Talk:Bay of Pigs Invasion/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Back to the future

Quote: in a future interview with CNN, he said ... could someone who knows what is meant by this phrase please correct it, thanks. Maikel 09:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Well, since I have know idea where in the article this is I don't know, but it's possible that the interview with CNN happened happened after the event they are disscussing, thus making the statement correct. Michael1115 (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


Overuse of the phrase "the invaders"

Repeatedly in the section mentioning the battles, the article refers to U.S. forces as "the invaders". This isn't very neutral.

JonJ (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

that is actually a neutral term, any force making an invasion is usually referred as an "invader", as using something like "The liberators" would prove just too biased for such a sensitive topic.151.196.51.252 (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Weird quote

Potential enemies of the Revolution were neutralized, arrested, or shot while resisting arrest. Because of the lack of prison space (apparently Batista had not built enough jails), suspected counterrevolutionaries were unceremoniously rounded up and corralled in any facility available, be it sports stadium, school or schoolyard, etc., to prevent the people from aiding the expected invading force.

Dr. Miguel A. Faria Jr.[1]

What is with the weird right-justified quote box? (I copied and pasted it over to the right.) I have not seen anything like it on Wikipedia. Why does it exist? Why this quote in particular? Surely there are more interesting quotes, if for some reason this 'quote box' should exist. Tempshill (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-neutral sources.

I notice that a few of sources in particular are used for a great deal of the most controversial and non-neutral analysis in this article -- many statements of what happened and why the invasion failed are attributed to them, usually to blame the Kennedy Administration. Their interpretations also seem to go against most of the remaining sources in the article (compare vs the well-sourced "CIA Report" section", which places the blame on internal CIA incompetence.) The sources I object to, to varying degrees, are these:

  • Faria, Miguel A (2002). Cuba in Revolution: Escape from a Lost Paradise, 93–8.
  • LAZO, Mario, Dagger in the Heart: American Policy Failures in Cuba (1970), Twin Circle Publishing, New York, pp. 257–312.
  • WYDEN, Peter, Bay of Pigs: The untold story (1979), Simon and Schuster, New York, pp. 93–172.
  • Fontova, Humberto (2002-04-29). The Bay of Pigs: The Truth. News Max. Retrieved on 2007-12-24.

While they have their place in the article, they tend to have clear political agendas and interpretations of the invasion that are not universally accepted; it would be better to find more neutral sources for the things that they are used to cite, or to qualify the positions they take and the incidents the comment on as either not universally accepted, or not universally accepted in their significance to the degree that those sources frame them. --Aquillion (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Casualty Figures

I improved the box with the casualty figures. Before it listed government forces losing only around 170 men but I believe this is good enough. The previous edition lists only caaulty figures for the regular army and fails to give even an estimate for the losses that the Cuban militias sustained. The new figures, I think, provide the reader with a better understanding of the battle. The old casualty figures listing 176 dead for the Cuban government is misleading becuase it fails to take into account that massive numbers of militiamen also took part in the battle.

I ask other contributors to keep the accuracy of the casualty figures in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.232.37 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Casualty Figures- Add my info to casualty figure(s)

One volunteer special forces team (USA). The team was cut to a bloody pulp.... by a piston aircraft with American Markings. Different part of Island. Only one survivor (best of knowledge)... He made it to a freighter...got picked up. His name was/is Frank... End Transmission... Signal Terminated.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.3.244.251 (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Tactical Nukes

It's my understanding that there was a Soviet advisor on the scene with tactical nuclear warheads ready to go and full authority to use them. Does anyone know anything about this?

Oh, here we go.

"USSR, draft directive, Directive to the Commander of Soviet Forces in Cuba on transfer of Il-28s and Luna Missiles, and Authority on Use of Tactical Nuclear Weapons, September 8, 1962."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/620908%20Memorandum%20from%20Malinovsky.pdf

AThousandYoung (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The above directive, if genuine, was issued in September of 1962, in the month before the Cuban Missile Crisis, and was not part of any planned or authorized response by Soviet forces to the anticipated Bay of Pigs invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.146.91 (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article seems to have been written by a handful of people with a strong inclination toward cuban exiles. It places all the blame of the "failure" on Kennedy administration and goes to the extreme to prove that cubans wouldn't have resisted if it weren't for "foreign advisors", place of landing, lack of air support, you name it. Same comment goes for the article on the "War against the Bandits", to which this article refers countless times: the views of the Cuban government are "partisan", the reaction of the cuban side was "cruel", their leaders always followed the "tactics" of others, the sources to that article are divided between "Pro-cuban government" and "Others". In this article, for example, people dead on the US side did not die, they "lost their lives". The British intelligence, reporting on popular support for the government, was not mistaken, they "choose to ignore reports". The number of cubans dead is ludicrous, most web references I find give a number in the hundreds, for example http://library.thinkquest.org/18355/the_bay_of_pigs_attack.html. The references are commented, for heavens sake, and many of them are pamphlets written by cuban exiles or obscure books without an ISBN. I fail to find a single reference to the Cuban government opinion on the issue. Apparently Cuba had no army at the time of the invasion: the forces that resisted are named in a thousand ways, but they're not the "Cuban army". The article repeat itself up to three times on the same issues, trying to avoid mentioning the merits that the cuban army could have had on the result of the operation. There are no references to the reject this "operation" created among other countries and the public demonstrations against the invasion in Europe or Latin America http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0806555.html . The issue of the US government hiring mercenaries to invade a country with which it was not at war is not even raised, nor the denials by Kennedy himself 5 days before the invasion about the United States having "no intention of intervening in Cuban affairs". Most of the criticisms to the article in this discussion page are immediately answered by El Jigue or El Jique (he doesn't sign with his user name and it varies), whose point of view is evidently sided toward the exiles: his answers in this page are incorpored verbatim into the article (I've never seen that in Wikipedia, btw). Its a shame for Wikipedia to have an article like this and it shows how NPOV policies are not enough in the face of persistent editing from people with an agenda. Even criticisms about the poor english of the article are confronted with "please, be specific". This article shouldn't be included in the calendar until totally rewritten by someone who has a clue on how to write history, a simple editing is not enough. I tried to start, but I throwed up my arms in despair, it's a task that easily can take days. --Ciroa (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(moved thread to btm of talk pg) No particular argument, the article is a bit of a mess. Perhaps your best approach would be to just work through one section at a time, redo it in NPOV and with (preferably English-language) sources from both sides. I've watched this article for many months but I don't have the tools available to treat it properly. I haven't seen El Jigue here for a while, he may still be under admin sanction, but I'm not sure about that. This article could use some attention, perhaps the calendar will bring just that. Franamax (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ciroa, gives excellent and spot on analysis on this article. I don't have the time right now to assist him, as I am working on other endeavors, but I do concur with his diagnosis of an extremely POV article.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 15:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
There're plenty, plenty of articles on Wikipedia which are extremely POV. I tried to remove some of the more blatant OR in the article, but more work needs to be done. 202.40.139.170 (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Mario Zuniga Flight

In this article, under "Invasion", the following quoted section does not seem to be related to the account of Mario Zuniga's deception flight, within which it is embedded. "This account differs from Cuban government reports that Sea Fury, B-26 fighter bombers and T-33 trainers flown by a few Cuban, notably Rafael del Pino, and some left-wing Chilean and Nicaraguan pilots[24][25], loyal to Castro attacked the older slower B-26s flown by the invading force.[26]" I suggest that this comment may have become orphaned from another account. The "Cuban reports" text agrees with most accounts I've seen - Any comments ? PeterWD (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

After more searching, there's lots of data, including names, about Chilean and Nicaraguan pilots already training FAR pilots before the attacks. I also plan to amend Zuniga's destination to Miami International. Another B-26, damaged while attacking Cuban targets, diverted to Boca Chica, and a third diverted to Grand Cayman. The latter two B-26s were apparently allowed to return to Puerto Cabezas and took part in further attacks in days following. Comments welcome PeterWD (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Embodied changes to main article, relocated passages to fit chronology better, more changes and cleanup to follow.PeterWD (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added a passage about a battle-damaged B-26 that arrived at Boca Chica on 15 April, and it would be useful to learn the identities of the B-26 and its crew. That might help resolve the question of whether eight offensive B-26s were launched that day, as quoted by many sources, or just six that is now suggested, ie two for each target. PeterWD (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC). Update - I'm guessing that the Boca Chica B-26 was probably serialled 923 or 929. Can anyone confirm either? PeterWD (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Tanks and Ships

Cuban tanks are variously referred to as T-34s or Stalins. The shipping data also needs clarifying:- three LCUs or LCIs (Blagar, Barbara J, ANOther?), four LCVPs?(coded P-3, P-7 etc), four freighters, one LSD (USS San Marcos), but what sort of vessel was the Marsopa? Perhaps tank/ship nuts might like to investigate? PeterWD (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Reintegrate the unrecht with justice, the civil way to resolve

The Bay of Pigs was the consequence of the expropriation lands and properties, on Cuban territory by Fidel Castro and many people have suffered for the loss of their property. Fidel Castro is a lawyer with a sense of justice and consequently in a manner consistent, he must compensat the unrecht (apropiado indebidamente). CUBA: In Transition?, Pathways to Renewal, Long-Term Development and Global Reintegration. Edited by Mauricio A. Font with the assistance of Scott Larson [1]
I need help to remove highly POV statement and insert the voice in article, please---- Roger tellme 14:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC).

