Fidel Castro and the Manipulation of the U.S. Press: 1956-1959
By Daniel Leyva

On January 1st, 1959 Fidel Castro took control of Cuba, establishing a totalitarian Marxist government right in America's own backyard pond. How did he pull it off right under America’s nose? Didn’t anyone realize exactly how revolutionary this revolution would actually be? The answer is no, not really. Through propaganda and political damage control Fidel was able to hold off the US Press until it was too late, downplaying and averting the attention of the Press from the anti-Americanism of his 26th of July Movement, as well as any communist influence within his organization.

The most widely circulated and influential American magazines: Time, Life, Newsweek, etc. as well as the day’s leading newspapers like The New York Times, glorified Castro and his famous "barbudos" (bearded ones), they were romanticized and depicted as Robin Hoods, gallantly fighting for the freedom of the Cuban people.
The 26th of July Movement, however, occasionally revealed its true colors and while the press hardly turned a blind eye to these slips, they were quick to forgive and forget. If one examines the press coverage of the revolution prior to 1959 you will find many examples of anti-American sentiment in both deed and word. You can also see how Castro was able to maintain the perception that he was going to restore democracy on the island and make Cuba safe for Americans and their money until the middle of 1959 when the revolutionary transformation of Cuban began to take motion. Following his April visit to America and Canada, the American Press finally began to see the writing on the walls as the communist and anti-American influence within the Castro government became to obvious to deny. Within a few years Fidel Castro would succeed in completely transforming Cuban society in such a drastic and revolutionary way that the United States wouldn't even recognized the country they once considered an informal 49th state (at the time of the revolution there were only 48).

In examining the sympathy many felt for the revolutionaries in Cuba you must first take a look at the roots of the revolution. Just what were the Cubans revolting against?

Cuba had been ruled by Fulgencio Batista y Zaldivar for twenty-five years (through puppets 1934-39 and himself 1940-44 and 1952-59), with U.S. support, and was notorious for holding power through manipulation, troops, and assassins.

Cuba’s primary source of income came from sugar, but was augmented by vigorous tourism based on hotels, casinos, and brothels. Yet this prosperity enriched only a few Cubans. For the majority, poverty (especially in the countryside) and lack of public services were appalling: with a national per capita income of $353 in 1958—among the highest in Latin America—unemployment and underemployment were rife, and the average rural worker earned $91 per year. Foreign interests controlled the economy, owning about 75 percent of the arable land, 90 percent of the essential services, and 40 percent of the sugar production.

In Addition, the Government was extremely corrupt, with public officials seemingly more interested in lining their own pockets than in helping the people. Graft was just part of the system. In fact the situation was so bad that by the 1940’s students formed armed gangs just to protect themselves from the private armies of local politicians intent on protecting their "territory." The situation was bad and conditions were almost perfect for some sort of uprising.
American sympathy for the revolution in Cuba did not come right away. In fact the revolution was rather unimportant in the Press for quite a while. The first we hear of Fidel Castro is after his failed attack on the Moncada Barracks on July 26, 1953 in an attempt to spark some sort of general uprising. While this is a celebrated historical event to the Cuban people, the press deemed it just important enough for a paragraph or so in the middle of the paper. As time went on there would be brief reports on the capture, trial, and imprisonment of Fidel and the survivors among his small group.

In May 1955 Castro and the revolutionaries were released from prison in a general amnesty. Castro spent the next three months in Havana creating his new organization, which he called the 26th of July Movement in commemoration of his attack on Moncada. On July 7th of that year he and his followers left for Mexico City to prepare for another armed insurrection.

While Fidel and his people in Mexico prepared for the invasion, another member of the movement, Frank Pais, remained in Cuba to develop the "in-Cuba" wing of the 26th of July. It is the activities of this group that appears on the front page of the New York Times on December 1, 1956.

The headline reads, "Cuba Quells Revolt; Hundreds Arrested." The article then goes on to report attacks upon the police headquarters, the Customs House and the Harbor Headquarters by small bands of insurgents wearing olive green uniforms and the red and black armbands with the July 26th emblem. The article speculates that Fidel Castro, Gen. Rafael Trujillo, and former Cuban President Prío Socarrás were behind the unrest. It was also reported that the police had thing under control. The Times also reports upon Fidel’s Manifesto issued from Mexico calling for support of the Cuban people’s struggle for democracy. (NY Times 12-1-56 1:5) Notice that he called for democracy, not a revolution in the Marxist sense.

