Castro was cuban and actually popular with the lower classes. This is fundamentally different from another country invading

She gave a good talk at the Free Library of Philadelphia on this back when it came out. https://libwww.freelibrary.org/podcast/episode/1414

She was also there last week or so to talk about her new book on Sam Adams.

They had no air support

>for some shocking reason it never holds up.

Except when it does.

If you're into this sort of thing I'd definitely recommend Judy Batalion's Light of Days. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/06/books/review/light-of-days-judy-batalion.html

[removed]

Ehhh its worked quite a few times

Napoleon is the most famous but coups and regime change rarely require the "full consent of the populace"

Can someone please recommend a book (or documentary) that talks about the Turkic khaganates that plagued Northern China from 200-1000 CE. My understanding is that the Great Wall of China was built over time to defend against constant raids from the North and I'm fascinated by this interaction.

They (landing force) had been promised both logistical and air support, which they never got. They were also promised reinforcements from the US, which they obviously never got.

In all likelihood, it was probably never planned to follow thru on any of it; they were just throwing another classic CIA "Junk Ball" at their latest political rivals.

I am a beginner and I want to start to learn the history of the 20th century.

Recommend some book for it, please.

Thanks!

Would it have been different if there was air support? Seeing how air support goes, probably not but I have no clue really.

Castro had very good intelligence knew about the attack weeks in advance

It always true. Vietnamese soldiers were seen as liberators by the Khmer peoples when the Khmer Rouge was deposed by them and a puppet state was put in their place. But you’ll tend to side with anyone who wants to fight the guys genociding your family

Ernesto "che" Guevara's exploits were and still are more myth than anything else in the cuban revolution era.

He and the other leading barbudos (bearded men) glorified their roles to great extent to be symbols of revolutionary glory. Che was well known as a cruel executioner at the "triumph of the revolution".

Fidel Castro was a very astute leader, but he did not put himself in direct danger according to the testimonies of other desilusioned rebels.

Now there were really brave fighters in the war, one of them being the beloved Camilo Cienfuegos who presumably got taken out post revolution with other leaders (because they did not want to Cuba to be communist) in the early 60's.

In any case, Playa Girón/Bahia de cochinos was a CIA clusterfuck that JFK refused to back up over the threats of nuclear war. It was an easy win for Castro, and there are stories that he was panicked until it became clear the invasion was small time. Then he showed up after the conflict ended and that's where they shot that picture of him jumping off a tank for a good morsel of propaganda.

I’ve recently been super into books about the female spies of ww2, and I have several recommendations!

Odette by Jerrard Tickell

• the biography of a French mother who served as a courier in Nazi-occupied France and survived interrogation and imprisonment in Ravensbrück concentration camp.

D-Day Girls by Sarah Rose

• follows several women as they organize networks of spies and agents behind enemy lines in France, and describes their contribution to the success of D-Day.

A Woman of No Importance by Sonia Purnell

-a biography of Virginia Hall, American spy with a wooden leg who became the most feared allied agent in France.

Some more women’s history recs:

-The Radium Girls by Kate Moore

-The Woman they could not Silence, also by Kate Moore

-A Game of Birds and Wolves by Simon Parkin

-A House in the Mountains by Caroline Moorehead

Any good books on Thanksgiving? This is the only one I could even find https://www.amazon.com/Thanksgiving-American-Holiday-History/dp/0871969742

If not a book then some reading/watching material?

It took me a minute to realize that you are talking about 'education science', not education.

If I understand correctly, your point is that there is a hypothesis that kids respond to a particular teaching style because they have preferred learning styles.

Then this hypothesis was tested and shown to be false. Kids don't perform significantly better in response to teaching styles tailored to their supposed learning style.

But, because people are unaware of the history and want to push the narrative to suit their assumptions and intuition, they insist that learning styles must be incorporated into teaching, ignoring the science that was done.

This is very interesting and is to me is more like willful ignorance of a body of research than history of science per se. It reminds of how they tried to get rid of Phonics in Oakland schools because it was supposedly racist and then realized that the new political way of teaching reading resulted in delayed reading comprehension compared to Phonics. Phonics worked well for me and the kids I went to school with.

But all good science depends on high quality review articles in scientific journals to keep the field up to date. This is part of science itself. When people start publishing reviews that are incomplete and inaccurate, the science inevitably suffers.

So in that sense, each field has a history that must be maintained for progress to occur. I see this as separate from history of science written for general consumption. But it's a great point.

It's also true that science is subjective at first, and people try things based on hunches and intuition. But good science is always tested and assessed dispassionately before it enters the textbooks. So it is set apart from other things that way.

Science without history degrades into eugenics so often and so quickly that it should almost be a legal requirement that every science-focused group have at least one humanities expert on their leadership team.

[deleted]

[removed]

[deleted]

The exiles were outnumbered 150:1, Castro brought hundreds of tanks and self-propelled guns to bear, the invaders had 5 tanks. The whole thing hinged on the false assumption of a massive popular uprising, I don't think Castro or Che masterminded this all-out defensive stand, the invasion just stalled and petered out.

Kennedy also got the US into Vietnam. I'll never understand why he's so venerated.

> for some shocking reason it never holds up.

It doesn't never hold up, it happened quite often during WW2.

But it requires

1. That the people you're liberating feel in need of liberation.
2. That they believe that your intention is to actually liberate them.

The US view of Cuba is heavily distorted and doesn't match the experience on the ground and the US was 100% intent on returning Cuba to US investors not to the people of Cuba.

It should be assigned to CIA incompetence