Tim Gratz Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) Pat, if nothing else will you grant that it is historically wrong to convey the impression that the US was removing a "democratically-elected agrarian reformer" if Arbenz achieved his electoral success through the murder of his main opponent? Or is there one standard for the US and another for small Central American nations? And are you aware that there was reliable information that Arbenz was to receive or had received an arms shipment from Czechloslovakia? I am not prepared at this point to either justify or condemn PBSUCCESS. But my preliminary study has convinced me of three important facts: 1) we were not overthrowing a democratically elected leader but rather a murderer with blood on his hands; 2) the Communists intended to take control of Guatemala through Arbenz; and 3) PBSUCCESS had to do with stopping the feared Communist take-over rather than protecting the interests of a fruit company. (As noted, the leader of the Guatemala CP confirmed the last two points.) The State Department records I posted reflect that we almost pleaded with Arbenz (or his ambassador?) to renounce Communism and we pledged to him that we would resolve his complaints about the United Fruit Company. Again, my point is that it is a distortion of history to say that the CIA destroyed democracy in Guatemala. Any history of Guatemala should reflect how Arbenz came to power. Agreed? By the way, the source of your comment about Dulles? Do you think that was merely his opinion? Is it not possible that a Communist killed Armas in retiliation for his role in the coup, and to stir up trouble in the country? What we are left with is that there is no documentation that the CIA killed anyone (what did it do, pass a "hit-list" to Armas?) but it is clear that a Communist supporter or Arbenz killed his right-wing opponent and soon afer Armas deposed Arbenz a card-carrying Communist may have killed Armas. What is unfortunate is that these problems could not have been resolved short of violence. It would appear this was due to the intransigence of Arbenz. Edited January 30, 2006 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now