Jump to content
The Education Forum

Castro Responds


Recommended Posts

By Fidel Castro – Concerning the Facts and Consequences of the Tragic Death of President John F. Kennedy – November 23rd, 1963

The following is the text of a speech/commentary delivered by Fidel Castro on Cuban radio and TV, Saturday evening, November 23, 1963. [From Appendix II, p.53-86 History Will Not Absolve Us – Orwellian Control, Public Denial ad the Murder of President Kennedy, By E. Martin Schotz (Kurtz, Ulmer & Deluca Books, Brookline, Mass. 1996). Obtained from a Cuban translated transcript distributed at the UN. ]

PART II - CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS THREAD - BK

It says here – now more things are beginning to come out: “Dallas, Texas, November 23rd, AP – All his live Lee Harvey Oswald has been a solitary, an introverted type with communist ideas, but he was not regarded as a troublemaker. Deep down, his introverted personality was imbued at an early age by an alien ideology enunciated a century ago by Karl Marx.”

Dallas police chief Jesse Curry has said that Oswald readily admitted being a communist. How strange, what contradictions. He does not confess to committing the crime. It is supposed that if a fanatic commits a crime of this kind he says so or as someone said: fanatics fire their revolvers in front of everybody, they run out with a revolver as the car passes. The strange case of a fanatic who denies committing a murder, but on the other hand, readily confesses to being a communist – according to the cables.

“ ‘Apparently he feels proud of being a communist,’ Curry added. ‘He does not try to conceal it.’”

All these are new stories which did not appear yesterday. They are of today. “Although accused of the assassination of the President, Lee Harvey Oswald has resisted all efforts by the authorities to make him confess: Oswald has told newsmen: ‘I did not kill President Kennedy. I did not kill anyone.’”

What sort of person was Oswald before his arrest? He was born in New Orleans on the 18th of October, 1939. “My father died before I was born,” Oswald said. “His widowed mother brought the family to Fort Worth. A Fort Worth police officer, who asked that his name not be revealed said he has known Oswald since both were in fifth grade, until he entered high school at Forth Worth. This police officer, Oswald’s former classmate, recalled the following: he always opposed any sort of discipline. He seemed to hold something against people there, against any authority; he was never like the rest of the kids. He rarely associated with them, but he was never a troublemaker.

“At high school he talked a lot about how things should be. Oswald – he added – began to be interested in communism when he was 15 years old, when a Marxist pamphlet came t his hands. Later, he read Karl Marx’s Capital, the bible of communism. At 17, Oswald left school only 23 days after the high school term started, and soon joined the Marine Crops.

83.“His military career was a failure. On two occasions he was court martialed for violating regulations. His specialty was s an operator of electronic equipment. He served in Japan but never got further than private first class.

“Oswald’s career in the Marines concluded on September 11th, 1959, when he was given leave to support his mother. He was transferred to inactive reserve but later on was dishonorably discharged.

“One month later, Oswald arrived in Moscow. On October 26th, 1959, he visited the American Embassy and announced his intention of giving up his citizenship. He told Embassy officials: ‘I am a Marxist.’

“In February 1962, after a study of his case, the conclusion was reached that Oswald had not acquired Soviet citizenship and therefore at his request they gave him a U.S. passport and granted him a loan in order to return to the country.

“Back in the United States, Oswald went to his native New Orleans. Last June, he requested a new passport to return to the Soviet Union. In the meantime he was involved in a dispute with an anti-Castro Cuban, Carlos Bringuier, who said: ‘I suspected him from the beginning. Frankly I thought he could be an agent of the FBI or CIA who tried to infiltrate us and see what we were doing.’”

The rest is similar to what we already have read here, but there are new ingredients. In fact a whole series, a whole propaganda chain, distributed in doses.

First that he is a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee which is false. Later a man who lives in the Soviet Union. Afterwards, a whole series of insinuations in several cables. Today, he is not only all that, he is also a communist and a very willing communist at that, he admits it. In fact all this is really very strange.

Their deception is not that of a fanatic. But that of an individual with a number of characteristics that really fit what U.S. reaction wants like a ring on a finger, that fit the worst policy of the United States; a person who seems to have been expressly made for this purpose, expressly made for specific ends: to create hysteria, to unleash an anti-Soviet, anti-Cuban, anti-communist, anti-progressive, anti-liberal campaign in the United States; to eliminate a President whose policy collided head on with the policy promoted by the most reactionary circles in the country after the nuclear test ban treaty, after several speeches which were unanimously attacked for being weak towards Cuba.

What can have been the motives for the assassination of President Kennedy? What can there be behind all this? We cannot affirm anything because we do not have other elements for judgment; both the personality of the individual and the propaganda being carried out are suspicious, everything is suspicious.

