Fidel Castro – The Pull Of The Land

Castro In Venezuela In 1989

February 8, 2023February 8, 2023 Richard Barnes

In my research on the Cuba-Venezuela Nexus I read about a remarkable photograph taken when Fidel Castro arrived at the Teresa Carreño theater to participate in the festivities celebrating the inauguration of the second (non consecutive) term of Carlos Andrés Pérez (CAP), on February 2, 1989.

CAP thought highly of Fidel Castro, actually meeting with him secretly multiple times during his first tenure (1974-1979) which was, not coincidentally, the age of massive expropriations in Venezuela. CAP invited the bitter dictator to the inauguration for his second term (1989-1993).

Bitter because he had an almost lifelong compulsive lust to use Venezuela’s riches to fund his Napoleonic dream of ruling over all of Latin America. A Spanish empire redivivus of sorts, only with lots more executions. He never lost that dream and when President Rómulo Betancourt spurned him he became inflamed with anger and took reckless actions to topple the elected president.

Fast forward to February 2, 1989, when the photo below was taken.

We cannot read another person’s mind. But in looking at this photo, you can! You can, because we now know what was going on in his mind at that moment.

CAP had naively given Castro carte blanche to enter the country with hundreds of “advisors”, by-passing immigration. This was unprecedented … and ominous. CAP also gave the Cubans full use of the Eurobuilding Hotel, then in final phases of construction, in Caracas. During Castro’s visit no Venezuelan was allowed in the sprawling premises, only Cubans, including food and cleaning services.

It was during that infiltration that Nicolás Maduro returned to Venezuela camouflaged as a Cuban adviser. And, just as ominously, scores of fully equipped sharpshooters entered also. Upon departure, Venezuelan emigration officials reported to CAP that the number of Cubans and equipage departing was significantly less than what had entered.

The president waved aside their concerns. Later, after the 9-day Caracazo (February 27 – March 8, 1989) which by some estimates killed over 1,000 Venezuelans, the usual suspects reported this rioting as “spontaneous” reactions to CAP’s economic policies. There was nothing “spontaneous” about it. The playbook was a reboot of the April 9, 1948 Bogotazo whose aftermath is what Castro wanted for Venezuela. He eventually got what he wanted.

What was the context of the much ballyhooed discontent supposedly suffocating Venezuelans in the 70s and 80s which led to a massive popular uprising which brought a Communist, Hugo Chávez, to power, never to be relinquished?

Between 1973 and 1982, when conspiracies, mostly within Venezuela’s left-wing military leadership, had sworn to do away with “democracy”, Venezuela “was a country whose economy had grown 50% in a decade … and found herself among the 20 top economies in the planet and in the top 10 with the best quality of life. Unemployment was 3.2% and poverty had fallen from 14.4% in 1976 to 9.5% in 1979 … the index of absolute privation was .53%, the lowest percentage of the entire American continent along with Canada and 90% of Europe.” (Source: Thays Peñalver)

Democracy in Venezuela was not ended because of poverty or privation which has been argued or asserted since the late 1980s. She eschewed her democratic institutions according to the designs of leftwing ideologues mostly ensconced in the Venezuela military.

Nor was Venezuela hopelessly in hock to American companies and interests. CAP was ardently anti-US and his policies left no room for doubt. His administration nationalized the oil and iron ore industries, and greatly regulated the American companies operating in the country. Unprecedented actions, all, which, produced an initial period of economic euforia, like a drug rush. But then the piper had to be paid and that was the situation in 1989, when CAP threw a vast party for his second inauguration, with Castro as a guest of honor.

It is difficult for most of us to appreciate the chaos and havoc faced by the citizens of Caracas during those nine days in late February and early March of 1989.

In addition to his own plane, Castro had arrived accompanied by two Soviet transport planes, later known to have been packed with munitions, weaponry of war, and other arms and grenades with “great powers of destruction”. All this was waved in with not so much as a by-your-leave. And when he departed, only a fraction of the equipage returned with him.

The Venezuelan authorities, not briefed about the unaccounted personnel and equipage brought by Castro. assumed that the disturbances which began in late February were merely local unrest. As police and national guard personnel approached the areas of riots, they fell under unremitting, unrelenting fire. By some estimates as much as 200 sharpshooters ensconced in the roofs of the city’s buildings fired and killed at will — both unarmed civilians as well as police and national guard. Areas of Caracas were virtual war zones as attested by European journalists such as José Comas, who had reported on the wars in Kosovo and Serbia. He described his coverage as, “The Caracas war front”.