The whole thing is hopelessly POV:
  • "was the consequence of the expropriation" - Assumes without documentation that the expropriation was the cause, not just a major cause. Different people have different opinions about this.
  • "Fidel Castro is a lawyer with a sense of justice" - Matter of opinion. Many people would disagree with you.
  • "he must compensat" - Who says he must? You? Blatant editorializing Plazak (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

for Expropiation see

Perhaps in this way it is possible suggest a compromise.
The Bay of Pigs would be the major consequence of the expropriation lands and properties, Lisa Howard, television interview with Ernesto Che Guevara [4] on Cuban territory by Fidel Castro and many people have suffered for the loss of their property. For example United Fruit represented by Allen Dulles and John Foster Dulles had loss 35.000 ha. of land and sugar mills. Fidel Castro is a lawyer that would have a sense of justice and consequently in a manner consistent, he could compensat the unrecht (apropiado indebidamente). CUBA: In Transition?, Pathways to Renewal, Long-Term Development and Global Reintegration. Edited by Mauricio A. Font with the assistance of Scott Larson [5]
---- Roger tellme 12:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Che Guevera as an objective authority on expropriation being the cause of the invasion? Hardly. Che could be expected to follow the party line that the invasion was merely the response of dispossessed plutocrats. "... is a lawyer that would have a sense of justice ..." is a non sequitur that you will need to justify and document. I myself have not noticed that lawyers have any more or less sense of justice than other professions. "... he could compensate ..." is, again, apparently just your personal suggestion to Dr. Castro. I suppose that there are a lot of things that Casto could do, but this is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to give advice to the Cuban government. This whole digression on property expropriation and how it should or could be rectified is off-topic as far as the Bay of Pigs goes. Perhaps you could take it to another article on History of Cuba, or the Cuban Revolution. Plazak (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Right: we identify the central question(s) of the historical narrative addresses.
In History of Cuba you will see:
"Both sides continued to escalate the dispute. Cuba expropriated more US-owned properties, notably those belonging to the International Telephone and Telegraph Company (ITT) and the United Fruit Company. In the Castro government's first agrarian reform law, on 17 May 1959, it sought to limit the size of land holdings, and to distribute that land to small farmers in "Vital Minimum" tracts. In compensation, the Cuban government offered to pay the landholders based on the tax assessment values for the land; in reality little or no compensation was paid.
Only now Richard Nixon prepared the CIA piano Operation Pluto, Allen Dulles approved and Eisenhover agreed.
Bay of Pigs was the next step of this escalation and it is necessary introduce this historical concept in the backgroud. Or it seems the U.S. government wake up a mornig and attack Cuba.---- Roger tellme 20:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I can come up with many "causes" of the Bay of Pigs invasion. For the US government, causes included: ideological (to prevent a communist state from being established), geopolitical (to prevent the USSR from having an ally in the western hemisphere), internal political (desire to be seen as active in opposing communism), and economic (the expropriations). To think that the US would not have vigorously opposed a Cuban government allied with the USSR - as long as that government paid for expropriated property - is naive. Other "causes" of the invasion are found with the Cuban exiles who volunteered and risked their lives: economic (the expropriation again), but also Castro's executions of potential political rivals, and Castro's backtracking on his earlier promises of democratic reforms. I think it obvious that there were a number of "causes" of the invasion, and any attempt to single out one of them as the cause, is simplistic and misleading. Plazak (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Exiled Cubans

From what I have read there were more like 1500 not 1200. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.218.217 (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Assassination

In Hersh, Seymour M. (1997), The Dark Side of Camelot, the author makes the case that an assassination attempt on Castro was fully intertwined with the invasion. I see no mention of that in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.40.15 (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Alerta.jpg

The image File:Alerta.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft names and designations

In the BoPI context, the only possible jet aircraft types involved were the T-33A, the A4D-2N Skyhawk and the F3H-2 Demon. Although the T-33 was also given the name Shooting Star, that was only semi-official and unduly cumbersome, so the aircraft was then and continues to be known as either just T-33 or "T-bird". The role of the F3H-2 Demon is still unclear from documents released so far. Reports of "Migs" by unqualified observers were probably A4Ds (planform similar to MiG-21) or F3Hs (planform similar to MiG-15/MiG-17/MiG-19). There are claims that some dismantled and crated MiG-15UTI trainers had been delivered to Cuba by April 1961, but no confirmation yet found.

All other aircraft were propeller-driven and piston-engined, and don't need to be described as such. Sea Furies, although formerly carrier-based Royal Navy examples with arrestor hooks and folding wings, probably no longer possessed those heavy features in Cuban service. Unmarked US Navy Douglas AD-5W Skyraiders are believed to have flown reconnaissance missions over Cuba from one or more aircraft carriers in the period 19-22 April 1961, details still sought.

Note that US Navy and US Marine aircraft designations changed in 1962 to conform to a unified tri-service system, based on existing USAF designation system. The F3H-2 changed to F-3B, A4D-2N to A-4C, AD-4 to A-1D, AD-5W to EA-1E. This is important when trying to interpret reports of aircraft that authors might describe as "AD-4".PeterWD (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Supplemental - found two WP articles (Richard M Bissell Jr and Arnie Coro) mentioning (Martin) B-26 Marauder in error in connection with BoPI. All please note the aircraft generic type was Douglas B-26 Invader, see also article B-26 Disambiguation.PeterWD (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Francisco Ciutat de Miguel

The following passage is removed from Bay of Pigs Invasion :-

"Ciutat de Miguel (Masonic name: Algazel[citation needed]; Russian name: Pavel Pavlovich Stepanov; Cuban alias: Ángel Martínez Riosola, commonly referred to as Angelito) is said to have arrived the same day as the La Coubre explosion; he was wounded in the foot during the War Against the Bandits. Date of wound is not given in references cited.[15]"

In Bay of Pigs Invasion, it is replaced with "Francisco Ciutat de Miguel (Cuban alias: Ángel Martínez Riosola, commonly referred to as Angelito)". In the biography article Francisco Ciutat de Miguel, all the aliases and the reference are already included.

