Are there any books related to this conflict, in special Fidel's understanding of geography, that you would recommend?

I'd hardly call it just 'using the language of the western allies' considering it was always used extensively in terms of inward propaganda. One of Hitler's major promise was reversing Versailles, which included the territorial loss Versailles represented.

You are right that after they were at war with the Allies they didn't use that justification anymore, but that was probably in part because at that point they already occupied all of the territories they could even possibly claim as belonging to Germany. I still am not sure I'd say they had 'next to no' justification. They of course used the "Lebensraum" bit were they argued Germany needed more territory for the 'Arian' race. But they also used standard red scare tactics. The official justification for Barbarossa was that the Soviets were planning to attack the nazis (which, given a couple more years, very well might have happpened).

Didn't help the sanctions from piling on though. That chapter of history gets buried way too deep from public consciousness given who the supposed "democracies" were supporting.

Or communist sympathizers all clapping each other on the back.

Up until the end where the occupation turned extremely unpopular, and afaik plenty of Cambodians don't see that favorably today.

They still had a way better justification than the US got anywhere hilariously enough, but that didn't stop the sanctions. And Polpot were pretty much alive and well still at the end of the occupation, supported by Thailand.

That was my understanding as well. The upper tier of the CIA was well aware that this was a doomed invasion and were trying to force Kennedy's hand into committing to a larger conflict. Also fits as to why Kennedy sacked Dulles and a quarter of the CIA personnel in the wake of the failed invasion.

[removed]

So it's interesting. That wasn't actually Castro who said that. It was Che Guevara who said that to Richard Goodwin, Kennedy's aide.

I think one attempt at air support turned into a disaster for the invaders because a squadron of B25 bombers flying from Central America missed their American carrier based fighter cover because somebody failed to account for a time zone difference. The Cuban Air Force, flying armed T33 trainers, (2-seat F89's) wiped out the bombers and were home to toast the US fighters when they finally showed up.

He wrote 2 books about how he defeated Batista (the cuban dictator) armies . He fought majorly in the Mountains of Sierra Maestra . In the book he depicts the geography of the region.When he was in charge of the economy of Cuba he knew how to use the geography of Cuba for our own interests. He was by no means perfect but his knowledge helped building our economy. An example was the proyect "la voluntad hidraulica". Is a great network of dams in Cuba . Even after his dead we are finishing " el trasvase este oeste" I don't know if you knew that Cuba suffers from drought in the central region. So the " trasvase " is a colosal proyect to bring water from the east to the west. That Will allow us to develop farming in the central region .There are many other examples.

Can anyone recommend books on the tragic loss of life in world war1?

I’ve heard that George Bush senior was a planner or facilitator of the Bay of Pigs landing while working with the CIA. His 1953 Houston based petroleum company was called Zapata Offshore, like the code name Operation Zapata for the landings. Two of the support ships were named Barbara, like Mrs. Bush, and Houston.

https://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=BushBook&C=8.2

I think you are too humble to apologize for your English, it is quite good

What do you know about Castros understanding of geography?

There were a lot of people over there happy/open to it. That went away after about two weeks of lawlessness and looting tho

My obvious recommendation would be Islamic Gunpowder Empires: Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals by Douglas Streusand. But for an added in depth look, I recommend the following:

Afghanistan by Jonatahn A. Lee. The books provides a great overview of Afghanistan's rich history from the 15th century to the modern day.

America and Iran: A History, 1720 to the Present whose name is self-explanatory. I enjoyed this one as it overcomes the common, but wrong, perception many have that Washington's historic relationship of interaction with Tehran started only after the Islamic Revolution.

David Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace, and The Last Muslim Conquest: The Ottoman Empire and Its Wars in Europe by Gàbor Àgoston. The latter provides an in depth and rich look at the Ottoman Empire's socio-economic and military history from the Empire's rise to the Siege of Vienna and beyond. Why I really loved this book was the author's tying in of pertinent events within the Ottoman Empire to those on Europe, such as the rise of the Hapsburgs. Àgoston also does a great job examining key details within the Empire, such as frontier management, intelligence, diplomacy and military structure!

That’s my understanding. The US picked the exact spot where Fidel ran around as a kid, and Fidel personally directed the counterattack.

[removed]

He never lifted a finger on civil rights.

He has brother AG wiretap Martin Luther King. https://todayinclh.com/?event=ag-robert-kennedy-approves-wiretaps-on-martin-luther-king

Initially, only because they were using the language of the western allies to leverage them into not acting. All the ones you cited were before any of the allies joined the war. Beyond those initial gains it was their actual motivation of pure conquest, Barbarossa and onward they dropped all pretense.

Japan kept up their Asian co prosperity sphere messaging throughout.

I feel like liberating a people from a different foreign occupier is the sticking point with WWII. Even the Nazis had some of that good will in their invasions of Eastern Europe (although the people quickly realized the Nazis had no liberatory intentions).

> The most extravagant idea that can take root in the head of a politician is to believe that it is enough for one people to invade a foreign people to make it adopt its laws and constitution. No one likes armed missionaries; and the first advice given by nature and prudence is to repel them as enemies.

Robespierre, unsuccessfully lobbying against the French revolutionary wars.

[removed]

And then he won against a national army supplied by the United States

[deleted]