It is not reported, however, that the November 30th uprising was intended as a diversion to coincide with Fidel Castro’s planned invasion of Cuba. Unfortunately due to weather delays and poor communication with the invasion the invasion force en route from Mexico, the uprising in Santiago was premature and didn’t serve its intended purpose.
On December 2nd 81 men, under the leadership of Castro set sail for Cuba and landed on the swampy southern coastland of Oriente Province. Due to the lack of timing between the expeditionaries and the Cuban underground and government knowledge of their arrival Batista's forces were waiting when the rickety yacht reached the coastline. The 81 men in the landing party were bombed and strafed by government planes, and only a dozen or so survived to flee to the safety of the Sierra Maestra Mountains, including the Castro brothers, Fidel and Raúl, Che Guevara, and a handful of others. The Cuban government, however, reported that it had identified the body of Fidel among the dead.
The media considered this invasion a waste of lives and effort. The New York Times editorial on December 4th, 1959 asks the readers "How could anything be madder?" At this time Batista seems to have the sympathy of the press as this editorial says he has tried his best to be a good president, but despite of his efforts he is still branded by his 1952 coup. The attitude seems to be that there is no way Fidel would be able to force Batista to resign and why should he anyways? (NYT 12-4-56 Ed.)

A similar report is found in Time Magazine, which declares that even the rebels themselves would admit that they were never much of a threat to Gen. Batista’s regime. According to this report the rebels did succeed in rallying some of the opposition to Batista into action in the form of sabotage and civil unrest that could eventually shake up the government. We learn that bombing, killing, and arson had prompted Batista to take action and here we begin to see the brutal side of Batista’s government that would initially drive many Cubans, as well as Americans, to Castro’s corner. These initial counter-terrorist activities led to hundreds of arrests and many "mysterious" deaths. (Time 1-7-57 p. 33)

On January 15 Gen. Batista suspended constitutional guarantees for 45 days. This included censorship of the press, another issue that would win him little favor with the media. The media censorship seemed to be part of an effort to downplay the revolt. The government was insisting that the island was relatively peaceful, and that the rebel forces had been reduced to a bare few that were bound to surrender soon. Government opponents, however, insisted that there was significant guerilla activity in Oriente Province as well as sabotage and Bombings in the cities. (NYT 2-8-57)
For nearly two months the press wondered if Fidel was really dead as the government still insisted. On February 24th the New York Times published a report by Herbert L. Mathews that not only definitively answered that question, it established the popular romantic image of the rebel that lasted until around 1959.

This report came in three daily installments. The first installment proclaims "Castro is still alive and fighting in the mountains." After an exciting description of the reporter’s clandestine trip to the rebel base in the Sierra Maestra. In his conversion with Fidel, he learns that Batista is using US supplied arms against not just the rebels, but also the people of Cuba. Castro is described as an extremely eloquent man with strong ideas about liberty, democracy, and social justice. When asked about nationalism, anti-colonialism, and anti-imperialism within the July 26th movement. Fidel answered, " You can be sure we have no animosity towards the United States and the American People." Castro also displays a stockpile of cash that they use to pay the farmers for provisions. (NYT 2-24-57 1:5)

In the second installment Mathews states that there is no communism within the 26th of July Movement. He also describes the terrorism as well as Batista’s counter terrorism efforts. The Cuban people are commended for their bravery in the face of Batista’s oppressive and brutal government. (NYT 2-25-57)

The third and final installment of this report details the corrupt "old order" that is being revolted against. Mathews states that the "best elements" of Cuban society are finally banning together to assume power and that they have never forgiven Batista for taking away their ability to determine their own political destiny through the Democratic process. He also reported the opposition’s call for a halt of US arms sales to the Batista Government. (NYT 2-26-57)
And so the precedent for the media’s sympathetic feelings toward the revolutionaries in Cuba was set with this article. We have the noble rebel fighting for liberty vs. the brutal dictator and his corrupt regime. Fidel Castro is made into a Robin Hood like figure, fighting for the poor and oppressed. Fidel also denies any anti-American feelings. How could anyone possibly support Batista when it is put in these terms?

For the rest of the year 1957 the reports out of Cuba echoed the sentiments of the Herbert Mathews article. The rebels in the Sierra Maestra were steadily gaining the support of the peasants of Oriente Province, all the while chipping away at the army who were unable to put down the rebellion. The terrorism, counter terrorism, and censorship continued. The movement as a whole was gaining much momentum, but tactically things were at a standstill.