I am copying this section to the talk pages of Bay of Pigs Invasion, and War Against The Bandits. In addition, on the talk page of Francisco Ciutat de Miguel, I am copying below, an English machine translation of his extracted entry in Memoria Republicana retrieved from http://www.sbhac.net/Republica/Personajes/Militares/Militares1.htm on 2009-01-16. It contains nothing dated later than 1939.PeterWD (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sergio del Valle Jiménez/Bay of Pigs Invasion

In article Bay of Pigs Invasion, amended and clarified the titles of del Valle and Almeida in Cuban order of battle. Cut out following Yahoo obituary quoted text and copied it to Sergio del Valle Jiménez biography talk page. (quote)"Cuban Gen. del Valle dies (circa 11-16-07, no birth date given)". News. Yahoo!. Retrieved on 2007-11-16. "After Batista fled and the rebels took control of the island on Jan. 1, 1959, del Valle held various positions in Cuba's Revolutionary Armed Forces. He was army chief of staff when a US-backed exile army tried unsuccessfully to invade the Bay of Pigs in 1961, as well as the following year when the US discovery of Soviet missiles on the island pushed the world to the brink of nuclear war. The Soviets eventually removed the missiles. Del Valle was also interior minister in the late 1960s and health minister from 1979 to 1986"(end quote).PeterWD (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Miami Herald oil painting ref

Removed following quoted text from ref note Clark, Leslie (2007-10-18).(quote)"an oil painting will be unveiled that depicts one of the successes of the covert operation: an April 1961 aerial attack on Cuban government forces that took out an estimated 900 soldiers. Titled Lobo Flight, the 40- by 30-inch painting shows a vintage B-26 twin engine bomber flown by Connie Seigrist - the lead pilot of a convoy of B-26s painted to look like Cuban government aircraft - dropping bombs onto a column of Cuban troops heading towards the beaches, where a group of CIA-trained Cuban exiles had landed to attempt to overthrow Castro"(end quote).PeterWD (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

El Campo Reference Note

Removed following quoted text from ref note (quote)"Los coroneles soviéticos de la KGB Vadim Kochergin y Victor Simonov (ascendido a general en 1970) fueron entrenadores en "Punto Cero" desde finales de los años 60 del siglo pasado. Uno de los" graduados" por Simonov en este campo de entrenamiento es Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, más conocido como "Carlos El Chacal". Otro "alumno" de esta instalación del terror es el mexicano Rafael Sebastián Guillén, alias "subcomandante Marcos", quien se "graduó" en "Punto Cero" a principio de los años 80."(end quote). Google translation follows (quote)"Colonels Soviet KGB Vadim Kochergin and Victor Simonov (promoted to general in 1970) were trained in "Point Zero" from the late 60s of last century. One of the graduates by Simonov in this training camp is Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, better known as "Carlos the Jackal." Another "student" of this terror is the installation of the Mexican Rafael Sebastian Guillen, aka "Subcomandante Marcos, who" graduated "into" Zero Point "at the beginning of the 80s."(end quote).PeterWD (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Enrique Lister Spartacus citation

Enrique Lister, Spartacus citation removed from Bay Of Pigs Invasion, as it contains no relevant information. Transferred to Enrique Lister biography, which see. Spartacus text follows, (quote) Enrique Lister was born in Spain in 1907. He emigrated to Cuba in 1927 and joined the Cuban Communist Party. He then went to live in the Soviet Union (1931-34). Lister returned to Spain and became a member of the Communist Party (PCE). On the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War he joined the Republican Army and became one of its most important commanders. Lister was forced to flee from Spain when General Francisco Franco and the Nationalist Army took control of the country in March 1939. Enrique Lister went to live in the Soviet Union but after the Second World War organized guerrilla operations against Franco (1946-47). Lister established the Spanish Workers' Communist Party in 1973. He returned to Spain in November 1977, following the death of Franco.(end quote)PeterWD (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Che Guevara non-involvement

removed Che Guevara as a commander in the conflict. On 15 April 1961, he was just one of several leaders of the Revolution given the task of defending large areas of Cuba, but no fighting took place in his assigned area, Pinar del Rio. See Kornbluh 1998 p.306, see also earlier discussions.PeterWD (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Efigenio Ameijeiras

removed Franqui citation, insufficent date/location/numbers/names, also spelling error, but copied to new biog article Efigenio Ameijeiras.PeterWD (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Dennison citations

Removed and replaced the text attributed to Admiral Dennison. The original contributor of the material was unable to verify the citations, and the USNI has failed to respond to my enquiry dated 29 January 2009. The details are contradicted by multiple other citations that originate from serving US Navy officers probably obtained via Admiral Burke, who was a personal friend of Eduardo Ferrer, in the earliest published accounts. The Dennison text was (quote)Admiral Dennison implemented directives to have unmarked United States Navy boats, protected by six unmarked F3H Demon fighters from USS Independence (CV-62), evacuate "quite a few people" from the beach.[52] A United States destroyer fired on a Cuban shore battery during the evacuation.[52](unquote). Reference:- Dennison, Robert Lee, ADM USN "As I Recall" United States Naval Institute Proceedings (October 1979) p.113.PeterWD (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Francisco Ciutat de Miguel follow-up

Have removed Francisco Ciutat de Miguel from infobox, also another gratuitous mention under Invasion day. In the Archive 1 of this talk page, several users in multiple paragraphs in 2007 (try Ctrl/F and enter Ciutat) recommended removal because of lack of verifiable citations in English language sources. I have failed to find a single mention of Ciutat in electronic searches of English language major reliable online sources and books on the BoPI references list (Fernandez, Ferrer, Johnson, Jones, Kornbluh, Rodriguez, Thomas, Wyden). If he was just an adviser, then he can't have been a commander, any more than Dulles, Bissell, Esterline, Beerli, Admirals Dennison, Burke, Clark, etc, etc.PeterWD (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

US involvment in related events

What about a small background on other US funded "terrorism"/guerilla warfare (usually in order to overthrow dictators). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.160.16 (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Article does mention the CIA was confident it might be able to overthrow Castro because of two previous coups it helped. Tempshill (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

US Department of State

Did the failed invasion weaken the DoS standing with the President, and when and how did the DoS involve itself in the plans for the invasion ? Also I do not understand the apparent upset with John F Kennedy for stopping the second wave, it was McGeorge Bundy who told JFK to do that; it was Bundy had been increasing the influence of his NSC post in the few months before the invasion, and it was Bundy who benefitted from the failure of the attempted invasion as he and the NSC gain more influence.

My understanding is that JFK appointed McGeorge on the recommendation of Robert A. Lovett who no doubt had a host of overseas projects that would have a advantage if young McGeorge was able to influence US foreign policy as needed. From April to December 1961 the NSC for example got the US to support the Indonesian colonization of the Pacific people of West Papua whose Gold and Copper Lovett's Freeport company had wanted to mine for some years. Today it still brings in $billions each year.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.214.186 (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Cony/Caribe/Whaleboat

Removed good faith passage added by user:deckape 09:42, 23 February 2009:(quote)The USS Cony code named Caribe the sister ship of the Conway, put their whaleboat over the side to seek and rescue survivors. Sailors were instructed to go over the side and paint off the first digit of the hull number. Cony became the 08 rather than 508. Sailors then painted off the name Cony located on the stern. The Commission pennant and U.S. Flag were removed. As documented by Peter Wyden in his book THE BAY OF PIGS, THE UNTOLD STORY (Simon & Schuster 1978), the ships did meet some resistance. It is further documented in the VFW Magazine (September 1993), the Cony whaleboat carrying sailors heavily armed with Browning automatic rifles, was beached at one stage on a corral reef. While rescuing Brigade survivors, it was targeted by a Cuban helicopter, which was chased away by an A4D aircraft from the Essex. Small arms fire reportedly struck the Cony.(unquote)

The USS Cony was the escort destroyer for the CIA/Brigade 2506 freighter Caribe on 16 April, across the Caribbean as far as rendezvous point Zulu. The Caribe had its own US Navy assigned identifier and a CIA/Brigade 2506 code name, that of the Cony (if any) not yet discovered. The Wyden text needs much more careful analysis, backed up with other published sources. Also, Wyden says (quote)As Commodore Crutchfield watched from the Eaton, a little Navy AD rescue plane, obviously under orders not to shoot, slowed down to about a hundred knots per hour (sic) and started a "contact run."(unquote). To me, this obviously refers to an AD-5 Skyraider, not an A4D Skyhawk jet. See also this page above, section titled 'Aircraft names and designations'. I might later add a suitable passage on the (unidentified) helicopter incident that evidently occurred after 19 April 1961.

I hope everyone understands that accounts of disguising nationality and identity of military ships and aircraft (and use of napalm) need to be treated sensitively, as they might be regarded as prima facie evidence of war crimes, being breaches of international laws embodied in Geneva (convention) protocols.PeterWD (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I need some help. I again made a simple edit stating: The USS Cony was code named Caribe, the sister ship of the Conway, launched their whaleboat to find and rescue Brigade 2506 survivors. This was challenged as being untrue and deleted. It is not untrue as I was on the Cony and assisted in painting off the word CONY on the stern from the fantail. Our whaleboat was launched to pick up survivors. Why is the insistance of the Cony being not recognized? Deckape Deckape (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC) We were awarded the Navy Expedition Medal.

