Fidel Castro: A Poor Leader?

“This will be a pretty detested statement, no doubt. The rightists will surely forever vilipend me for this. Yet, I have not the slightest care for that. I’ll say it, and I’ll say it loud and proud. Rest In Peace, Fidel Castro! You brought forth a many of good to the people of Cuba. Aye, he may of been a dictator, but he wasn’t Hitler-bad, nor Stalin-bad. The estimates for the men he had killed were around 2,000 and 5,000, many of those dead were themselves murderers and torturers under Batista. Cubans are in some ways better off, more salubrious, more edified, and more prosperous than most other nations. Their healthcare and their education is plenarily free, most, if not, all Cubans own houses, and all utilities are frugal. Most Cubans can

As also stated by Mr. D’angelo, in a personal interview about the Cuban embargo, “Yes I think it will last until Cuban reforms, change in Cuban leadership…” This shows that many people, including professionals believe that the embargo will not end soon without the removal of the Castro’s. This idea of no Castro in the government makes sense since many speculate that even though Fidel is no longer is power he still has some influence over what his brother does. Vividly depicted, this is shown by a passage made by Catharine Moses from her book: “They might not like him, they might complain about him, might see his failing and might blame him for all the countries problems, but he is Fidel. He is in control of the island…”(pg. 7) In compliance, this just shows that many still believe he holds power and some hold truth to their hearts that it is Fidel’s Cuba. On an other aspect that goes hand and hand with the Cuban democracy Act is the declaration of John F. Kennedy that states that the goal of the embargo is to submit Cuba’s government into giving up its communist government. Evidently, this was the main goal of the embargo and Cuba has not, and for the foreseeable future, will not change its government from the communist one that it is known for. An idea and aspect that is clearly shown and supports the idea of containment, is that the embargo also

After analysing all of the source’s mentioned above, it is evident that all three authors have very diverse perspectives on the Cuban Revolution. Whilst it may seem to Source A’s audience that the author (Alistair Cooke) is simply trying to inform the American public of Castro’s leadership after examination, it seems as though they are trying to brainwash readers into rebelling against Castro. Thus, the Source is considered anti- Castro. Comparatively, in Source B, Herbert L. Matthews reports on an exclusive interview with Castro’s best lieutenants, Major Che Guevara to present the audience an anecdote which portrays a strong sense of patriotism, pride and authority which are all factors that present the audience with Matthews pro- Castro perspective. Additionally, Source C’s perspective is also in Castro’s favour as the Source is secondary and means that the author could see the context of the situation without being restricted by any element of bias. Meaning that, he was able to see all the events that occurred after Castro took over

I do not feel that I know enough about Fidel Castro to be an expert on his life or how he ruled Cuba, but the little that I do currently know, I would not consider him a kind and caring man. With that in mind, some of the comments made by Fidel Castro in “Castro Announces the Revolution,” were shocking to me, since he tries to make the point that he cares for the people of Cuba and the revolution was set into motion for the benefit of the people, not an egotistical leader.

While watching the documentary “Cuba without Fidel” I noticed most of the points that were made were bashing the way the government was running Cuba, this country remains being the same communist country it was when Fidel Castro was in power with the difference that now his younger brother Raul Castro is in position. This film can be viewed as a form of propaganda with the sole purpose of letting people know how bad Cuba is without Fidel. Although the documentary is very informative I believe that it’s biased and it’s just trying to put forth their own position. I agree that Cuba without Fidel is a bad country but in my opinion is the same corrupt country that it was when he was in power.

Castro’s immediate rise to power in Cuba was bothersome and concerning to the United States from the beginning. Although we were suspicious of his intentions, we were initially hopeful that the overthrow of Batista would bring positive changes to Cuba and her people. Nonetheless, Castro has shown us through his extreme socialist policies that he aligns more with communist policies than democratic ones. Indeed, his Revolutionary Forces have brought him full, unbridled control of the Cuban Government, including operations, law enforcement, utilities, labor unions, news outlets, and financial institutions. In fact, he is carrying out death trials and mass executions to this day.