To this day we still lack an authoritative accounting of the death and bloodletting of those nine days. The attacks were so severe and the crossfire so violent that the original intent — the overthrow of CAP, Castro’s good friend –was abandoned and the backup plan was implemented. Now the Caracazo was affirmed to have been the result of heavy handed suppression ordered by CAP himself and executed by the Venezuelan authorities.

Fidel Castro called CAP to express his support and solidarity and to denounce the scum who wished to overthrow him. American newspapers dutifully reported the crocodile tear expressions of the bitter butcher.

A mere three years later, CAP was impeached and removed from office. A few years after that, Hugo Chávez, who had been involved in three coup attempts was elected president and, though dead, his administration continues to this day, under Castro’s hand-picked successor to Chávez, Nicolás Maduro.

One important note: during last coup attempt in 1993, President Pérez, swearing he would not commit suicide like Allende, acted with great courage and audacity, fully armed and fighting his way out of La Casona to Miraflores where he was shortly surrounded once again, forcing him to fight his way out a second time that night. CAP was too much of an ideologue in his enmity of all things US and, worse, he was naive and foolish in his embrace of a rattlesnake like Castro. But when the chips were down, he acted valiantly. We are not cardboard creatures.

Fidel Castro arrives at the Teresa Carreño Theater to celebrate Carlos Andres Perez’s second inauguration on February 2, 1989. He had arrived in Venezuela accompanied by two Soviet Transport planes with war materiel which was allowed into Venezuela without being searched. Most stayed in Venezuela after Castro’s departure and was deployed in the Caracazo of February 27 – March 8, 1989. Surely all this was on his thoughts as he saw the realization of his decades-long dream close at hand.

El Bogotazo: Aftermath

May 9, 2022May 9, 2022 Richard Barnes

‘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).

El Bogotazo III

May 3, 2022May 3, 2022 Richard Barnes

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.

That’s a dead giveaway.

El Bogotazo I

April 7, 2022April 7, 2022 Richard Barnes

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.

Rolando Masferrer, left (1918-1975), assassinated by car bomb in Miami, Florida

Myth: Initially, Fidel Castro Had No Interest in Communism

April 2, 2022April 2, 2022 Richard Barnes

The corollary is a variation of “the devil made me do it”. In the case of Castro, the received text is that the United States made him do it.

And that is yet another modern canard.

We’ve looked at the origins of Communist ideology in Latin America (see Protevangelium and prior posts) and demonstrated that such predated the Monroe Doctrine, not to mention 20th Century American foreign policy. This is not to argue that United States’ policies are without fault (they have much to answer for, especially since the mid-19th century, but that is another tale). Our point is simple: the America-drove-Fidel-and-Hugo-(not-to-mention-Ho)-to-Communism is a ridiculous assertion, albeit a dangerously misleading one.

When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, thereby breaking the Hitler-Stalin Pact (officially called the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact), Fidel Castro was a 15 year old high school student in the prestigious Colegio de Belén in Havana. The prior year, 1940, Fulgencio Batista had been elected president of Cuba and immediately set about to court Communist political support.

Batista legalized the Communist party and enabled the return of Fabio Grobart and Gustavo Machado, along with others from exile in Mexico. They had all been expelled (see here) from Cuba for their subversive activities seeking the overthrow of the Cuban government and the installation of a Communist regime. What possessed Batista to believe these men had shed their nefarious ideology and Comintern membership and would now play fair remains clouded in political, historical, and psychological mystery. Other than the average politician’s lust for power, further explanations need to be sought elsewhere. The fact remains that Batista enabled the Communists in Cuba.

Grobart’s and Machado’s mission was to serve as Soviet liaison in the Caribbean region and to support the development of Communist parties therein. Seeing Batista’s naiveté, Grobart moved the general quarters of the Latin American Comintern to Cuba from Mexico, wherefrom, as its director, he now had a free hand for his mission not only in Cuba, but in all of Latin America, a role which he and Machado undertook with great relish and effectiveness.

While Grobart and Machado did their thing establishing the Comintern in Havana, the Jesuits in the same city were doing theirs, indoctrinating their students, sons of well-to-do Cuban families, in the Colegio de Belén. The Jesuits had been expelled from all Spanish lands, including Cuba, in 1767, by decree of King Carlos III of Spain. That decree was lifted in the 19th Century and the Jesuits returned to Cuba in 1853, once the decree was overturned and Queen Isabella II founded the Colegio de Belén. For more on Jesuit expulsions in the 18th century see here.