In both his additions, Deckape started by stating the untruth that the Cony was the same as the Caribe, hence my actions to remove the whole of both submissions. In the wiki article and Wyden (and all other refs), the Caribe is clearly named as a freighter. The repainting of USN stuff probably occurred on 16 April, pending confirmation. Having reviewed all relevant refs, including conflicting accounts of the whaleboat incident, I have now inserted a new section for 21 April, in which I have added Cony as the fourth destroyer involved in attempted rescues. The whaleboat accounts don't include definitive dates, times or positive identification of the aircraft or helicopter, but I have analysed chronology from FRUS and Wyden and concluded that the incident probably occurred on 22 April. With no confirmed casualties or rescues, perhaps the incident isn't notable enough to warrant inclusion in this encyclopedia anyway.PeterWD (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the Cony as the 4th destroyer. The painting off name and number is true, the whale boat incident is true. There is a possibility the Caribe name is in error, as I am not perfect and the incident was nearly 48 years ago and I am going by my 68 year old memory. Also my duties were as indicated, a deckape. I was at the time a leading seaman and later a Boatswains Mate. These incidents are on the USS Cony website and discussed in detail: http://usscony.com/ Again it is highly possible the code name is in error, you stated "(I)n both his additions, Deckape started by stating the untruth that the Cony..." So the code name was or is an error, the remaining facts are true. Most of all I do sincerely appreciate your listing the Cony and yield the other points to coin your honest opinion "perhaps the incident isn't notable enough to warrant inclusion in this encyclopedia anyway." The discussion can be found at: http://usscony.com/Chronology/ConyChronology.htm Again, thanks, Deckape (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Deckape for response. I was indeed aware of all the accounts on Cony-related websites, but regrettably I don't view them as wholly reliable sources due to understandably inaccurate memories as you suggest. A good overview might be had from studying the extensive FRUS online references cited in the main article, that has contemporary 1961 documents and memories, though some chronology conflicts there. I'm drafting lots of ship stuff now for 16/17 April events, including another mention of Cony with many other USN ships in the task group.PeterWD (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

18 April 'Lobo Flight'

Re-written this section. Removed conflicting claims of casualty numbers, that belong in later analysis. Removed the de la Cova/John Super citation, because it contains nothing related to this date. Also removed Marcelino Maganaz remark, not apparently related to invasion. Removed Leslie Clark/Miami Herald citation because IMHO it just reported a POV artist's glorification of arguably unlawful warfare, and a dead link anyway. Similarly, removed the Joe English citation, because it is a POV text used to train and indoctrinate US Marines, and contains many obvious factual errors anyway. Additional note for future reference - Lobo flight comprised the two B-26s of Seigrist and Price, Chico flight was Zuniga and Rene Garcia, and Tiger flight was Ponzoa and Soto - from Ferrer (1982), etc. Added Ferrer book details omitted previously.PeterWD (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Casualties Revisionism.

Lets face it, CUBANS HAD THE TANKS AND ARTILLERY ETC, the INVADERS had basicly NOTHING, and also the quality of the invading force was sub-standard, and we are to believe they actually caused more casualities to the CUBANS, than they themself suffered, up 50 times more? GET REAL. Also, i would suggest these anti-Cuba fanboy figures be replaced with something else that more represents the REALITY, cause as of now it claims CUBAN's suffered like up 6000? "killed, wounded and missing. That would make it so that on average every member of the invading for captured, killed or wounded 4 Cuban defender, who only not had the advantage of numbers, but firepower and armor.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.204.152 (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Bay of Pigs Invasion - Guevara

Redthoreau, Noted your amendments to BoPI article. Mostly looks OK, though I haven't read much stuff about Guevara. What I'd like to ask you, is to reconsider his inclusion as the implied 3rd most important commander on the Cuban side, in the infobox. Surely Almeida and/or Ameijeiras should come above him as commanders in the actual conflict 15-21 April 1961? BTW, I'm not happy about the other side, either, JFK was hardly a military commander, and Lynch was just a CIA conduit who happened to be the man on the beach - he never went inland.PeterWD (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

PeterWD, first off I'd like to say that I believe you have done some great work on this article (which I have noticed from afar), and greatly improved it. To answer your question or concern, I would support adding Almeida to the info box as well above Guevara (as for Ameijeiras I'm not sure). As I noted in the article, Guevara is cited by Tad Szulc as the 3 most important factor for why the Cuban regime was victorious (as director of instruction for the armed forces he effectively was in charge of the training of all 200,000 militia which bore the brunt of the fighting and ultimately casualties). Although he was not present for the actual battles, as he was ordered to stay in Pinar Del Rio should an additional invasion force land there, neither was JFK as you note, who didn't really command, or even train the invading force -(in fact one could even make the hyperbolic partisan case that he could be listed on the Cuban side as well - for his ill fated refusal to provide additional air support)-. What are your thoughts?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Redthoreau, thanks for kind words - I don't seek approval, just satisfaction of helping to record real history on a globally accessible free platform. I try to steer clear of sections about which I have limited knowledge or interest, eg casualty numbers, popular culture, etc. The conflict infobox is such an item, though I admit to removing previous unsourced insertion of Guevara there, and I've not yet seen sources suggesting what Szulc says (UK is a bit of a wilderness for N American history, just searched for Kellner in Greater London public libraries - no hits). Just checked the Infobox Military Conflict doc, but not much guidance there. Perhaps a trawl through other conflicts might show a consensus for content. Otherwise, agree Almeida should probably go in. Slightly concerned about Argentine flag, in case folks take it to mean that nation was involved. Not checked Guevara bio stuff, but shouldn't he have been a Cuban citizen to hold various offices in Cuban govt?PeterWD (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Update. On the WP Citizenship page, (quote)Che Guevara was made an honorary citizen of Cuba by Fidel Castro for his part in the Cuban Revolution, of which Guevara later renounced due to his disagreements with.(unquote), citing just 'Guevara 1965', presumably "Che Guevara's Farewell Letter"? I therefore suggest that he should be shown as a Cuban citizen for any event between 1959 and 1965.PeterWD (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
PeterWD, I would agree with adding Almeida, and yes switching to the Cuban flag as he did have Cuban citizenship at the time.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 16:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up. I've got text from Tad Szulc' own 1986 book 'Fidel: A Critical Portrait'. It's an earlier source for the Kellner p.70 citation in the Aftermath section. With a bit of healthy scepticism, I suggest possible re-interpretation of Guevara's involvement might be more limited to political and philosophical training rather than military training. Guevara was certainly busy doing lots of other agricultural planning and diplomatic work in the pre-invasion period. Here are some extracts :-
p.377 (1959) "And on 9 February he announced the revolutionary regime's decision to declare Argentine-born Che Guevara a native Cuban citizen as an act of gratitude and as the legal step required to allow him to hold office in Cuba."
p.380 "They were called Schools for Revolutionary Instruction (EIR), and initially they disguised their Marxist teachings behind the pretence of simply showing officials how to run revolutionary institutions. In fact they were the counterpart of the military political education centres set up at the Havana commands by Camilo Cienfuegos and Che Guevara, and subsequently expanded to all the rebel army units. These centres grew out of Raul Castro's Troop Instructors' School conducted by Communist officers in 1958, and they were run by members of the Communists' Popular Socialist Party and officers with membership in the party. This was consistent with Castro's principle that the Rebel Army must play the leading ideological role in the revolution, and the basic military text for it was the Civic Preparation Manual issued late in 1959."
p.450 "The revolutionaries won because Castro's strategy was vastly superior to the CIA's; because the revolutionary morale was high; and because Che Guevara as the head of the militia training programme and Fernandez as commander of the militia officers' school, had done so well in preparing 200,000 men and women for war."
p.453 To Szulc in June 1961 at Giron - "'Their problem,' Fidel said, clearly enjoying the lecture, 'was that they did not have the guerrilla mentality, as we do, and they acted like a conventional army. We used guerrilla tactics to infiltrate their lines, while attacking steadily from the air and on the ground."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWD (talk • contribs) 10:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No reaction to above quotes, so I have replaced the inaccurate Szulc quote in the article with the correct text from his own book. Also moved it from the main body to the notes, because it was a POV assertion by Szulc alone, not supported by any participants or other sources I've traced. BTW, here are two quotes about Guevara on 17 April until 20 April 1961.
Reid-Henry, Simon (2009), Fidel & Che: A Revolutionary Friendship, p.249 - "Che, who had injured himself when he dropped his own revolver - it fired a bullet that grazed his face - played little role in the affair. He suffered a violent reaction to the anti-tetanus injection and was laid up in a medical centre, where Aleida was despatched to look after him. Their nanny, Sofia, and the baby Aleidita whom Che had nicknamed Aliusha, were then taken to Fidel's headquarters in nearby Vedado, his operations hub under the charge of Celia Sanchez who was busy relaying communications."
Anderson, Jon Lee (1997) p.507 - "Strictly speaking, Celia had told Aleida the truth. Che was out of mortal risk, but the bullet had come within a hairsbreadth of penetrating his brain. His greatest moment of danger, though, had come not from the bullet, but from the antitetanus-injection his military medics had insisted on giving him, which had brought on a toxic shock reaction."
Ongoing task is to resolve conflicting accounts of two diversionary actions, nights of 15&16 April in Oriente (Baracoa or Imias, ship name Santa Ana or La Playa), and night of 16 or 17 April in Pinar del Rio.PeterWD (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Cuban Strength