Around March of 1958 interesting things begin to happen again. In March a second front was formed in the mountains north of Santiago- the Sierra Cristal under the command of Fidel’s younger brother Raul. Fidel also called for a General Strike in the near future. .

The Cuban opposition began to Criticize the United States for supplying arms to the Batista Government. That year Batista received around $1,000,000 in military aid from the U.S. All of Batista's arms, planes, tanks, ships, and military supplies came from the U.S., as well as three separate military training missions for the Cuban army.
Dr. Urrutia, Fidel Castro’s choice for provisional president accused the US of backing out on congresses 1898 resolution saying Cuba had the right to be free. He requested that the US place an arms embargo against the tyrannical government of Batista. (NYT 3-24-58). Under much criticism, in April the US finally halted shipments of arms to Batista.

The General strike Fidel called for was held on April 9th, but failed due to timing errors and lack of popular support for such an action. This was a serious setback for the rebels and aroused some anger at the US, as many rebels felt that the US was backing Batista. On April 14th the New York Times reported that many rebels were talking about a project to attack the property United States citizens. These reports were quickly countered by a message transmitted to the to the US Ambassador by rebels who had briefly captured and held the US owned Moa Mining Company that " American lives and property will be respected according to the orders by Dr. Fidel Castro." (NYT 4-14-58).

In a New York Times editorial on the strike on April 18, 1958 there was no mention of the potential threat to US property, only word of encouragement for those in the "struggle for liberty against a harsh, corrupt military dictatorship." (NYT 4-18-58) Apparently the damage control by the rebels was effective, but it is interesting to note that the rebels who made the statement were holding captured US property.

On Saturday June 28 a headline on the front page of the Times reads "10 Americans Are Seized in Raid by Rebels in Cuba." These ten Americans, one Canadian, and nineteen trucks and jeeps were seized from the Moa mining company where a month and a half earlier the rebels issued a statement proclaiming their respect for American lives and property. It is reported that these kidnappings, engineered by Raul Castro were in retaliation against the US Navy base at Guantanamo Bay for having provided fuel and supplies to the Cuban Army in support of their bombing campaign in the Mountains of Oriente. US Ambassador E.T. Smith called the kidnappings a "useless defiant gesture which will boomerang against the rebels." (NYT 6-28-58)

In the same report, US State Department officials denied the charges, stating that the Cuban army has ample supplies of their own. It would seem that Raul Castro either believes that the US government is working with Batista against the rebels, or is just trying to intimidate the United States Government against any future intervention. In either case this was a decidedly anti-American gesture.

The following day 24 United States sailors and Marines from Guantanamo Bay were kidnapped along with the driver of the bus they were riding. The Cubans Army blamed the kidnapping on the communists. While that sounded like simple name calling at the time, in hindsight the army would eventually be proved correct in that accusation Raul Castro was the man behind the kidnappings.

A June 30th editorial in the New York Times deplored the kidnappings as "dangerous," and "juvenile" miscalculations of American opinion. The editorial admitted that the grievances of the Cuban people against the US and its policy towards Latin American dictatorships are valid; US citizens are innocent of American policy. The Cuban rebels are, in essence, challenged to try harder in their efforts as US policy didn’t seem to prevent the people of Venezuela, Columbia, and Argentina from gaining freedom.

On July 1st two more Americans were reported kidnapped. The US State department stated that it suspected that Fidel’s younger brother Raul staged the kidnappings to pressure Fidel into taking a stronger stand against the United States with the ultimate goal of forcing a US to cancel all military aid to Cuba. In the July 1st report Raul was classified as more of an extremist that Fidel and inclined towards anti-Americanism. (NYT 6-1-58)
President Eisenhower, on July 3rd, vowed that the US would get the hostages back alive, and explained that the US has given no military aid to the Cuban army since March of that year except for a shipment of rockets that was part of a prior arrangement. (NYT 6-3-58)

And now the damage control. On Friday July 4th , it is reported that Raul Castro was planning an apology to the families of the captured men. He stated that he had no intention of harming the men, rather he wanted them to be witness to and understand what the 26th of July movement were fighting for: Freedom. American Admiral Ellis stated that he never had any fears for the safety of the hostages. (NYT 6-4-58)