We cannot categorically affirm what is behind all this, but we do affirm that it is suspicious; that we must be careful, that we must be vigilant, that we must be alert. Because this man may be innocent, a cat’s paw, in a plan very well prepared by people who knew how to prepare these plans; or he may be a sick man and if so, the only honest thing is to hand him over for a medical examination and not to be starting a campaign extremely dangerous to world peace; or he may be an instrument very well chosen and very well trained by the ultra-right, by ultra-conservative reaction of the United States with the deliberate aim of eliminating a President who, according to them, did not carry out the policy he should have – more warlike, more aggressive, more adventuresome policy. And it is necessary for all people of the United States themselves to demand that what is behind the Kennedy assassination be clarified.

It is in the interests of the U.S. people and of the people of the world, that this be made known, that they demand to know what is really behind the assassination of Kennedy, that the facts be made clear: whether the man involved is innocent, sick or an instrument of the reactionaries, an agent of a macabre plan to carry forward a policy of war and aggression, to place the Government of the United States at the mercy of the most aggressive circles of monopoly, of militarism and of the worst agencies of the United States. It is in our interests, in the interests of all people and of the U.S. people that we demand this.

We believe that intellectuals, lovers of peace, should understand the seriousness of policy of this nature, a campaign of this type. They should understand the trend of events and the danger that maneuvers of this kind could mean to world peace, and what a conspiracy of this type, what a Machiavellian policy of this nature could lead to.

This is the analysis we wanted to make and the things we wanted to take into consideration; to express our opinion, the opinion or our Party and our Government; to make known the strong antagonisms between the governments of the United States and ourselves, to make known the more moderate side of their policy, that least warlike; the policy that is less aggressive than the policy advocated by others, or by the other U.S. sectors. So that we, as revolutionaries, as conscious men and women, may know how to analyze problems of this nature, difficult problems, delicate problems, complex problems; because policy making in a country like the United States is very complex. A countless number of factors are taken into consideration in the policy making of this country. Very often they are contradictory factors. But undoubtedly, these things that we have been pointing out about the campaign are some of the means – certainly the most immoral – by which policy is worked out.

What are these right-wing circles trying to do? To impose on the new administration? What is the plan of these circles? To place the new administration in a de facto situation facing an inflamed public opinion, exacerbated by propaganda, by the campaign; a public opinion moved by profound hatred toward the Soviet Union, toward Cuba, toward progressive ideas, even toward liberal ideas. This is, this campaign tends to place the United States in the worst international position, in the most reactionary international position. And that surely is a serious threat to peace.

We are not worried about ourselves. We are worried about the interests of mankind.

We know that the fate of our country depends also on the fate of mankind; we do not fear for ourselves; we are and always will be calm. We are concerned about peace and about calling attention to these events.

We are concerned to give warning of the dangers of these events. We want the people to be informed and calm, as they have always been, as staunch and as always, to defend the Revolution. That they be ready always to defend the fatherland, with a morale as high as ever, as high as the Turquino mountain – as Camilo used to say: that they be ready, alert, and vigilant as always, facing intrigues and dangers, whatever they may be!

However contemptible, however infamous, however criminal these campaigns may be, let the enemies of our country know that they will always find us unwavering, that they will always find us alert, with are head held high, ready to fulfill our slogan, Homeland or Death! We will in win!

xxxyyyyzzz

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That analysis by the Cubans and the background on media releases is a valuable resource. The tone of the times is captured. There's some rhetoric there but in essence a description with some astute observations. I like how it doesn't 'feel' like a tabloid 'expose''.

The speed with which the media pushed the 'communist oswald assassin' is telling for sure.

Probably one of the best things is the display of Fidels intelligence. No wonder he could speak non stop for 5 hours at a go to a rapt audience. Another is the simple dictum of socialist historians, also described by Che in his motorcyle diaries, and also used by Trotsky in his 'History of the Russian Revolution'(probably one of the greatest examples of recorded history) : there is no need for a historian to embellish truth in order to get a point across, a stark description is sufficient.

The reader is assumed to have a brain with which to draw his/her own conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By Fidel Castro – Concerning the Facts and Consequences of the Tragic Death of President John F. Kennedy – November 23rd, 1963

The following is the text of a speech/commentary delivered by Fidel Castro on Cuban radio and TV, Saturday evening, November 23, 1963. [From Appendix II, p.53-86 History Will Not Absolve Us – Orwellian Control, Public Denial ad the Murder of President Kennedy, By E. Martin Schotz (Kurtz, Ulmer & Deluca Books, Brookline, Mass. 1996). Obtained from a Cuban translated transcript distributed at the UN. ]

PART II - CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS THREAD - BK

It says here – now more things are beginning to come out: “Dallas, Texas, November 23rd, AP – All his live Lee Harvey Oswald has been a solitary, an introverted type with communist ideas, but he was not regarded as a troublemaker. Deep down, his introverted personality was imbued at an early age by an alien ideology enunciated a century ago by Karl Marx.”