The Cuban Army personnel varies from language to language (for example, in English Wikipedia, they are numbered nearly 100,000 with 5000 missing, while in Spanish Wikipedia personnel is no more than 15,000.)

Someone please verify the information, because I sense some favor on the anti castrists. --189.216.140.7 (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we all want good information - hence the "citation needed" tag in the Information Box at top of page, but no favours here. I suspect that some authors don't bother to distinguish between regular army, armed police, and 'part-timers', ie militia. From my POV (non-Latin, non-American), the problem is simply that the Cuban people were just 2 years into a major reorganisation of their nation, the recruiting of civilians into semi-military and poorly-resourced militia forces was not well documented due to greater priorities than bureaucracy, and it's difficult to count a constantly-changing 'volunteer' group anyway. I suspect the Spanish version lags the English version of the page in the absence of regular translations by volunteer (and hopefully neutral) speakers fluent in both languages.PeterWD (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

CIA Report

I'm planning to rewrite the CIA Report section with some properly sourced stuff. Also, planning to remove other stuff that doesn't seem to belong there, and mostly duplicates content elsewhere in the article. The final citation, of the Thomas book, is a misquote/misreading - text actually says (quote)Finally, 2,000 members of Juventud Catolica met at the Colegio Lasalle in Santiago, where the Castro brothers had been educated, and vigorously endorsed the pastoral letter, shouting 'Cuba si, Comunismo no'.(unquote), ie 2,000 - not millions, so hardly notable. Comments welcome.PeterWD (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits 2009-08-31

A series of 5 edits were made to the article, without citations, and for which I can find no justifiable rationale. I have reversed the edits 24 hours after a request for dialogue. The user Reenem has a year-long history of breaches of WP policies in amendments to military history articles. These include persistent failure to add citations (ie lack of verifiability), lack of edit summaries, lack of responses to concerns, and lack of signing in the few involvements in dialogues. This note is preparation for a possible future RfC. I recommend other editors to familiarize themselves with these behaviours, and to take action on their own initiative. I have not used the V-word. Let's be careful out there.PeterWD (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the best way would be to ask an experienced admin to mentor Reenem to overcome his citation problem. But who could we ask? Offliner (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert Herboldt

In Cuban government order of battle, removed mention of Robert Herboldt. The man's name was actually Ronald Herboldt, and while he evidently participated in the Cuban revolution and Cuban involvement in Angola, there's absolutely nothing I can find that makes him a participant in the Bay of Pigs conflict, apart from assertions of notorious WP editor El Jigue. See also Archive 1 of this talk page, and links from there.PeterWD (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Air attacks on airfields (15 April)

About this action, most sources assert what we have in the article - ["The purpose of the action (code-named Operation Puma) was to destroy most or all of the armed aircraft of the FAR in preparation for the main invasion"]. I've just obtained on brief loan a copy of the 1987 edition of the Higgins book, and on p.123 it says (quote)The weak attack of D-2 - the only one actually undertaken, as it turned out - was now intended principally as a diversionary strike to give credence to a fictitious defection of Castro Cuban pilots. It was not, testified General Gray to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee later on, intended to destroy the Cuban air force.(unquote). Higgins doesn't help with more details of the testimony, and in a quick search including FRUS 1961 I can't find more. Any help would be welcome.PeterWD (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC) PS. Forgot to add: General David W Gray was the JCS military liaison officer during the planning of Operation Zapata, and party to major CIA planning discussions.PeterWD (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(untitled)

I was an RDSN aboard the USS CONY DDE508 during the Bay Of Pigs Invasion. Our destroyer escort, along with six others ( Bache, Beal, Conway, Eaton, Murray, and Waller ) left Norfolk, Va.. All destroyers pulled into Florida -I forget the name of the city, I am 68 years old.Each destroyer took on what we were told were midshipmen. All destroyers sailed to the north side of Cuba. Aircraft shot shells into the water for gunnery practice. All destroyers sailed to the south of Cuba where all anchored. The captain then told us we were in a secret CIA operation. Boatswan mates were ordered over the sides of each ship to paint out the haul numbers. The United States flags were removed from all ships, and a foreign flag was flown. As a radar operator I was told we will escort landing craft into the Bay of Pigs and to stay for enough back to be out of vision, but to keep the landing craft on radar. There was a special radio in CIC with a direct link to the president. We did escort the landing craft with the Cuban Freedom Fighters. I heard their cries for help as they were being killed. They asked for our fire power to help them. Over the special radio, the president refused to allow our destroyers to fire on the Cubans. Our sonar picked up submarines under us. The president ordered us out. Two destroyers received damaged from the Cubans on shore (gun shots?). As we left all records were destroyed. All hands were told that CIA operatives will be posted in all bars and other places. If any of us were to talk about the Bay Of Pigs we would misteriously disappear. Up until now, I have not talked. The truth should be told. WC RDSN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.242.193 (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


nice story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.15.249 (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Soviet union involvement

Should we put Soviet union into the belligerents? US is in there for training and equipping the American side, USSR certainly trained and equipped the Cuban side. I realize America was the instigator here which is why it's included, but Cuba was the defending nation using Soviet tools and training to fight, so... 99.237.42.98 (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

CN infestation

Early in January 2010, many CN (fact) tags were inserted into the article, and remain. Having just returned to WP, I have tried to analyse the apparent 'problem'. It seems that the vast majority are placed after selected sentences for which the citation is actually given at the end of the relevant paragraph. Personally, it is usually my preference to cite at the end of a paragraph, to ease readability. I admit to leaving in place a few interesting (but harmless) unreferenced passages, in the hope that we might learn more. I believe the present volume of 'unconstructive' tags makes the article very messy and difficult to 'sort the wood from the trees'. Instead of laboriously re-checking every sentence, and re-verifying it with many reference sources, I propose to (carefully) delete most of the CN tags in 7 days. Comments please, MTIA.PeterWD (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you PeterWD.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I've made a start by trying to rationalize the section 'Cuban government order of battle', arguably the most problematic section in the article. There are additional sources in WP biographies of linked persons, but mostly Spanish language stuff that I can't easily validate. Also tweaked section 'Existing anti-Castro resistance in Cuba', for which a separate article exists ('War against the bandits') but apparent policy is that we don't rely on that as a source. I welcome further contributions and edits.PeterWD (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Tackled sections 'Air attacks...' and 'Deception flight...'. The bulk of the detailed material in these sections is from Ferrer (1975), also Johnson, Jones, Wyden, etc. Similarly, most of the material in section 'Phony war...' is from US official sources eg FRUS, NSA, Kornbluh, etc.PeterWD (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Prior warnings section

The final sentence "More recent analysis suggests that the sources such as those used in the Ormsby-Gore intelligence estimate were not aware of related material." makes little sense; I'd suggest that the "related material" is claified or this sentence is removed.83.161.217.186 (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I've long been puzzled by this. My failure to obtain a copy of Corzo has caused inertia, but I'd have problems understanding it anyway unless there's a good English translation.PeterWD (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Sentence removed.PeterWD (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Leak?

why is this not mentioned in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Shepherd_%28film%29#Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion_leak

is it historically inaccurate? if so it should be taken off of that page. if not, it should be included on this one.