On July 6 Herbert L. Mathews writes a report for the New York Times on the cause and effects of the kidnappings. He reports that the kidnapping were a way of attracting international attention to their cause, overcoming "the most rigid censorship in Cuban history." These Americans were acted against as symbols of the United States government’s support of Fulgencio Batista and to show the world that he was still in control of Oriente. (NYT 6-6-58)
Mathews describes the US reaction as "anger, bafflement, and helplessness." After acknowledging that Castro has lost much of his US support, he goes on to shift some of the blame for this situation upon Batista accusing the dictator of "clamping a lid down on a courageous, fighting people who have proved that they want liberty," a lid which the rebels were forced to blow sky high with the kidnappings. (NYT 6-6-58)

As H.L. Mathews admitted, these kidnapping were acts against Americans as symbols of the United States government. In the July 21st, 1958 issue of Newsweek article Fidel Castro stated that the American were in effect human shields, saying that "they are very good anti-aircraft protection. (Newsweek 5-21-58) By their actions, the 26th of July movement does not appear to be an organization that is very friendly to Americans, Raul Castro’s apology and reports that the captives were treated well seemed to have smoothed things over somewhat. Time Magazine and other publications felt that Raul was "leftist and anti-American." (Time 6-7-58) The point was often made that Raul operated independently of Fidel. That kept some of the heat off of Fidel himself. Finally Mathews, who was regarded as an expert on Cuba, passes the ultimate responsibility for these acts upon Batista.

All this leads to the New York Times editorial on July 21 in which the rebels are seemingly forgiven with a warning not to try this again. The attitude seems to be "no harm, no foul," stating that this thing ended as happily as could be expected. The discipline of Raul Castro’s forces is praised as well as their "courtesy and friendliness" towards the American captives. It is noted that their motives were "idealistic, not criminal." It is also stated that Fidel is the real leader of the rebellion and neither knew or approved of the kidnappings. The editorial notes that the rebels were clamoring against US aid to the Batista regime, yet the US stopped supplying military aid and diplomatic support in March. Finally the editorial proclaims that whatever sympathy Castro lost would only be temporary. (NYT 6-21-58)
Once again Castro managed to evade any accusations of being anti-American, in spite of four months of false accusations and attacks upon the United States government.

On October 21st two more Americans were kidnapped with no apparent motive from an oil refinery near Raul Castro’s theater of operations. While the US Consul was ordered to act firmly, a refinery official reported that he received notice from the rebels that the hostages were being treated well and would be returned shortly.

A US State department spokesman, Lincoln White, threatened US action if the kidnapping continued. Castro responded to these "aggressive declarations" less than positively, warning the US to stay out of Cuba and accusing US ambassador Smith of plotting with Batista to bring the US into the war. (NYT 10-27-58)

It seems that press was finally starting to realize that Castro wasn’t quite what they had expected .On October 28th a New York Times editorial scores Fidel Castro for his actions. It states that Castro has been tolerantly regarded in the US because of what he was fighting for (or against). While Fidel was "raising his banner . . .from his dreary hideout . . . he seemed like a sort of Robin Hood." Now it seemed as if he were trying to alienate American support for his cause. Castro is warned against further terrorism and misrepresentation against the United States if he wishes to retain our good will. (NYT 10-28-58)

In November three Cia Cubana Airliners disappeared as the Castro brothers began to organize the world’s fist international airline hijackings. When one of these planes crashes Fidel denies responsibility for that plane seizure and says that he would cooperate with the US in in the protection of its lives and interests. (NYT 11-9-58)

Over the next few days Fidel declared a 30 hour cease fire so that he could release the passengers of the two airplanes he did admit to taking. After he gave up the hostages he accused the Government of violating the cease fire. That is the last we hear of the hijackings. There is no scathing editorial against these actions nor any anti- Fidel slanted articles. Had the press forgotten already? Maybe, maybe not. It is interesting to note, however, that Fidel had almost written the book on how weak countries could fight the powers that oppress them. His international terrorist tactics of kidnapping and hijacking would be used by countries such as Lebanon, Iran, and other nations in their own fights against "Western Imperialism."