Dallas police chief Jesse Curry has said that Oswald readily admitted being a communist. How strange, what contradictions. He does not confess to committing the crime. It is supposed that if a fanatic commits a crime of this kind he says so or as someone said: fanatics fire their revolvers in front of everybody, they run out with a revolver as the car passes. The strange case of a fanatic who denies committing a murder, but on the other hand, readily confesses to being a communist – according to the cables.

“ ‘Apparently he feels proud of being a communist,’ Curry added. ‘He does not try to conceal it.’”

All these are new stories which did not appear yesterday. They are of today. “Although accused of the assassination of the President, Lee Harvey Oswald has resisted all efforts by the authorities to make him confess: Oswald has told newsmen: ‘I did not kill President Kennedy. I did not kill anyone.’”

What sort of person was Oswald before his arrest? He was born in New Orleans on the 18th of October, 1939. “My father died before I was born,” Oswald said. “His widowed mother brought the family to Fort Worth. A Fort Worth police officer, who asked that his name not be revealed said he has known Oswald since both were in fifth grade, until he entered high school at Forth Worth. This police officer, Oswald’s former classmate, recalled the following: he always opposed any sort of discipline. He seemed to hold something against people there, against any authority; he was never like the rest of the kids. He rarely associated with them, but he was never a troublemaker.

“At high school he talked a lot about how things should be. Oswald – he added – began to be interested in communism when he was 15 years old, when a Marxist pamphlet came t his hands. Later, he read Karl Marx’s Capital, the bible of communism. At 17, Oswald left school only 23 days after the high school term started, and soon joined the Marine Crops.

83.“His military career was a failure. On two occasions he was court martialed for violating regulations. His specialty was s an operator of electronic equipment. He served in Japan but never got further than private first class.

“Oswald’s career in the Marines concluded on September 11th, 1959, when he was given leave to support his mother. He was transferred to inactive reserve but later on was dishonorably discharged.

“One month later, Oswald arrived in Moscow. On October 26th, 1959, he visited the American Embassy and announced his intention of giving up his citizenship. He told Embassy officials: ‘I am a Marxist.’

“In February 1962, after a study of his case, the conclusion was reached that Oswald had not acquired Soviet citizenship and therefore at his request they gave him a U.S. passport and granted him a loan in order to return to the country.

“Back in the United States, Oswald went to his native New Orleans. Last June, he requested a new passport to return to the Soviet Union. In the meantime he was involved in a dispute with an anti-Castro Cuban, Carlos Bringuier, who said: ‘I suspected him from the beginning. Frankly I thought he could be an agent of the FBI or CIA who tried to infiltrate us and see what we were doing.’”

The rest is similar to what we already have read here, but there are new ingredients. In fact a whole series, a whole propaganda chain, distributed in doses.

First that he is a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee which is false. Later a man who lives in the Soviet Union. Afterwards, a whole series of insinuations in several cables. Today, he is not only all that, he is also a communist and a very willing communist at that, he admits it. In fact all this is really very strange.

Their deception is not that of a fanatic. But that of an individual with a number of characteristics that really fit what U.S. reaction wants like a ring on a finger, that fit the worst policy of the United States; a person who seems to have been expressly made for this purpose, expressly made for specific ends: to create hysteria, to unleash an anti-Soviet, anti-Cuban, anti-communist, anti-progressive, anti-liberal campaign in the United States; to eliminate a President whose policy collided head on with the policy promoted by the most reactionary circles in the country after the nuclear test ban treaty, after several speeches which were unanimously attacked for being weak towards Cuba.

What can have been the motives for the assassination of President Kennedy? What can there be behind all this? We cannot affirm anything because we do not have other elements for judgment; both the personality of the individual and the propaganda being carried out are suspicious, everything is suspicious.

We cannot categorically affirm what is behind all this, but we do affirm that it is suspicious; that we must be careful, that we must be vigilant, that we must be alert. Because this man may be innocent, a cat’s paw, in a plan very well prepared by people who knew how to prepare these plans; or he may be a sick man and if so, the only honest thing is to hand him over for a medical examination and not to be starting a campaign extremely dangerous to world peace; or he may be an instrument very well chosen and very well trained by the ultra-right, by ultra-conservative reaction of the United States with the deliberate aim of eliminating a President who, according to them, did not carry out the policy he should have – more warlike, more aggressive, more adventuresome policy. And it is necessary for all people of the United States themselves to demand that what is behind the Kennedy assassination be clarified.