--watson (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Credibility of at least some parts of the article

The trustiness of this article is questionable. I will examine only the "Prisoners" section, because it disagrees with the statements of Fidel Castro in the recent book by Ignacio Ramonet "Fidel Castro: Biografía a dos voces" ISBN-13: 978-0307376534. In this book Castro mentions as prisoner casualties only few men that died by accident in the track to Havana. Otherwise he states, there were no executions and torture. The credibility of Castro as a source can not be refuted if the credibility of the US and Cuban-exiles sources is not refuted. It is completely unfair, to represent in wikipedia only one of the sides in any conflict. Particularly, the sources [3][6][11][14][15][35][36][54] in the section "Prisoners" report about sentenced and executed prisoners. These sources are [3] Szulc, Tad. 1986. Fidel - A Critical Portrait. Hutchinson. ISBN 0091726026 [6] Triay, Victor Andres. 2001. Bay of Pigs: An Oral History of Brigade 2506. University Press of Florida, Gainesville [11] Faria, Miguel, A. 2002. Cuba in Revolution — Escape from a Lost Paradise. Hacienda Publishing, pp. 93–102, notes# 16 and 24. ISBN 0964107732 http://www.haciendapub.com/cuba.html [14] Rodriguez, Juan Carlos. 1999. Bay of Pigs and the CIA. Ocean Press Melbourne. ISBN 1875284982 [15] Johnson, Haynes. 1964. The Bay of Pigs: The Leaders' Story of Brigade 2506. W. W. Norton & Co Inc. New York. 1974 edition ISBN 0393042634 [35] Thomas, Hugh. 1998. Cuba: The Pursuit of Freedom. Da Capo Press, New York. ISBN 0306808277 [36] Corzo, Pedro. 2003. Cuba Cronología de la lucha contra el totalitarismo. Ediciones Memorias, Miami. ISBN 1890829242 [54] Ros, Enrique. 1994 (1998). Giron la verdadera historia. Ediciones Universales (Colección Cuba y sus jueces) third edition Miami ISBN 0897297385

Among these 8 sources only one [14] seems to be from Canada, all others are published in USA. Moreover, [6] [36] and [54] are published in Florida and Miami - the center of the Cuban exiles that took part in the invasion in the Bay of Pigs. One source [11] comes from a "publishing company" that seems to have published only the cited book, and a medical journal. There is even no address on the web page given. The author, and, as it seems, publisher is also a cuban exile. The source is then completely incredible. 5 of 8 sources have Latin (Cuban) names, including the author of the book published in Canada. Therefore we could probably trust only 3 sources [3][35] and [36] if we forget, that they are published in USA. A country that recently lied the entire world about the WMD of Saddam Husein. The question of how many of these sources are influenced by CIA and the US secret services is open. Such "influence" would match the 50 year policy of USA toward Cuba and many other countries. For me as a non-prejudiced observer the statements coming officially or unofficially from USA are with low credibility. Note, THERE IS NO SINGLE CUBAN SOURCE IN THE REFERENCES OF THE ENTIRE ARTICLE! I do not believe, that Cubans did not print single book about their history in 40 years. There is also no USSR or other socialist country source. Less than 10 out of 64 sources does not come from USA. There is also no source from USSR or other socialist (at that time) country. Thus, the trustiness of the article is questionable, especially the section "Prisoners", which reports facts contradicting the Castro's words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.187.119 (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone is tempted to take the above discourse seriously, I offer the following:-
  • The first half of the Prisoners section refers to non-Brigade prisoners.
  • Having consulted the English edition of Castro with Ramonet 2007 'My Life', I can find no conflict in the Prisoners section.
  • I suggest that judging the reliability of books by locations of multinational publishers, or authors with non-latin names, is prejudicial.
  • The well-known city of Melbourne is on the opposite side of the world to Canada.
  • The map of Cuba in Castro/Ramonet 2007 shows the Bay of Pigs about 30km west of its true location.
  • Though not cited in Prisoners, a major source in the article is Fernandez 2001, unfortunately not accessed until a late stage in the development of the article. The author was the principal Cuban forces commander under Castro. Unlike Fernandez, Castro only answered posed questions in his book, and declared his unwillingness to describe extensive details of the battle, casualties, etc. Fernandez seems happy to cite many sources, including US government, without partisan judgments of them.
  • Here's a specimen quoted footnote from p.223 of Fernandez 2001 book:-

(quote)Facts on the four-day trial of 1,179 captured members of Brigade 2506 can be found in the April 7, 1962, entry in the chronology. A separate trial was held in June 1961 of fourteen former Batista henchmen who were notorious murderers and torturers. After being convicted, five were shot and nine were imprisoned. The last of these nine prisoners was released in 1986.(endquote).PeterWD (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Casualty and prisoner numbers

I think the various numbers of casualties and prisoners in the article have always been a problem, and we may never get a really accurate analysis. They also attract the attention of (usually IP) editors who seem to think their reading of some undisclosed source is better than studies of our carefully assembled list. For example, the combining of killed, missing and wounded numbers seems to be unnecessary and clumsy copying of lazy authors' verbals. I suggest Cuban casualties could be just 176 killed and c.4,000 wounded, with derivations and brief explanations in a footnote. However, nesting current footnote ref tags within a new footnote is not allowed by mediawiki software. I have seen an example (Battle of Cuito Cuanavale), where this is done (but not elegantly) by use of a ref group= tag. In WP:NOTES, Jane Austen is given as an example, but I don't yet understand how that example works. Personally, I'd be a bit confused by two sections Notes and Footnotes, but perhaps Explanatory notes and Reference notes might suffice. Perhaps refs could be manually inserted eg Fernandez (2001), where BTW there is a breakdown of the 176 number. If anyone knows of really good examples we can copy, please advise here, or any other comments. MTIA. PeterWD (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No responses so far. This out-of-practice code monkey has tried the magic word #tag:ref mentioned in wp:notes in a first experiment, but it fractured the Infobox Military Conflict. I have now tried the Jane Austen method, using basic Template:Cref2 tags in place of ref and /ref pairs, then Cnote2 template constructs in the new Explanatory notes section. See my sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PeterWD/Sandbox&oldid=400215056 for 2nd experiment. Wikilinks intentionally neutralized; details of refs and numbers for test only, will review before any addition to article. Any comments welcome here.PeterWD (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Update. I have briefly checked casualty numbers in all the sources readily accessible to me, but I've also found additional data that will be useful for the article, and not just numbers. I plan to copy and check passages in the Schlesinger book next week; the Lazo and Dreke books are unseen by me, but ordered loan copies should arrive in January. I now propose to add the 'Explanatory notes' section with only minimum citation changes, then new data to follow later. The new source code, and any new data, will of course add to the stored file size, but I think there's still scope for a bit more tidying of grammar to trim back some of that. The Lynch book has many 'interesting' first-hand accounts, but contains gratuitous personal attacks (eg on Schlesinger) plus estimated numbers that don't stand up to (my) analysis. The Lynch citation can not be validated, and I propose to remove it in the first edit. It seems very lonely in here, but I'll wait for comments before proceeding. MTIA PeterWD (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
PeterWD, I agree there is no need for POV pushing from an author (or anyone) in the article and it is good to cross-check what you can. Go ahead with your edit plan; it can always be tweaked, as needed. Kierzek (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Kierzek, first stage now done.PeterWD (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

External links issues

At this time, we have four external links in the BoPI article:

Generally, I leave them in place if I think they help with stuff not in the article, particularly rare contemporary images, that otherwise can't be used in WP. Other times, I extract nuggets and put details in the article. Personally, I judge recent item 4 above to be a bit unnecessary, having no significant text beyond the description of Russians protesting, but I'm happy to leave it for a while for interest. One recent addition was removed by an admin under WP:SPAM:

Personally, I thought that it was an interesting source of extracts from a relevant book that I have not had a chance to access, but I haven't yet analysed it for stuff worth using in the WP article. The spam issue is presently under discussion elsewhere. I welcome comments from other editors on my approach and actions generally on external links. MTIA. PeterWD (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

    • If the book is worth a damn then we should use it as a source. If not, a link to a page of excerpts does little for the reader. The link is to a new website developed to flog books for St. Martin's Press, and the person who provided the link has tried to add more than a dozen such links to various articles. Rklawton (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Political Background Inaccuracies?