HAHA, During Castro’s rule, thousands of Cubans were incarcerated in abysmal prisons, thousands more were harassed and intimidated, and entire generations were denied basic political freedoms!! What kind of contribution, you talking about. Does not matter, whatever he contributed against the international hegemony, when his own people being repressed, and intimidated!! what a shame for our so called intellectual circle!!

Fidel Castro was a leader who made the Cuba secured by decreasing the brutal situations such as murder, theft, prostitution etc. After taking power Castro has provided the electricity to all over the cube and he raised educational institutions, medical facilities for people of Cuba. But at the same time the individual newspapers was closed and some of the opposition persons were killed and some of them are imprisoned. Even more Cubans were shifted to Miami in Florida and some are killed by state forces when they tried to flee the country, which occurred during the 1980 Casimir River Massacre and the Tugboat Massacre of

For many Cubans the Batista government was simply a puppet regime with the puppet masters being wealthy Americans. This was because his economic policies favoured foreign investors and did little for the development of domestic industries, which resulted in the wealth of the country being concentrated in the hands of a wealthy whtite minority. Consequently, in the 1950s, this harsh regime caused political resistance to reach to its boiling point. In response to these high levels of frustration, Fidel Castro and a small rebel group led a successful revolutionary army into Havana in 1959. This was the first step on the road to a new era in the lives of many Cubans.

On January 1, 1959, Fidel Castro and his band of rebels overtook the Cuban government. Their Revolution was based on massive agrarian reform and equality throughout. It was not based on Communism or communistic ideals. The US government was against the rise of Castro and his people. They had been able to control the Cuban government by controlling the successive presidents, since the Spanish-American War early in the 20th Century. The rise of Castro was undertaken with a distinct anti-American flavor to it. Castro was able to expand his popularity by fusing the anti-American fever with massive reforms intended to give social and economic equality to all Cubans. The economic presence, of the US, within Cuba was great at the time of Castro’s

Louis A. Pérez Jr. is an American author who wrote this source in 2002, which was four years before the end of Castro’s rule. The journal article in its entirety was made to explore how and why the US had fear of and loathing towards Fidel Castro. In the extracts, I have selected benefits and disadvantages brought about by Castro are mentioned and explored. The source, for example, mentions how Castro nationalised US property such as sugar corporations, cattle ranches, oil refineries, utilities, mines, railroads and banks. Although it may have initially created economic problems, the nationalism of US property would have been a good thing, as it would have helped Cuba feel more independent and free and therefore benefit the nation socially by creating a sense of patriotism. In another extract pulled from the same article, the four

Cuba than fell even farther in a downward spiral due to an increase in corruption and political violence beside the fact that they had a new ruler. The Cuban people continued to search for a leader that would bring them prosperity. Another man emerged from depths of the Cuban jungle to hopefully bring the Cuban people what they want, and his name was Fidel Castro. One of the most iconic figures in Cuban history, Fidel Castro was a self proclaimed revolutionist. His ideas of a communist country fueled him to overthrow the Batista government in a violent fashion in 1952.

How did fidel Castro use his power? I believe that Fidel castro didnt use his power wisely at all. What the cuban people thought was none of fidels concern. He only looked out for himself and didnt care about the cuban people. Hear is how he rose to power and how he abused his power.

There are many views that people have of Cuba’s Fidel Castro. Castro is a figure with opinions on both ends of the spectrum. While he is not worldly popular at this point in his life, he was immensely beneficial to his country. Fidel Castro, leader of Cuba for the past 50 years may not be viewed in the best light, but he did phenomenal things for his people which makes him one of the most undervalued and overlooked political figures.

In 1940 to 1944, communist Fulgencio Batista withheld power as the president of Cuba and then from 1952 to 1959, United States backed dictator until fleeing Cuba because of Fidel Castro’s 26th of July Movement. Socialist Fidel Castro governed the Republic of Cuba as Prime Minister from 1959 to 1976 and then as President from 1976 to 2008. Fidel Castro’s intent was to provide Cuba with an honest democratic government by diminishing the corrupt way in which the country was run, the large role the United States played in the running of Cuba as well as the poor treatment & the living conditions of the lower class.