It is in the interests of the U.S. people and of the people of the world, that this be made known, that they demand to know what is really behind the assassination of Kennedy, that the facts be made clear: whether the man involved is innocent, sick or an instrument of the reactionaries, an agent of a macabre plan to carry forward a policy of war and aggression, to place the Government of the United States at the mercy of the most aggressive circles of monopoly, of militarism and of the worst agencies of the United States. It is in our interests, in the interests of all people and of the U.S. people that we demand this.

We believe that intellectuals, lovers of peace, should understand the seriousness of policy of this nature, a campaign of this type. They should understand the trend of events and the danger that maneuvers of this kind could mean to world peace, and what a conspiracy of this type, what a Machiavellian policy of this nature could lead to.

This is the analysis we wanted to make and the things we wanted to take into consideration; to express our opinion, the opinion or our Party and our Government; to make known the strong antagonisms between the governments of the United States and ourselves, to make known the more moderate side of their policy, that least warlike; the policy that is less aggressive than the policy advocated by others, or by the other U.S. sectors. So that we, as revolutionaries, as conscious men and women, may know how to analyze problems of this nature, difficult problems, delicate problems, complex problems; because policy making in a country like the United States is very complex. A countless number of factors are taken into consideration in the policy making of this country. Very often they are contradictory factors. But undoubtedly, these things that we have been pointing out about the campaign are some of the means – certainly the most immoral – by which policy is worked out.

What are these right-wing circles trying to do? To impose on the new administration? What is the plan of these circles? To place the new administration in a de facto situation facing an inflamed public opinion, exacerbated by propaganda, by the campaign; a public opinion moved by profound hatred toward the Soviet Union, toward Cuba, toward progressive ideas, even toward liberal ideas. This is, this campaign tends to place the United States in the worst international position, in the most reactionary international position. And that surely is a serious threat to peace.

We are not worried about ourselves. We are worried about the interests of mankind.

We know that the fate of our country depends also on the fate of mankind; we do not fear for ourselves; we are and always will be calm. We are concerned about peace and about calling attention to these events.

We are concerned to give warning of the dangers of these events. We want the people to be informed and calm, as they have always been, as staunch and as always, to defend the Revolution. That they be ready always to defend the fatherland, with a morale as high as ever, as high as the Turquino mountain – as Camilo used to say: that they be ready, alert, and vigilant as always, facing intrigues and dangers, whatever they may be!

However contemptible, however infamous, however criminal these campaigns may be, let the enemies of our country know that they will always find us unwavering, that they will always find us alert, with are head held high, ready to fulfill our slogan, Homeland or Death! We will in win!

xxxyyyyzzz

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He was transferred to inactive reserve but later on was dishonorably discharged.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not unlike the SBT, if repeated long and loud enough, it takes on the semblance of fact.

However, this still does not make it fact.

LHO was, through an administrative error, transferred to the ACTIVE RESERVE of the USMC.

Which of course meant that he was required to attend the normal 30 days of Summer Camp,/callup for training, etc, that his ACTIVE RESERVE unit would have participated in.

As a result of either his lack of understanding of this assignment, or otherwise, the subsequent trip to the Soviet Union upon release, caused LHO to miss his scheduled duty with his ACTIVE RESERVE unit.

This constitututed grounds for Court Martial and his subsequent change from an "Honorable" discharge from active duty service, to a "Dishonorable Discharge" from the USMC.

Of course, the U.S. Navy/USMC has yet to admit to this SNAFU, which is a matter of record, as it places them in the limelight of being potentialy in some way to blame for the later actions of LHO.

Had LHO been assigned, as he should have been, to the Inactive Reserve of the USMC, then his actions as a civillian would have been of no more disgrace than someone who commits a felony after release from active duty and while still assigned to Inactive Reserve Status.

Which would have created considerable difficulty in subsequently awarding the Dishonoable discharge.

One could call this the "Creation of a Dissident" were they to consider the impact on the individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Dolva said:

The reader is assumed to have a brain with which to draw his/her own conclusions.

Few murderers admit their complicity.

Of course O. J. Simpson proclaimed his innocence and stated he was sorry his ex-wife was dead.

Somehow I think we cannot dismiss someone as a suspect merely because he denied his involvement.

IMO Castro's speech is neither inculpatory nor exculpatory. He could have said it because he truly was innocent or he could have said it because he was guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, those who murder for a cause, for an idea, usually don't deny involvement; rather, they revel in the fact that it was "me" who committed this act for the "greater good."

Witness Hamas in Israel; witness Al Quaeda all over the world.

This is not a new development; even John Wilkes Booth allegedly uttered "Sic semper tyrannus!!" after leaping to the stage upon mortally wounding Lincoln.

Or were you unaware of these developments? If so, try a Google search for "zealots"...should prove to be enlightening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...