Bay of Pigs operation

Bay of pigs official history:

“On January 1, 1959, a young Cuban nationalist named Fidel Castro (1926-) drove his guerilla army into Havana and overthrew General Fulgencio Batista (1901-1973), the nation’s American-backed president. For the next two years, officials at the U.S. State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) attempted to push Castro from power. “

But it was the state department that overthrew Batista and installed Castro. Maybe they repented of this when Castro revealed himself to be a full on communist. But if they ever repented, official history would call Castro a communist, not a nationalist, and would call the Bay of Pigs a revolt, not an invasion, for it was conducted by Cuban Nationals and therefore arguably a revolt, not an invasion.

Initially the invading force had US air support, which would have made it impossible for Castro to deploy heavy weapons or massed troops against them, thus extremely difficult to destroy them. But the US air support was abruptly and unexpectedly withdrawn, leaving the invasion force hanging out to dry.

Not deploying the US air force at all makes sense. Deploying it makes sense. But deploying it, and then suddenly not deploying it only makes sense if you want your invading force to be annihilated.

The moment there were juicy high value targets available to the US air force, including Castro himself commanding his troops in the field, the US airforce went home.

If you want to overthrow Castro, blowing him up in the battlefield is likely to be highly effective.

If they were so overconfident that they expected their forces to win without air support, why apply air support initially? Surely if overconfidence was the problem the normal sequence would be to try it without air support, then when the $#!& hits the fan and large concentrations of enemy show up, apply air support.

Looks to me that those men were betrayed to their deaths, same tactic as Lord Howe betraying his men to their deaths.

The purpose of the Bay of Pigs operation, as actually implemented, was to prove that communism could not be rolled back because of the direction of history and the glorious liberation of the oppressed masses.  History is supposedly on the side of the left, and if history fails to conform to script, it gets a helping hand.

If the purpose of the Bay of Pigs operation was to overthrow Castro, would have bombed command, control and communication on the prospect that he might be there, as in fact he was.

If the purpose of the Bay of Pigs operation was to overthrow Castro, official history would call him a communist, not a nationalist.

If the purpose of the Bay of Pigs operation was to overthrow Castro, official history would call it a revolt, just as our pet infidel raping mass murdering terrorists in Syria are supposedly revolting against the evil and oppressive Syrian government, not invading Syria.

The inability of the American government to overthrow Castro resembles the inability of the House and Senate Republicans to pass a budget that denies the left a single item on its wish list, however outrageously repugnant and violently unpopular.

26 Responses to “Bay of Pigs operation”

  1. TTAAC says:

    So was the overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala intended to fail, too?

    (BTW, Jim, do you still respond to emails sent to

    • jim says:

      Normally I do, but I am rather busy now, and will be busy for several months. Have been neglecting a lot of things.

  2. […] On the Bay of Pigs. Related: Communications architecture. […]

  3. […] Speaking of useful enemies, Jim offers an analysis of the Bay of Pigs operation. […]

  4. bob k. mando says:

    i’ve been pointing out that the Bay of Pigs was pure stupidity ( if unintended ) for years.

    Camelot hagiographers tend to try to portray it as a rogue CIA operation that Eisenhower had left to blow up in Johnny boys face. somehow JFK got ‘rushed’ into authorizing the operation and only realized in the moment of crisis that the Sovs might not like … us shutting down them fomenting a revolution on our doorstep?

    but damn, wasn’t JFK awesome how he stood up to those russkies over nukes in Cuba?

    plain fact, the Sovs would have never put nukes in Cuba had not both
    a – the Kennedy boys allowed Castro to consolidate his power in Cuba
    b – the Bay of Pigs fiasco demonstrated that JFK was a foreign policy lightweight who could be shoved around

    your hypothesis is a very deep game, if true. the plain facts of history demonstrate the Kennedy’s to have been dangerously incompetent to the interests of the US, at a minimum.

    if they actually were communist agents, then the Missile Crisis reads as counter-propaganda used to shore up Jack’s domestic support after his disastrous opening four months.

    • peppermint says:

      Not agents. Sympathizers.

      Some NatSocs believe that when Kennedy stood up to the USSR and said something that is now shockingly nice about Hitler, it meant Kennedy was a NatSoc. But all the real evidence points to the Kennedys being true believers in progress.

      • peppermint says:

        By the way, Ike the Kike set up the rogue op to fail to further the Jew goal of humiliating the strong and advancing international chaos, i.e. socialism.

  5. Magus says:

    pretty much exact same thing with Vietnam. war was won after Easter Offensive was brutally beaten back wtih trivial US casualties and US air support + well armed South annihilated Northern army. S Vietnam could last as long as S Korea: indefinitely, as long as it was guaranteed US backing and air support in case of attack.

