They did Castro dirty dgmw. And it’s not that I disagree with any individual thing you’ve said. But I just don’t think we can discount the possibility/likelihood that holding firm against the US in this instance would have meant the immediate destruction of the USSR and possibly the world. Let us not forget that the USA was in a much better place strategically — that’s why Kruschev made his Cuba play to begin with. Can you look at everything the USA had done up to that point and conclude with absolute certainty that they were bluffing?
In the letter I posted, Castro very clearly acknowledges the possibility of thermonuclear war etcetc, he (and I) did not discount it. He simply realised that to give into nuclear blackmail out of fear of a possible end of the world is to give up on communism and accept bourgeois rule—and its rule inevitably leads to the end of the world
Tbqh I think the only sound strategic options were to back down or strike first and just accept nuclear armageddon as a given. And call me selfish but I’m glad he backed down.
I agree there were two options; i agree with castro on striking first being the better of the two policies; i agree with mao on nuclear annihilation not being the end of the world
Would I die (or, realistically, my grandmother)? Possibly. But you know who wouldnt die, who wouldnt suffer 70 years of the western boot on their face? The peoples of the global south on whose insecurity the first and second worlds’ security was founded on
And call me selfish, but i’d prefer nuclear annihilation of human civilisation to the slow extermination of most of the biosphere we seem.headed towards tbqh
They did Castro dirty dgmw. And it’s not that I disagree with any individual thing you’ve said. But I just don’t think we can discount the possibility/likelihood that holding firm against the US in this instance would have meant the immediate destruction of the USSR and possibly the world. Let us not forget that the USA was in a much better place strategically — that’s why Kruschev made his Cuba play to begin with. Can you look at everything the USA had done up to that point and conclude with absolute certainty that they were bluffing?
In the letter I posted, Castro very clearly acknowledges the possibility of thermonuclear war etcetc, he (and I) did not discount it. He simply realised that to give into nuclear blackmail out of fear of a possible end of the world is to give up on communism and accept bourgeois rule—and its rule inevitably leads to the end of the world
Tbqh I think the only sound strategic options were to back down or strike first and just accept nuclear armageddon as a given. And call me selfish but I’m glad he backed down.
I agree there were two options; i agree with castro on striking first being the better of the two policies; i agree with mao on nuclear annihilation not being the end of the world
Would I die (or, realistically, my grandmother)? Possibly. But you know who wouldnt die, who wouldnt suffer 70 years of the western boot on their face? The peoples of the global south on whose insecurity the first and second worlds’ security was founded on
And call me selfish, but i’d prefer nuclear annihilation of human civilisation to the slow extermination of most of the biosphere we seem.headed towards tbqh