“We could have prevented it all and we didn’t. If we’d carried out normal relations with Batista, just carried out our contracts, he (Batista) would have got out as scheduled, come to live in Florida, and been replaced by an ideal candidate.”
“A pro-Batista man?” Gardner was asked.
“No, Marquez Sterling, a doctor, whom everybody loved, was Batista’s opponent. Ironically, although against Batista, he had to flee Cuba because of Castro.”{119}
Events during 1961 demonstrated that the United States was still not giving the Cuban situation sufficient attention. None of the tragic errors of the past were any worse than the fatal blunder which occurred on April 17, 1961, when an abortive invasion of Cuba was attempted at the Bay of Pigs under circumstances which doomed it to failure before the attack was even launched.
Badly organized, poorly equipped, and carrying the sagging prestige of the United States with it, a little band of less than 1400 Cubans landed from antiquated ships to spark an “uprising against Castro.” Castro was waiting for them with Soviet tanks, jet planes and Soviet guns. When the shooting was over the “invaders” were captured in a body. Communist propaganda machinery all over the world went into hysteria of screaming headlines against American imperialism. “A first-class disaster for U.S. prestige” wailed the free world press.
In the panic atmosphere which followed, Castro facetiously said he might trade tractors for the prisoners. Immediately misguided U.S. liberals began collecting money for tractors to pay off Castro’s blackmail demand. Castro was so pleased to see citizens from the most powerful nation in the world cowering at his feet that he gleefully tantalized the negotiators by boosting his demands. As should have been expected, the negotiations came to nothing.
Responsible Americans began to demand a halt to all this ridiculous pampering of a Soviet puppet. Serious political leaders began to set down the plans for a long-range strategy which would eventually liberate the beleaguered people of Cuba.
CHAPTER TWELVE
The Future Task
In this study we have made no attempt to cover up the blunders of the past which free men have made in dealing with Communism. In fact, all of these mistakes may be counted a benefit if we have learned a lesson from each of them. Nevertheless, we certainly would be guilty of the “decadent stupidity” which the Communists attribute to us if we allowed ourselves to repeat these mistakes in the future.
In this chapter we shall deal with the task at hand. To appreciate the problem we shall first discuss the progress which the Communists have made under their Timetable of Conquest. Then we shall deal with the current line of Communist strategy. Finally we shall describe some of the most important things which must be done to win.
The Communist Timetable of Conquest
To head off an enemy it is first necessary to know where the enemy wants to go. The Communists have made no secret about this. Their plan first of all is to take Asia, then Africa, next Europe and finally America. Although this plan of conquest has been in Communist literature for several decades, it was vigorously restated in 1953 when Red leaders decided to set up a timetable of conquest for the entire world and then take it continent by continent. Total conquest is to be completed by around 1973. Fortunately American military intelligence captured this timetable at the close of the Korean War and Senator William Knowland placed it in the Congressional Record under date of April 29, 1954, page 5708.
Although the timetable is too lengthy to quote in its entirety, selected statements are being presented with comments so the student may know what progress the Communists have made in their plans to take over the world.
Official Communist strategy is to press for advantages on all fronts but to back down in the face of major military resistance. This will continue to be their policy unless they could be certain of sudden victory by a sneak attack which would wipe out all U.S. capacity to retaliate. U.S. success during 1960 in launching a Polaris missile from a submerged submarine made Soviet sneak attack plans obsolete. A Red attack would bring devastating retaliation from these constantly moving missile bases which now will be roaming the seas. For the present, Red policy will therefore have to be “a course which will not lead to war.”
Peaceful coexistence was not only sold to the people of Britain but to Americans as well. Coexistence means to accept Communism as a permanent fixture in the earth; to write off as past history the conquest of the satellite nations; to placate Communist demands so as to avoid crises and international tensions.
This worked even better than the Red leaders planned. Today not only Britain but the U.S. and 37 other members of the Western bloc have succumbed to the lure of trade with the Sino-Soviet bloc.
After World War II, Red forces in France made the Communist party the largest in the country. Before DeGaulle’s seizure of power in 1958, Red influence had helped to carry France to the brink of bankruptcy, anarchy and civil war.
This was the kind of Communist agitation which produced the 1960 Japanese riots and prevented President Eisenhower from visiting Japan.
By 1960 Japan had regained her position as fifth in world trade. The U.S. steered Japan away from the Sino-Soviet bloc by buying 23% of her exports and providing 34.8% of her imports.
This did not occur. Japan, with U.S. help, became strong while China floundered under Communist discipline and headed for widespread famine and economic collapse.
This Communist project was making alarming progress by 1960. Anti-U.S. propaganda all over the world had created the image of the “ugly American.” And this in spite of $50 billion in foreign aid. Red expansion in Asia, Africa, Cuba, Central America and South America has begun to awaken Americans to the real threat of possible isolation.
This clearly reflects the perfidy of Red propaganda to use “peace” as a means of paralyzing U.S. resistance as the Communists gradually take over. Here we see the Red definition of “peaceful coexistence.” It means
