t were not anti-American. They did not want to break ties with the U.S. but wanted to reduce the dependency on it. The second group, the fidelistas , were enemies of Batista, and since Batista was associated with the U.S, therefore enemys of the U.S. as well (8). Obviously, as the name indicates, these were followers of the most predominant revolutionary of the time, Fidel Castro. With his brother Raul and Che Guevera, Castro was able to invade Havana and over throw the Batistas government. Paterson claims that Castros success is due to the fact that the U.S. did not initially see Castro as a threat, especially since he was not initially allied with communists; In 1958, Castro had moderated his public statements about nationalization of foreign-owned property and had promised democratic elections (252). However, as Cuba became more anti- American, severing all ties to the U.S., Castro became more allied with communism and the Soviet Union. The U.S. responded with assassination attempts and military intervention, which brought Castro and the Soviet Union even closer. Paterson claims that had there been no exile expedition at the Bay of Pigs, no destructive covert activities, no assassination plots, no military maneuvers and plans, no economic and diplomatic steps to harass, isolate, and destroy the Castro government in Havana, there would not have been a Cuban missile crisis (260). This is not a justification or appraisal of Castros government, but it is instead an analization of U.S. decisions made in dealing with Castros government. Throughout the book, Patterson does not claim that either of Cubas last two governments were better or worse than each other, nor does he present a pro-communist or pro-capitalist view on the revolution. Instead, he presents the events that occurred and an interpretation of U.S. involvement with Cuba. He points out that the U.S., although democratic was expressing and imperialism or hegemony ...
