Batista remains to this day the single most important personality in Cuban history, more so than Castro himself. Jaime Figueras

Why is Fulgencio Batista a "semi-constitutional" leader? Perhaps it could be better explained that he was constitutional at one point and unconstitutional at another. I think the best would be to eliminate this word, "semi-constitutional," entirely. --Daniel C. Boyer

Does anyone know of a specific source linking FDR to the Sergeant's revolt? - Hephaestos 05:25 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Hammer away at your forge lame one and try Welles, Benjamin. 1997.Sumner Welles; FDR's global strategist. St. Martin's Press, NY starting on page 156. There is much more but this a start. There is also talk of a US secret operative said to be Cuban-American (more of that later) (El Jigüe, 9/24/2005).

I think that this page needs more information on Batista's life and activities after his exile. Rvinall 21:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Batista essentially retired to the Dominican Republic, where much of his money was stolen by Trujillo, and he ended up in the Portugal. He wrote a few books.....trying to justify his life. (El Jigüe, 9/24/2005)

I'm trying to decide if Batista was any better than the regime that replaced him. Che Guevara is described as torturing and killing members of Batista's government, but I want to know if Batista did the same kinds of things. I have a poor opinion of Che Guevara, and I want to decide if he was at all justified in overthrowing Batista. Any Comments?

I think it's pretty much a toss-up. Batista was known for having his army mutilate opponents and display their dead bodies on television. So Guevara may be justified for wanting to execute his goons. On the other hand, Guevara seems to fit the definition of a crazed Marxist revolutionary willing to imprison/torture/execute anyone who dissents, not just criminals. 64.7.89.54 19:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not sure such a big deal should be made of U.S. diplomatic recognition, as it also recognized the governments of Ramon Grau and Carlos Prio Socarras despite their opposition to Batista. J. Parker Stone 20:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MAJOR ERROR- Batista was never politically affiliated with the Communist Party of Cuba. This is a gross misinterpretation of the practice, at the time in Cuba, of forming a coalition of many parties for the purpose of political election/support- akin to what presently occurs in the U.S. More specifically, prior to the formation of this coalition, the Communist Party of Cuba was outlawed, and Batista legalized the party so that it might commence political activity alongside many other political parties in a legal manner. In fact, the political party to which Batista always belonged was the "PAU- Partido de Accion Unitaria".

Just read the question about who was worse, Guevara or Batista. If you haven't already, please take a look at Jon Lee Anderson's biography of Che Guevara. I agree with the answer that both regimes were pretty bloody. There were numerous "trials" of Batista supporters where ordinary Cubans would accuse their neighbors of being traitors to the revolution. But Batista was swift to end any opposition to his regime violently and without trial as well. 63.26.71.242 03:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Anna[reply]

Yeah, Castro's government is really confusing - it begs the question of anyone who hears about it, "Which government is better?" and basically causes a lot of almost-silent dissent among the people who think about it. The fact is, the answer is not simple (or actually, it can be - "Neither") and as such, it is not easy to say just how much bias should be given one way or another. I read this article and I thought it was biased against Castro, making Batista sound better and Castro sound worse... but then at the same time, it's sorta biased against Batista. It's complex. It's really complex. So yeah... what's most important is that people think about as many sides of the story as they can... do they now? I don't know. - 61.9.204.168

Castro and Che were worse than Batista. Cuba was able to function economically under Batista. As stated in the article, Havana had more tv's, telephones and Cadilacs per household than any city in the US. The regular citizen was able to go to school, choose their own carriers and have hope for a future. Under Castro, no one has any hope, Cuba's average citizen has no civil rights and is destined to poverty. Under Castro, Cubans are throwing themselves into the ocean on rafts made of inner tubes and anything that floats. Castro has taken hope away from the Cuban people, without hope, there is nothing.

"Castro has taken hope away from the Cuban people, without hope, there is nothing." It's convienant to ignore economical sanctions on Castro's regime. It's because of conflicting opinions that it is difficult to determine which regime would've been better. It comes done to Cuban propaganda vs. propanganda from Florida's cubans who are anti-Castro. In my opinion Batista was a brutal dictator and this article speaks well of him despite that.

"Castro and Che were worse than Batista. Cuba was able to function economically under Batista. As stated in the article, Havana had more tv's, telephones and Cadilacs per household than any city in the US. The regular citizen was able to go to school, choose their own carriers and have hope for a future. Under Castro, no one has any hope, Cuba's average citizen has no civil rights and is destined to poverty. Under Castro, Cubans are throwing themselves into the ocean on rafts made of inner tubes and anything that floats. Castro has taken hope away from the Cuban people, without hope, there is nothing."

This remark is so stupid I'm surprised I even find myself responding to it. Under Batista, poverty under the population was more widespread by far than under Castro, Havana was nearly completely in the posession of the American mafia, and the wealth was owned by an even smaller portion of the population than is the case nowadays. 82.176.194.151 14:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article should mention what he did after his ouster. Did he plot his return to power? Travel the world? Gamble at Monte Carlo? Work on his knitting?......A2Kafir 04:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Batista tired of being robbed by Trujillo went to Spain and Portugal, where he wrote his own apologia and then died. Will try to find time to reference these. El Jigüe 12-28-05

In October, 1938, Batista, who formed a coalition with the Cuban Communist Party [4] was elected President of Cuba. During his tenure, he drafted the 1940 constitution (later approved by President Grau), widely regarded as a progressive document with regards to labor, unemployment, and social security, and implemented several liberal economic reforms.

I believe it was 1940.

It would be interesting to know to which political camp Batista belonged. Was he a fascist or a socialist, was he left wing or right wing or something completely different? 62.46.177.113

Batista, born poor of Taino and Black stock, is best described as a left of center strongman. See Argote-Freyre, Frank, 2006 Fulgencio Batista: Volume 1, From Revolutionary to Strongman. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey ISBN 0813537010 El Jigue 7-28-06

Definitely not left-of-center. His policy was right-winged authoritarianism. Basing yourself on one academic text, which incidentally is of questionable level, is unprofessional and unintelligent. 82.176.194.151 14:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batista was right-leaning. Ambassador Earl E.T. Smith, the last U.S. ambassador to Cuba, described him as a "Rightist dictator." He was also staunchly anticommunist. Smith mentions that, among other things, Batista outlawed the Cuban Communist Party, broke off relations with every single communist country, and established a Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities.

If Batista was staunchly anticommunist - why did he form an alliance with the communist party in his first government? --Zleitzen 20:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batista died in Guadalmina a place in the city of Marbella in Spain. In the article it says 'Guadalamina' instead of 'Guadalmina' which is the correct way to write it. I'm 100% sure because I live in Guadalmina in the city of Marbella and it is well known that the correct way of writing it is 'Guadalmina' and not 'Guadalamina'.