriate, nevertheless, one could also argue that the timing was all wrong. Colombia was gearing up to hold presidential elections less than two years later, in 1950, and the Unión Nacional de Izquierda Revolucionaria (UNIR, translated “National Union of the Revolutionary Left”) were vocal in asserting those elections would be won by their candidate, Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, a radical leftist populist.
Gaitán’s extremist nature was obvious, as witness his frequently repeated motto: “If I advance, follow me, if I retreat, push me, if I betray you, kill me, and if I die, avenge me! To the charge!” His bellicosity was not empty rhetoric. A few months before the OAS conference, he called for a march against the conservative government, “The March of Silence”, to which over 100,000 came, many of them fully armed.
To add to tensions, Rómulo Betancourt, who had assumed the temporary presidency of Venezuela by means of a military coup d’etat, and who was still known for his Communism, which was later abandoned (see Envy), had signaled his support for Gaitán and did not denounce rumors signaling that should the elections be fraudulent (interpreted to mean, should Gaitán lose), Venezuela would support the overthrow of Colombia’s conservative government. Talk about chickens coming home to roost: a little over a decade later, Betancourt led the expulsion of Castro from the OAS for having sought the overthrow of his government.
Opposed to the creation of the OAS, Argentina and the Soviet Union agreed together to sabotage it by surreptitiously financing a conference of Latin American “students” to denounce “Yankee aggression”, meaning the creation of the OAS. This conference would be held simultaneously with the OAS inauguration conference. The Soviet Union and Argentina sought to capitalize on the smoldering animosity between Colombia and Venezuela as well as the anti-American Zeitgeist in Latin American universities.
Argentina emerged from the Second World War as a major economic power. However, Juan Domingo Perón, yet another leftist military leader (see Right-Wing Military for discussion on military leftism) helped overthrow its government in a military coup and was its dictator from 1946 to 1955. He was very anti-American and had close ties with Nazi Germany and later the Soviet Union. Like all good Communists, he took Argentina from economic dominance to massive expropriations and economic decline. Argentina eventually became the poster child of hyperinflation which was eventually broken in the 1990s.
Perón and Stalin were determined to cause chaos in Bogota. They promoted, financed, and ensured the inauguration of the Congreso Estudiantil Latinoamericana (Latin American Student Congress) to be held alongside the assembly creating the OAS. The promotion and organization of the students to attend that congress was headquartered in Havana, Cuba, led by Fabio Grobart. The Congress itself was to be led by Gustavo Machado. And the star attraction of the Congress would be none other than Gaitán himself.
That would be the fuel. The lit matches would be groups of revolutionary Latin American students from all geographic points, directed from Argentina. These would travel separately and converge in Bogota a few days before the inauguration of the OAS. Their objective was to engage in violent street actions and sabotage operations ostensibly to prohibit the establishment of the OAS. The hard-nosed reality behind their purpose was actually to foment chaos.
Among the student groups traveling to Bogota would be a handpicked group of four from Havana, Cuba. And one of the four was Fidel Castro, fully in his element.
Juan Domingo Perón (1895-1974). Similar to Hugo Chavez, Perón was very charismatic and remained popular despite disastrous policies which did great economic harm to Argentina. He was overthrown and exiled in 1955 by a militar coup. Nevertheless, from exile, he used the Argentinian left and the Communist guerrillas to sow widespread chaos and lawlessness, eventually paving the way for his return to power in 1973. Joseph Stalin (1878-1953) was yet another left-wing military leader who was diligent and successful in creating havoc, chaos, and death in the bloody 20th century. His “alliance” with the United States and England during World War II allowed unprecedented Soviet access to allied military and diplomatic sources which harmed the West and from which she has yet to fully extricate. Rómulo Betancourt (1908-1981), circa 1945, a time when his sympathies continued to lean heavily to port, creating long-lasting animosity with neighboring Colombia, and throwing fuel to an increasingly volatile environment. Jorge Eliécer Gaitán (1903-1948). “If I advance, follow me, if I retreat, push me, if I betray you, kill me, and if I die, avenge me! To the charge!” He was assassinated in April, 1948.
Having mentioned “El Bogotazo” in my prior post, I have come to realize that relatively few are aware of that awful event. And the few who are, see it as a wholly indigenous conflagration resulting entirely from local politics, exacerbated beyond the breaking point by the shocking assassination of a left-wing presidential candidate, Jorge Eliécer Gaitán. This horrible event set off the terrible 10-year period in Colombian history known as La Violencia. See Hicacos for a brief overall commentary on the situation in South America in 1966, after the end of La Violencia.
As Orlando Avendaño notes in his book, Días de sumisión, “El Bogotazo” was the first of many “azos” in Latin America, including “El Paquetazo” and “El Caracazo” (Venezuela), “El Rosariazo” (Argentina), “El Limazo” (Peru); “El Ibañazo” (Chile); and more. As uncritically reported, both at the time of the occurrences as well as in retrospect (e.g., see Wikipedia), they were all alike: “spontaneous” uprisings by “abused and overwhelmed” peoples against “corrupt oligarchies” and “yanqui-dominated” governments”.
I am often (though not always) amused by journalists and professors and their followers who never question how events can share so many common, even predictable, characteristics and yet all be described as “spontaneous”. Without even batting an eye.
A brief review of the first “azo”, the “Bogotazo” will help us understand the later ones, at least two of which occurred in Venezuela, as future posts will note.
This will be a two-part post because, before going into the Bogotazo itself, we need to take a glance at a man who was a player in it, though this fact is rarely if ever mentioned.