In December 11th the New York Times runs a report by Andrew St. George, who had spent six weeks in the Sierra Maestra with Castro. Mr. St. George reported that Castro was seeking a confidential meeting with the US to discuss political issues. Chief among these issues was his little brother Raul. Fidel wanted to make sure that Raul’s activities would not bring about US intervention on behalf of Batista’s forces. (NYT 12-11-58)

It is reported that Fidel wished to disavow the activities of his brother, chiefly a suspicious pamphlet written by Raul and being circulated in his area of operation in the Sierra Cristal mountains. This paper, entitled "The Call to World Youth," attacks the US position in Cuba and Latin America in "terms hardly distinguishable from the Communist position." It is also reported that Raul was circulating pro-labor pamphlets attacking US employers in Cuba. St. George says that Fidel angrily disavows these actions by his closest aide. (NYT 12-11-58)

Once again we get the damage control. It seems that there is no way that Fidel can convince anyone that Raul has no anti-American or communist tendencies at this point, and so he decides to deny any connection to his brothers activities. It does seem odd that he would have no inkling of what his brother was doing, and while he may not have supported Raul’s anti-American efforts he did nothing to stop them.

Whether this damage control by Fidel was successful or not seems to have been a mute point and forgotten by history. With the dawn of the new year Fidel had won the war. It is reported that Batista fled the country immediately following a lavish new years bash at the presidential palace. The US was no longer dealing with a rebel/terrorist holed up in the mountains. It was dealing with the leader of a national government only 90 miles from its shore.

Now that the 26th of July Movement had finally proved the world wrong and toppled the corrupt government of Batista did he still need to hide his revolutionary intentions from the United States? Yes he did, although for not much longer. He still needed some to hold the US off until he could actually get things moving again in Cuba.
As news of the rebel victory reached the United States, there were several big questions What sort of man was Castro? Would the new government be friendly to US interests? Would it be communist? Over the next few months Fidel would try and answer these questions for America.

Our initial impressions, supplied by the press, was that Fidel was a good man who was friendly to the US as well as anti-Communist. Newsweek described him as a living legend, joining the "Pantheon of Cuban heroes." Then the article reported how Fidel had no intention of becoming a dictator, had no intentions of nationalizing property, and that his programs would be modeled after Roosevelt’s new deal programs. His ultimate goal was to raise living standards and build a larger middle class. Towards this goal foreign investment in Cuba would be welcomed. (Newsweek 1-19-59)
Although some concern is expressed over communists filling the power vacuum that existed in Cuba, it is assumed that Castro would block them. Also, it is noted that Fidel’s anger towards the United States seems to have subsided and that Washington recognized his government in only 48 hours. (Newsweek 1-19-59)

The January 2nd New York Times describes Castro as having "strong ideas about liberty, democracy, and social justice." Fidel Assures the interviewer that his government has "no animosity towards the United States and the American people." (NYT 1-2-59)

Following the initial good press immediately following his victory, the news of the Cuba’s "revolutionary justice" in the form of the execution of Batista supporters began to bother the Press and the American public. Cuba was under much pressure to halt these mass executions, pressure which Fidel viewed as foreign interference in Cuban affairs. The January 26 issue of Newsweek reports that Fidel snapped at reporters, declaring that if the US didn’t like what was happening in Cuba, then they should send in the Marines, and the "20,000 gringos would die." Fidel never apologized for that statement, he only said he would be more careful around reporters. (Newsweek 1-26-59 p. 57)

At this time the focus of the rhetoric changes slightly, as the press turns its attentions from anti-Americanism to communism. The reason for this was that communism, in the American mind, was against all that America stood for and so was anti-American in its very essence. To be communist was to be anti-American. The two terms were almost synonymous.

The press then turned its attention towards some of the men in Castro’s inner circle, including Ernesto "Che" Guevara, the now famous international revolutionary who was one of Castro’s closest aides. His communist sympathies had long been rumored. Herbert L. Mathews stepped up to his defense in a New York Times report on January 4th. He is described as a family man with a low voice and a gentle smile. Mathews reports that Guevara has one grievance: that he is called a communist. He says "I have never been a communist . . . Dictators always call their enemies communists, and it gave me great pain to be called an international communist all the time." (NYT 1-4-59)

Newsweek printed an article on April 13 detailing the infiltration of "reds" in the government. It mentions that Raul Castro and Che Guevara are likely not "red," yet seem to be putting men in government positions who are. It also mentions that while Castro is no communist either, but he has romantic notions about classless society that have slightly communist rings to them. (Newsweek 4-13-59)

In April Fidel made an "unofficial" trip to the United States, invited by the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) to speak at their banquet on April 17th. Castro declared that this trip through America and Canada would be a "truth operation" to educate the American people about "revolutionary justice" and to refute the propaganda against the Revolutionary Government of Cuba- namely the accusations of communism. He would also seek financial aid from American companies. (NYT 4-16-59)