I came to this article to check out a claim that Eisenhower never had an invasion plan for Cuba and that the prevailing view amongst historians that the Kennedy administration was saddled with his plan. Some claim that this was purposeful misrepresentation by members of the Kennedy administration following his death.

Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article did little to answer this question, and in fact, seems to confuse it further. The article states that Eisenhower did approve the "PROGRAM OF COVERT ACTION AGAINST THE CASTRO REGIME". This document is available online and concerns itself with creating an expat political opposition organization, intelligence capabilities within Cuba, and propaganda/dissemination capabilities. It does not include any plan for invasion.

Yet, after quoting the document, the article continues... "The outline plan (code-named Operation Pluto)...". After some preliminary checking, Operation Pluto seems to have been initiated in Sept. 1960 - Six months after the article says that Eisenhower approved the program. And in fact, the article states that the first plan was rejected.

Eisenhower emphatically denied that his administration had any 'tactical or operational' plans for an invasion in a Newsday interview in 1965. I don't think this necessarily absolves his administration, but given the historical implications, I think it's important to get this section as close to the objective truth as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.242.23 (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a few more dates might disambiguate (trendy WP word for 'clarify') the Political background section. There is plenty of stuff in the GWU/NSA chronology reference, and further details in sources cited there, particularly Gleijeses 1995. If you accept those refs, I don't see how anyone could make the claims mentioned in para 1 above. It's good to read of your interpretations, and I'll put some thought into some re-drafting; perhaps "plan" is a bit too solid and static to describe an evolving CIA operation spanning 12 months. PeterWD (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

JFK Emotional Response

There is recently released info from Jackie Kennedy's oral history tapes that I had posted:

In private in his bedroom, his wife later recorded in a taped interview (in March 1964, released in 2011) that he, "...just put his head in his hands and, ah, he started to cry... ...he cared so much...".[2]

This got deleted with the justification that it belongs elsewhere. I agree with this editor that the "Political reaction" section may not be the best place for this. Someone may find a more appropriate place for this info.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Kennedy_Onassis , and see also: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy PeterWD (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing 23 September

Today, IP editors have been attempting to add POV stuff into the lead section of the article, finally adding a citation to globalsecurity.org, that I judge to fail verifiability criteria. The source does not appear to support the sole cause-and-effect link claimed between the defeat and JFK's actions (or non-actions). I know of no evidence that JFK intended or promised anyone that US military forces would fire upon Cuban forces or citizens, since that would be an explicit act of war against Cuba. Some CIA employees and mercenaries (eg Alabama ANG irregulars) did attack and kill Cuban citizens, but they were not authorised to do so by the US president. The addition also fails WP policy on lead section, in that it fails to summarize claims made in the body of the article. I am not free to continue edits, so perhaps fellow editors can help to deal with the evidently poorly-informed interventions. MTIA, PeterWD (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Distinguished Intelligence Cross

I would like to point out that Thomas Ray and Leo Baker were also awarded the Distinguished Intelligence Cross, not only the Intelligence Star. Either that, or Wikipedia's page on the Distinguished Intelligence Cross is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.50.187.10 (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-relevant background material

I propose that all so-called "background" material being added today by user:Midnightblueowl is removed, because this article is about the Bay of Pigs Invasion and any events immediately prior to it that are directly relevant to the conflict. Cuban history, politics, heads of state, revolution, etc are more than adequately covered in linked WP articles, and IMHO do not deserve to be added here. PeterWD (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

As the user responsible for these additions, I must state my disagreement. Understanding the background to the invasion is crucial to understanding the whole affair. The reader needs to know why many Cubans and the U.S. government wanted to overthrow Castro, or else they simply won't understand the rest of the article. It really is necessary. Furthermore, the information that I have included is well referenced, which is more that I can say for certain other sections of this article. Best. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Name

In Brazil we known this invasion by the translation of the English name. (Invasão da Baía dos Porcos)

I have never heard the name "La Batalla de Girón".

I suppose that, as it is a expression in Spanish, it is how the incident is know through the Hispanic America, which excludes Brazil.

So I've changed "know as 'La Batalle de Girón' in Latin America" for "Hispanic America". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vteles (talk • contribs) 22:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

legality

I note that there is no discussion of the legality - or rather lack thereof - of the invasion under international law. As this was not a military operation in a war situation, its legality ought to be covered.203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Mistakes in "Playa Girón today" section

"A two-room museum, with American aircraft and other military equipment outside, shows pictures, arms and maps of the attack and photos of Cuban soldiers who died. Billboards and other material also remember the US-financed freedom fighter."

The latter sentence makes no sense and should be removed.

The first sentence is mistaken that the Sea Fury outside was American. It belonged to the Cuban air force.

"The Museo Playa Girón displays, in one of two wings, the impoverished lives of the residents of Cienaga Zapata before the revolution and the advances following the revolution, such as literacy teachers; and events leading up to the invasion, such as the La Coubre explosion. The other wing displays maps and photos of the invasion, American heavy arms captured from the invaders, and photos of and personal belongings of fallen Cuban soldiers and militia. Outside the museum are a Sea Fury fighter-bomber, a T-34 tank, and a SU-100 self-propelled gun." (Reference: pages 284-85, Moon Cuba Handbook, 5th edition, by Christopher Baker, 2010.) --TDKehoe (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Reference update

The quote from Life magazine ""Havana gleefully noted the wealth of the captured invaders: 100 plantation owners, 67 landlords of apartment houses, 35 factory owners, 112 businessmen, 179 lived off unearned income, and 194 ex-soldiers of Batista" has a link in the reference section that is outdated—it goes to Life's main page. I had to use archive.org to find the original page with the quote (http://web.archive.org/web/20090420062137/http://www.life.com/image/50658964/in-gallery/25102). Someone who doesn't think WP is a POS might want to update the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.84.80 (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

An informed editor needed

In the section describing the invasion, it sais "Throughout the day they were reinforced by more troops, heavy armour and T-34 tanks typically carried on flat-bed trucks.". What was that unspecified "heavy armour"? One part of the article sais that the Cubans had T-34 and IS-2 tanks in addition to SU-100 tankdestroyers. If that "heavy armour" refers ony to the IS-2s, then it should say so, instead of leving it unclear to people who haven't read the whole article. Most people don't read entire articles. GMRE (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Brigada 2506 Parachute Battalion

How many training jumps did the paras get? Ledboots (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

What do Hispanics call it?

The opening sentence says that what's the "Bay of Pigs Invasion" is "Bahia De Cochinos". Since it's boldfaced, it implies that the Cubans call the geographical formation the same things as the event. Further down they seem to call it "Girón". I think this needs another look. AngusCA (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

See the article in Spanish Wikipedia: Invasión de Bahía de Cochinos. Plazak (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Yup. Also got the right accents from that one. AngusCA (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Note that Google Trends and Google Ngrams both concur that "Playa Girón" is more common than "Bahía de Cochinos", [6], so I think the former should be stated first. I'm making the edit.

John Kennedy assassination

some say the bay of pigs is the reason John Kennedy was killed hoping someone can fill in the theory . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.81.14 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald's motivations for murdering Kennedy have been the subject of endless conjecture and of course the Warren Commission Report covers all of that. The failed Bay Of Pigs invasion was almost certainly not one of Oswald's motivations.
I think you may have heard that there are a lot of people who think Oswald was angry at Kennedy because Kennedy refused to allow United States aircraft assaults to assist in the war crimes he ordered against Cuba, that Oswald thought that Kennedy was a Communist and declined to authorize aircraft to be used to support his invasion because Kennedy wanted the invasion to fail, and because he would not use aircraft, that was why the invasion failed.
There's problems with that notion because Oswald's history showed if anything that Oswald was himself a Communist to various degrees of probability. In anything, Oswald should have been in favor of Kennedy's supposed Communist sympathies in assuring that the invasion failed. So there's in my mind zero chance that Oswald murdered Kennedy because of the failure of the Bay of Pigs. Damotclese (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism ?