Counterintuitively, Colegio de Belén was a hotbed of pro-Spanish Republic (Communist) sentiments. This can seem surprising because, as popularly conceived, Roman Catholics were supporters of Francisco Franco (see here). Nevertheless, as usual, the easy or superficial supposition is not always the correct one. A recent Jesuit history recounts a representative event: a Jesuit who served as something of a chaplain to Francisco Franco but who joined the Communist party after the war.

What is not disputed is the historically well-documented political involvement of the Jesuits throughout the order’s history. As its members focused on “helping the poor” while they educated the sons of the elites, their remedies tended towards Socialistic solutions with a patina of Scriptural justification. Of course, a thorough understanding of the Eighth Commandment, “Thou shalt not steal”, would have helped the order temper its Socialistic leanings. That Commandment formed the basis of the Fifth Amendment to the United States’ Constitution which, when properly applied, prohibits the taking of life or property “without due process of law….”

Neither the Commandment nor the Amendment are more than a glint in the pen or gun of hardened thieves’ or politicians’ intent on taking what is not theirs. And Castro’s high school career among the Jesuits did not create any meaningful deterrence against such takings.

One other characteristic Colegio de Belén strengthened and developed in Castro was a hatred against The United States, for their humiliation of Spain in the late Spanish American War. See War for more information on that event.

Both traits — lack of respect for others’ lives and property and hatred for America — were initially instilled in Castro by his father (see here) who was cruel to his workers, mostly from Haiti, and who hated the Americans although he became very rich working and doing business with them.

When Hitler broke the Hitler-Stalin Pact and the United States and Britain formally allied themselves with the Communists. The Soviets opened an embassy in Cuba with an ambassador who represented them in both Havana and Washington. Upon the opening of the embassy in Havana, Grobart and Machado went to work with alacrity and by the end of 1944 inaugurated a series of “cultural exchange” programs, to which Colegio de Belén sent a student delegation, among which was Fidel Castro.

(Note the year: 1944 — the war was not yet over, the Soviets and the Americans were “allies”, but the Soviets always had other plans besides survival, and they never lost sight of such.)

The dissertations were fulsome in their praise of the Communist revolution and its eventual worldwide triumph. Castro was especially impressed with Gustavo Machado’s oration relating his efforts to recreate a Latin America united under the Communist flag. He dwelt on the massive petroleum reserves in Venezuela, who at the time was the principal exporter of petroleum in the world and the third producer after the United States and the Soviet Union. According to Machado, Venezuela’s riches would be more than sufficient to finance a Latin America union allied to the Soviets.

Machado’s comments rang true. Fast forward to the late 50s and one finds Venezuela and Cuba among the richest countries in Latin America, both being major exporters of petroleum and sugar, respectively.

Upon conclusion of the Second World War and the outbreak of the Cold War, the Soviet Union continued, with renewed vigor, to work for control over Cuba and Venezuela. Meanwhile, Fidel Castro, having completed his tenure in Colegio de Belén, entered the University of Havana school of law and immediately linked up with extreme leftist gangs.

Readers will need to go to other sources for details on Castro’s violent acts during his student years, not only in Cuba but in the Dominican Republic and in Colombia (the “Bogotazo” in 1948). For our present purposes it is sufficient to know that he was no late bloomer. His North Star was taking power as a Communist, not only in Cuba, but in Venezuela and then all of Latin America. He saw himself as a mystical, Communist José Martí, Simón Bolivar, Francisco Miranda, and more; one who would embody and realize his understanding of the goals and dreams of those men.

He was engaged in many violent activities including his murderous attack on the Moncada Barracks in 1953, for which many of his comrades were executed but he and his brother, Raul, were spared thanks to Roman Catholic intervention. Batista, ignorant that the definition of insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result, foolishly amnestied them in 1955 upon which they exiled themselves to Mexico only to return in 1956 and set up headquarters in the Sierra Maestra from whence the Communists eventually triumphed with no small military assistance from Venezuela.

In Venezuela, meanwhile, the era of coups interspersed with duly elected governments continued (see here). By the time Castro returned to Cuba in 1956, Venezuela was ruled by Marcos Pérez Jiménez (see here), and his links with Venezuela continued to strengthen.