It seems that this trip brought about one of the last great surges of warmth and sympathy for Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolutionary Government. In that sense it could be said that it was a success. On April 18 edition had a front page report on Fidel’s speech to the ASNE with the following headlines: "Castro Declares Regime is Free of Red Influence," "Cuban Leader Says . . . His Aims Are Humanistic," "Premier Stresses Efforts to Develop Industry." (NYT 4-18-59)

The Washington Post reported that Castro "scored a victory in the public relations field." It is reported that "he didn’t talk like a communist, or a dictator . . .He spoke of free press and for all other freedoms associated with true democracy." It was also noted that he welcomed and guaranteed the Safety of American investment.

Fidel was treated very well by the press and public in the United States. He was continually greeted by supportive crowds where ever he appeared. The May 4 issue of Life Magazine had a large picture of Fidel in his pajamas, looking almost like a big teddy bear of a man. (Life 5-4-59) Time Magazine, from that same week, had a picture of Fidel bravely petting the tigers at the Bronx Zoo in New York, and described how popular he was, especially with women. (Time 5-4-59) Congressman James Fulton of Pennsylvania declared that Fidel had found a "nuevo amigo" in America. (NYT 4-15-59)

Despite this great embrace of Castro as man, many were still left with questions about Castro the prime minister of Cuba. Another American politician, Sen. George Smathers of Florida, noted that Fidel had yet to learn that "you can’t play ball with the communists, for he has them peppered throughout his government." (NYT 4-15-59)

Fidel denied that he was a communist time and time again. He denied that his brother Raul was a communist. He also explained that the communists in his government don’t really exert much influence. Fidel also denied that the Soviet Union had offered any economic aid. In addition, he clarified earlier remarks which were interpreted to mean that Cuba would have a neutral stance in a potential conflict between the West and the Soviet Block, hinting that Cuba would naturally support the West. (NYT 4-24-59)

Nonetheless many still felt that his policies followed a communist pattern. Many Americans were upset about his frequent attacks upon what he called the "vested interests" and American companies operating in Cuba. Also of concern was the daily applause he received from communist newspapers and radio stations. (NYT 4-24-59)
So, was Castro’s "truth operation" a public relations success? Was the American popular press on his side once again? That is a tough answer to give. Popular opinion seemed to have been swayed in favor of Fidel Castro and the Cuban government for the meantime. Yet many of the "experts" were not quite satisfied in their questions about the Cuban Government’s stance on such issues as communism, the economy, and Cuba- US relations. The reaction of the press following Fidel’s visit reflected this difference in opinion, and seemed to mark the beginning of the end of their honeymoon with the former Robin Hood of the Sierra Maestra as this was the last great outpouring of warmth that Fidel and Cuba would receive from America.

The New York Times remained decidedly pro- Castro. An ???? Editorial stated that while the eleven day trip was of much value, it was not really definitive. Much was made of the issues that were clarified in the eyes of the New York Times: That Cuba would support the west against Soviet aggression, that the social revolution has room for free enterprise, that American investment is not just safe but welcome, and most importantly, that Castro wanted a mutual friendship between Cuba and the United States. The Times also implies that Castro’s denial of any communist ties or significant communist influence in Cuba are listed as definitive. Castro’s visit is believed to be the beginning of a new era of friendship and understanding between Cuba and the US. (NYT ?-?-59)

Time magazine had a different analysis of Castro’s eleven-day tour. After a description of the parades and cheering crowds, the Following question is asked: "Have Castro’s travels taught him the peril of Red support?" The answer seems to be no, although Castro seemed to want to make the "communist infiltration" appear less blatant. Time claimed that while Castro was democracy in the US, "under wraps, the Red drive for power went on." As examples it is noted that the communist friendly Che Guevara arrested an anti-communist military officer for conspiracy, that communists are rewriting Cuban history books to paint the US as evil greedy imperialists, freedom of the press was attacked (anti-communist freedom at least), and that the executions are continuing with a death toll of 549 as of May 11th. (Time 5-11-59)

In Newsweek a report notes that "all the applause so far had brought no loans, no grants, no promises from investors," despite the fact that Fidel had made it a point that he didn’t come to America for money. He even instructed his subordinates to ask for no immediate aid. Newsweek also pointed out that the US press was "pointing up the rise of communist power within Fidel’s regime." (Newsweek 5-18-59)

Throughout the remainder of 1959, the positive press coverage of Fidel and his Revolutionary government began to slowly disappear. The focal point moved away from the promise of a new democratic Cuba, to the increasingly blatant communist tendencies of the Castro government, the land reform program, and the growing anti-American sentiment of Fidel and the Cuban people.