I suspect the phrase below was vandalised. If yes, will someone please correct it ?

"Hunt proceeded to travel to Havana, the capital city of Cuba, where he spoke with Cubans from various different backgrounds and discovered a brothel through the Mercedes-Benz agency.[64] "

Hudicourt (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Introduction is Misleading

The Introductory section only contains one mention of John F. Kennedy, at the very end, when it mentions that he launched investigations into the invasion. Usually the introductory paragraph summarizes the subject. If someone were to only read this introduction they would most likely believe that the Bay of Pigs happened while Eisenhower was president. Very misleading. As one of the largest public failures of the Kennedy administration, his name and involvement should be established in the first paragraph.

98.179.168.183 (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Don

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bay of Pigs Invasion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bay of Pigs Invasion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Map issues

The map in the infobox looks like there are some troubles with it--it doesn't fill the box all the way, and there are some commands on how it should behave that apparently didn't go through right. Can someone take a look at this? Utahwriter14 (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Failure to provide air support

Kennedy's failure to provide air support for the invasion was the main reason for its failure. This should be mentioned in the introduction. (86.183.30.78 (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bay of Pigs Invasion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

removal of "splintering CIA" statement by JFK

Hello, I think the "splintering CIA" statement by JFK should be removed from the article. As it can not be corroborate(d) if he really said it. What do you think? —usernamekiran (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a good idea but it has a problem: I think it's better for readers to learn this "quote" is a dubious rumor, so I rephrased it that way. Rjensen (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Rjensen: thanks :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Anythingyouwant: i think Rjensen's was a good move. I dont understand why you changed it. Kindly elaborate. :-p —usernamekiran (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure. User:Rjensen edited the material as follows:

I agree with inserting "deeply dispirited" and with removing the unqualified statement that he "declared" about wanting to splinter the CIA. But saying this was merely a "story" makes it sound like some rumor or fictional tale that no reliable source ever published as fact, so I think it's useful to mention that it was a newspaper story in the country's leading newspaper (at least it was at that time). Moreover, the statement wasn't merely made to "someone" who we know nothing about, but rather was reportedly made to one of the highest officials in the JFK administration. So I further edited as follows:

This seems like a completely unobjectionable edit to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

ok with me but change "later strories" to "a 1966 story" --there is only one report that he said any such thing. I'm puzzled why NYT 1966 did not identify the mystery person X who jfk talked to. My guess is that NYT heard the story 3rd hand and so they asked X and X refused to verify it. That makes it a rumor in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
If it was merely a rumor then the NYT should not (and very probably would not) have said that he said it. The NYT would have instead said it is rumored he said it, or something like that. Later in the same NYT article, there's similar language, e.g. "A former American official unconnected with the Agency recalls...." and a couple sentences later "one observer says", etc. etc. Obviously, executive branch officials who speak to the NYT without authorization like to speak anonymously, and many other people have reasons for anonymity too (e.g. maybe the official here was RFK and he didn't want the CIA to know that he didn't object when JFK said this).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

No chance of success

The article needs to mention that the invasion never had any chance at all. The original CIA plan from 1960 required both air and naval support, but Kennedy removed these. (81.132.48.157 (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC))

Institute for International Social Research

In 1960 the IISR published results of a survey of Cuban opinions regarding Castro. The author Lloyd A. Free had made it clear before the invasion that there was no chance of overthrow of Castro by Cubans. In the obituary of Free, it is lamented that his efforts were overlooked before the folly, and noted only after. Do editors of this article find the IISR or Free worth mentioning? Rgdboer (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

"The research institute conducted various policy-oriented surveys around the world – for instance, learning that Cubans would not rally against Castro. This information apparently was studied seriously by the Kennedy administration only after the Bay of Pigs fiasco." From J. Michael Sproule (1997) Propaganda and Democracy, page 215, Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-47022-6.

This quotation and source back up the assertion in the Free obituary. — Rgdboer (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bay of Pigs Invasion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

16 December 1961

Did the US reward Cuba by cancelling the import quota? Or did the US punish Cuba by cancelling imports? There is a huge difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pijuvwy (talk • contribs) 13:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Questionable information

The article states that "Stevenson was later embarrassed to realize that the CIA had lied to him and to Secretary of State Dean Rusk.". I don't have access to the source cited, but the information is questionable because Dean Rusk was well informed of Bay of Pigs. Uglemat (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Nixon on the timeline

The article states that Nixon "sent a military aide to Dulles to ask how the planned invasion was progressing; he believed that it was taking too long, considering the swift preparation of the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'etat". I do not have access to the source cited (Quirk 1993), but I have reason to believe it is off the mark. John Prados (2006, "Safe for Democracy" p. 240) writes that "secret warriors recount that in the final weeks before the election, Nixon encouraged a slowdown in the expectation he would be taking over. Then, having lost, the vice president egged Ike on to accelerate the project." Why would Nixon encourage a slowdown if he believed it was taking too long? In view of that logical brist, I'll remove the sentence. Uglemat (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello. This reads as a non-sequitur to me. Your source is saying that "Nixon encouraged a slowdown in the expectation he would be taking over." I.e., the slowdown he is referring to is in the expectations Nixon would be the next President, not on the Cuba invasion project. So, the content you removed still makes perfect sense, and I would double check the sources before it is removed. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 16:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your point, the slowdown in the source explicitly refers to the Cuba project. The sentences both refer to the time before the election. I admit the logic is not failproof, but there are two other reasons suggesting removal. First, Nixon's opinion on the timing of the project is not very important; it's better to not write anything than to write something potentially false. Secondly, I don't trust the source and/or that it is used correctly. It is a biography of Fidel Castro (not about US politics), and in another part of the article it was used to say that DDP Bissell put 'together a "Special Group" known as the 5412 Committee', which is completely false. If you disagree on these points and want to add the sentence back in, you may do so. Uglemat (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I did not read your source, I just read your citation of the source above. In the sentence quoted the slowdown seems to refer to expectations that Nixon would be taking over [as President], not to the pace of the Cuba invasion project. On that matter, it seems to me, both Eisenhower and Nixon would have it finished as soon as possible, since they started and approved it. warshy (¥¥) 12:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The context of the Prados quote makes it clear that "the project" in question is the Cuba invasion project. Uglemat (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
You mean to say that the Prados sentence you quote should be read, according to your reading of it, as: "Nixon encouraged a slowdown in the expectation he would be taking over [the Cuba invasion project]." Even if this was the correct reading [which is arguable, in my view], that would still not mean that Nixon envisaged any slowdown of the project at all, just a slowdown of the expectation he would be taking it over from Eisenhower soon. It would seem clear to me. as I said, the both Nixon and Eisenhower wanted the thing done as soon as possible, all along the way, once they set it in motion. And so, Nixon inquiring about the pace once Kennedy took over would still make a lot of sense. warshy (¥¥) 14:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
"Slowdown of the expectation", what does that even mean? Prados goes right on to quote Esterline (task force leader for the cuba invasion project) who said that "I blame Nixon far more than I do Kennedy for the equivocation and the loss of time". My reading of Prados is not arguable in the slightest; it's virtually impossible to read it any other way (but only virtually, as you have demonstrated! :). Uglemat (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"...slowdown in the expectation..." comes right from your quote above, I did not invent it. Since I see you edit a lot of the pages on official US government offices and institutions, and it is hard for me to keep up with all your edits across many pages, I thought I would test my intuition on your natural initial bias by trying to engage you a bit here. But since it seems virtually impossible to even get you to a allow slightly different reading on a single source that I have no idea how reliable it is, I will have to allow that you virtually win then. Thank you for engaging me, and be well. warshy (¥¥) 23:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I tried to understand your point of view, but I couldn't. I suppose the "slightly different readings" you refer to are whether Nixon would be taking over as President, or whether he would be taking over the Cuba invasion project. I did not notice that distinction because it has no bearing on my argument. ¡Hasta luego! Uglemat (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Vienna summit

I copied content from Vietnam War and Vienna summit to Bay of Pigs Invasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McKnight Buchanan (talk • contribs) 22:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cuba in Revolution—Escape from a Lost Paradise (2002) pp. 93–4.
  2. ^ ABC News Diane Sawyer special 'Jaqueline Kennedy: In Her Own Words'
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion/Archive_2&oldid=1136555885"