    Progs couldnt deal with that though. so they attacked with Watergate, overthrew president, and guaranteed a loss. the North realized window of opportunity, threw one last hurrah before South could become strong enough to defend itself on its own, and US abandoned the South and those who had believed the word of the USG were rounded up in camps and executed.

  6. Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

    This is public, if unspeakable knowledge.

    >’I want to thank you for the Bay of Pigs,’ Che Guevara told me in Uruguay during an unexpected meeting at a party for a Latin American diplomat in 1961. ‘It solidified our rule and discouraged our middle-class enemies.’

    Also, Have you seen Godfather II?

    >it was conducted by Cuban Nationals and therefore arguably a revolt, not an invasion
    That’s not very credible. The US government was involved in it’s planning and execution. It was an invasion, by any normal definition of the word.

  7. cassander says:

    Never blame conspiracy where idiocy is a sufficient explanation.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      Plausible deniability is how the devious slither past eyes that should be more watchful, “Cassander”.


  8. B says:

    >our pet infidel raping mass murdering terrorists in Syria

    I thought you liked IS. Remember having that conversation around April or May-that they were reactionaries and so forth.

    • peppermint says:

      IS is right about some things the Cathedral is wrong about, just like Israel, and like Israel, I don’t think these people should be in our countries and question their right let alone ability to have their own country.

      Bonus: IS soldiers and Israeli soldiers colluding, caught on camera.

      • B says:

        >I don’t think these people should be in our countries and question their right let alone ability to have their own country.

        …but since you’re an anonymous asshole on the chans, and they have guns and powerful allies, your opinion is not very relevant.

        >Bonus: IS soldiers and Israeli soldiers colluding, caught on camera.

        Extremely unlikely. IS does not border Israel. You might be thinking of Jabhat Al Nusra which does and which Israel is backing in a covert way.

    • vxxc2014 says:

      Unfortunately they are our pet terrorists.

      I don’t think they’re Israeli pets.

    • jim says:

      I had in mind the terrorists that we are piously pretending are not Islamic State.

      • B says:

        I am not clear on the answer. Which terrorists are “we” pretending are not IS?

        • peppermint says:

          The “moderates”, the ones that the Obama administration is sending American soldiers to serve as human shields for, the ones the French government is advocating invading Syria to defend in the wake of the recent terrorist attack. It’s true that we don’t know what Jim’s talking about, but Jim doesn’t need to name names, Obama does, to Putin, who asked in public with his real name.

        • jim says:

          The ones in Aleppo and along the coast.

  9. Alan J. Perrick says:

    President Kennedy was the Obama of his times, obviously an alien (a Trentian, ie, following a religion originating at the Council of Trent, 1545) and young and attractive to soccer moms, dangerous and attractive to self-hating white men.


    • peppermint says:

      He was an alien, but religion doesn’t make him an alien, race does.

      The official story is Teddy Kennedy being an Irishman with a chip on his shoulder writing the nation-wrecking immigration act to benefit the Irish. In fact, it was written by Jews and merely had his name attached to it. Still, we expect more agency from a White man than we would from commie stooge niggers.

      Immigration was shut down in the ’20s, not even because there were too many Jews coming in, but because those Jews were riling up the White immigrants and tossing bombs.

      Occupy Wall Street wasn’t the first action on Wall Street. Directly precipitating the immigration shutdown in the ’20s was a bombing on Wall Street, that most people have never heard of.

      At no point does Jack or Teddy Kennedy’s religion matter in any way other than as a sound bite about morality, which always is used to mean that, sure, communism is expected to be harmful here even by the communists, but they must do it anyway. Even if, to the “Trentians”, the US Constitution isn’t obviously heretical, wasn’t it heretical when Jack Kennedy famously repudiated his religious duty to follow the Pope on matters of faith and morals?

      You are stuck 100 years ago when it was possible to say the words ‘conservative Protestant’ and be taken seriously, when the US was a country of British and German origins with some Irish and few dagos, and it was possible to form a secret society of like-minded conservative Protestants to defend the nation against the liberal government.

      Today, it might seem to make some sense to say that Anthony Kennedy, a Catholic, rules in favor of illegal immigration due to shared Catholicism. However, Roberts, Scalia, and Alito are also Catholics. Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and Ginsberg are niggers and Jews.

      I almost said Souter. He is asserted to be Episcopalien, like you larp at, but look at his face: .

      Larping about religion is even more retarded than saying dagos aren’t White in the US today. No amount of larping is going to call forth the population of the ’20s from their graves to feast on watermelon and bagels.

Leave a Reply