On May 17. Castro signed the Agrarian Reform Act which Fidel called "the key to the revolution." (Newsweek 6-1-59 p. 53) Newsweek reported that "All recognized the need for reform, but few had expected anything as extreme as this." (Newsweek 6-1-59 p. 53) Under this act which expropriates farmlands over 1,000 acres would be nationalized and redistributed to peasants who would have to plant what the government told them to, meet production quotas, and would not be allowed to sell the land. Also there were strict limitation on the operation of sugar plantations and mills as foreign owners had to give their plantations in exchange for government bonds.

Time Magazine reported that as the full meaning of the classless society began sinking in it was met by mass protests. Critics denounced the act as "slavery," "confiscation," and a "precursor to violence and convulsions." (Time 6-13-59 p. 42) On July 6 Time Magazine publishes an article stating that Castro was grabbing land "with a vengeance." (Time 7-16-59 p. 28) Eventually this Agrarian Reform Act would result in the nationalization of foreign interests in Cuba.
Communist infiltration in the Castro Government became plainly visible on July 11th when Maj. Pedro Luis Diaz Lanz, the former head of the Cuban Air Force, defected to the US and testified to a Senate Subcommittee that communists were taking over Cuba. Eventually a steady stream of Cuban military men and government official either defected to the US or were imprisoned in Cuba. All of these men left the government complaining about the communist infiltration. Aside from these accusations Fidel’s government and military appointments through 1959 demonstrated his communist sympathies. Raul Castro, Che Guevara, Juan Alameda and other communists eventually replaced moderates in the government and military. A New York Times report by R. Hart Phillips had the headline "Castro Actions Suit Communist Aims," and notes these appointments (especially that of the openly communist and anti-American Che Guevara as head of the National Bank) as part of the communist victory in Cuba. It is also stated that Castro is a hero of the "left." (NYT 11-29-59) Time Magazine claims that the Fidel-Raul-Che triumvirate give anti-communists no cause for comfort. (Time 12-7-59 p. 34) Che, in fact, is the man who was responsible for the nationalization of foreign assets as part of a war against American Imperialism.

Anti- Americanism also began to make itself painfully apparent through the remainder of 1959 beginning in October when Castro began to angrily protest the flights over Cuba by clandestine aircraft based in Florida. These planes dropped leaflets, and according to many Cubans, bombs. Another catalyst of anti-Americanism in Cuba was Che Guevara who traveled the world preaching against the United States, and as Head of the National Bank began an economic war against American Imperialism.

By the end of the year the New York Times published a report by Tad Szulc on December 20th that essentially summed up the state of Us- Cuba relations. The report, with the headline "Castro Exploiting Discord With US," states that since the Revolutionary Government seized power in January 1959, it has "convinced itself that the United States Government, business community, and press are its enemies." As an explanation for this attitude, it is suggested that the deep rooted anti-Americanism of the Cuban leadership is the root and their realization that these this sentiment can be politically advantageous.

Thus, the first year of the revolution, which had begun with a timid expression of hope, ended in a spree of confiscation, angry diplomatic notes, and threats. At this point is not really necessary to explore the attitude of the press towards Cuba and Fidel, as the campaign against America and the movement towards communism became so intense that Diplomatic ties with Cuba were broken off in January 1961. By 1962 Cuba was a Marxist nation at our very doorstep. It is very easy to imagine what the press was saying at that point.

In conclusion, let us once again answer the question posed at the beginning of this paper: Didn’t anyone realize exactly how revolutionary this revolution would actually be? Although the answer is once again no, after exploring the press coverage of Fidel Castro’s rise to power it is painfully obvious that the answer should be yes. Somehow Fidel managed to seduce the US press with the very same charisma with which he seduced everyone around him. Fidel fooled the United States into believing he was on the side of democracy and free enterprise, which kept the US from intervening in support of Batista and giving the Revolutionary Government time to entrench itself in the fabric of Cuban society long enough to weave a new fabric- maybe something in red. Perhaps this will teach people to examine what is reported in the news a little bit closer.