Fidel Castro was a violent man. The pitiless nature of his character was notable even in childhood where his teachers would report his bullying and boorishness to his father, so much so that his own father, not known for compassion, was angered and eventually placed him in the prestigious Colegio de Belén where he assumed the Jesuits would keep him minding his manners (see prior posts).
In the University of Havana, which he entered in 1945, his lawlessness was given much freer rein. The university was completely autonomous and a “haven for gangsters and political movements”. Murders were frequent and almost unremarkable because of their ubiquitousness. In a four-year period in the mid-40s, over 100 mob-style murders had been committed. Even American newspapers reported on the pandemonium. For example, a Times-Picayune (New Orleans) August 16, 1940, headline read, “Professor Slain by Gunmen in Uptown Havana”; a Boston Herald headline on November 28, 1940, read “Youths Assassinate Havana Professor”; a Chicago Tribune headline from November 29, 1940, read, “Youths, Picked in Lottery, Kill Cuban Teacher”; etc.
By the end of his university career, Castro had been accused and interrogated for at least two murders for which suspicion could not be denied, including the dying words of Oscar Fernandez, who identified Castro as his murderer. In both cases he would not stand trial due to lack of evidence. In another case where the victim, who survived, identified Castro as his would-be assassin, Castro again beat the rap.
One murder was that of Manolo de Castro (no relation), a well-known student revolutionary who, coincidentally, had shortly before returned from a trip to Venezuela where he had been invited to observe the latest attempt at democracy there. Manolo was with the Movimiento Socialista Revolucionario (MSR) whose main opposition was the Unión Insurreccional Revolucionaria (UIR), headed by Emilio Tró, who had befriended Fidel Castro by shielding him from being accused of attempted murder — Castro had shot and wounded a UIR comrade, but Tró took a liking to Castro and actually gave him a pistol which Castro carried with him for years — and all was forgotten.
Emilio Tró was a man who believed nothing could be accomplished without violence. This is not to question his genuine courage. For example, he went into exile to the United States from whence he joined the Army and fought in the Europe theater during the Second World War. Some accounts report that he also fought in the Pacific, although that is disputed. He earned at least one Purple Heart and was commended for bravery under fire.
We are not cartoon or cardboard characters. We all have shades and self-contradictions, and men like Tró, more than most. An ardent leftist, he thrived in the “gangsterism” at the University of Havana, eventually leading the UIR, to which he invited Castro. Friends and acquaintances testified to his compulsive insistence on violence and death to all enemies and to impose a new government on Cuba. However, paradoxically, he had no “program”. In other words, although he thrived in leftist circles, he did not propose nor promote a Communist government, or any ideological government. It seemed his only focus was vengeance against “the guilty” and only afterwards, supposedly, would he determine what type of government to impose.
The utter lunacy of politics in Cuba, is illustrated by then-President Ramón Grau San Martín’s having named Emilio Tró, known as a “political gangster” with murders or attempted murders on his account, as Director of the National Police Academy. Grau had also named another unsavory character, Mario Salabarría, as Chief of Research and Information, another security apparatus with its own weapons and personnel. Tró and Salabarría were bitter enemies and each had attempted to murder the other.
Grau’s rationale was that by naming such bitter enemies to his administration he would neutralize their violence. Sort of a Mutually Assured Destruction approach to local mayhem which the United States and Soviet Union would bring to an art form during the Cold War, which also spawned mayhem in myriad “hot war” spots around the globe.
Emilio Tró insisted on installing his offices in the same building where Salabarría and his team worked. Anyone should have seen that Grau’s gambit would not work.
Emilio Tró was assassinated at his friend’s home where he was having dinner. Six others were killed along with him, including his friend’s wife and child, who was in the womb, near full term. The massacre took place in a firefight lasting over three hours in a Havana neighborhood and much of it was caught on film and photos, since suppressed. The perpetrators were a rival gang, headed by Tró’s bitter enemy, Mario Salabarría, who was later found guilty, along with others.
Despite the clear guilt of Salabarria’s gang, Fidel Castro accused the MSR, specifically, Manolo de Castro, who was murdered months later.
It is important to understand the nature of Fidel Castro. He was pitiless, cynical, and ambitious for power. He gravitated naturally to violence and to totalitarianism and he would brook no opponents, whether real or imaginary. His character is brilliantly reflected by those he gravitated to, men such as Tró.
Parallel with these events, Castro had been meeting with the Dominican, Juan Bosch, who had sought exile in Cuba. Castro flattered Bosch, invited him to speak to a group of university radicals, and begged him to be included in a planned incursion into the Dominican Republic with finance and weaponry supplied by Venezuela. The team had not accepted Castro, but with Bosch’s insistence, they had no choice.
It did not end well for Fidel: the leader, Rolando Masferrer, became so infuriated at Castro’s arrogance and insubordination that he punched him in the nose. Castro never forgave nor forgot that insult. He attempted to murder Masferrer a few weeks later but failed, and Masferrer’s accusation never got traction, given his own radical politics. Castro eventually prevailed, having arranged for Masferrer’s car bomb assassination in Miami in 1975.
It was this Fidel Castro whom the Comintern ensured was sent to Colombia to frustrate the creation of the Organization of American States (OAS) as a hedge against Soviet Communist activity in Latin America.
Manolo de Castro, assassinated in 1948 Rolando Masferrer, left (1918-1975), assassinated by car bomb in Miami, Florida Emilio Tró, assassinated in 1947
