JFK Files: How Cuba's War Of Words Flooded The Americas
The CIA feared that Cuba's true revolutionary export wasn't fighters—it was a playbook for turning a country's own resources against itself.
Newly declassified intelligence files from the 1960s, released by President Donald Trump in March 2025 as part of the broader 'JFK Files' disclosure, detail extensive efforts by Fidel Castro's Cuba to spread communism across Latin America—not through mass invasions or military might, but by subverting nations from within.
One such document from then-CIA Director John A. McCone to then-Senator John Stennis (D-MS) is marked 'Secret' and appears to be from the spring of 1963. The document outlines the CIA's assessment of Cuba's subversive strategy as a potent mix of ideological indoctrination, sabotage training, and psychological warfare.
According to the report, Cuba offered revolutionaries from across Latin America a chillingly precise deal: 'Come to Cuba; we will pay your way, we will train you…in guerrilla warfare, in sabotage and in terrorism.' Though the Cubans generally avoided supplying weapons or personnel, they promised political support, training materials, demolition guides, secret communication techniques, and, in some cases, funding.
The strategy focused on training guerrillas to be self-sufficient and to weaponize their surroundings.
Pocket-sized manuals, such as '150 Questions on Guerrilla Warfare' by Spanish Civil War veteran Alberto Bayo, circulated widely. They instructed revolutionaries on how to craft explosives from household items and steal arms from government forces. CIA agents found versions of these texts adapted for countries like Peru, Colombia, and Brazil.
In the early 1960s, the CIA leadership believed between 1,000 and 1,500 individuals from almost every Latin American country (except Uruguay) reportedly traveled to Cuba for ideological or guerrilla training.
The Cuban government tried to obscure the movement, issuing visas on separate slips to avoid passport stamps and even providing falsified passports. American intelligence used agents within communist parties and foreign customs authorities to track and estimate the scale of this traffic, the director told the senator.
The report highlights Cuba's two-pronged media campaign into the United States as an early extension of this subversive agenda.
'Radio Free Dixie,' hosted by North Carolina-born Robert F. Williams, was broadcast in English to Black Americans in the South, while 'The Friendly Voice of Cuba' reached a wider Southern audience. These programs, the CIA noted, could be heard clearly in Florida and across much of the Deep South and represented a subtle yet strategic psychological campaign aimed at undermining American unity.
Castro's ambition, the report asserts, was to make Cuba the blueprint for the Latin American revolution. He famously stated in 1960 that he aimed to 'convert the Cordillera of the Andes into the Sierra Maestra of the American continent.'
The Sierra Maestra was the mountain refuge from which Castro launched his successful revolution against Batista. 'Socialism,' he argued, could not afford to wait for democratic change—it had to be won by force.
And yet, Cuban communism was not as militant as it might seem.
The CIA noted that Castro often trod a careful line between the Soviet Union and Communist China. 'Castro's heart is in Peiping but his stomach is in Moscow,' one section reads, referencing the ideological tug-of-war between Chinese revolutionary zeal and Soviet pragmatism.
While China promoted all-out militancy, the Soviets favored subversion through legal means. Castro attempted to serve both masters—adopting Chinese revolutionary theory but relying on Soviet material aid.
Despite this ideological balancing act, the CIA classified the Cubans and Venezuelans as the only Communist parties in Latin America 'totally committed to terror and revolution.' Other parties, while ideologically aligned, preferred subversion, propaganda, and infiltration to outright violence—at least initially.
Several revolutions swept through South America during the decades following Cuba's turn to communism, some succeeding and others collapsing. In Nicaragua, the Sandinistas ultimately overthrew the Somoza regime in 1979 with tactics reminiscent of the Cuban model. In Chile, Salvador Allende's Marxist government came to power democratically in 1970 but was overthrown in a military coup three years later. Guerrilla movements plagued Colombia, Peru, Argentina, and Bolivia, with groups like the FARC and the Shining Path drawing from the ideological and tactical lineage traced back to Cuba's training camps and printed materials.
Even where communist revolutions never took root—such as in Brazil, Ecuador, or Paraguay—leftist guerrilla groups launched campaigns of sabotage and terror, often mimicking Cuban tactics. Many of these movements were ultimately suppressed, but not before spreading fear and destabilization.
Perhaps the most telling metric of Cuba's nonviolent infiltration was its printed word.
'It may be worth noting,' the CIA director wrote, 'that the postal and customs authorities in Panama are destroying on average 12 tons a month of Cuban propaganda.' Another 10 tons were reportedly confiscated monthly in Costa Rica. These materials, in the form of books, pamphlets, and ideological tracts, were seen as weapons of war.
Despite accepting Soviet missiles and troops during the Cuban Missile Crisis—20,000 Soviet personnel were reportedly stationed in Cuba, according to one document—the island's long-term strategy was quieter and more insidious. The CIA concluded that Cuba's effort to spread communism through nonviolent means was far more effective than the Cuban effort to spread communism through violent means.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNN
8 minutes ago
- CNN
Woman with ALS hopes Uruguay is closer to legalizing euthanasia
CNN's Dario Klein speaks with a woman living with ALS who says she doesn't want to suffer anymore and supports legalizing euthanasia in Uruguay.


New York Times
8 minutes ago
- New York Times
New Orleans Mayor Joins Long Line of Louisiana Politicians Accused of Corruption
Hundred-dollar bills stashed in a freezer. Riverboat casino licenses sold to the highest bidder. Truckloads of granite traded in a quid pro quo. Louisiana has a long and colorful history of political corruption allegations, which for decades have ensnared lawmakers at many levels of government. The most recent was Mayor LaToya Cantrell of New Orleans, who was indicted on Friday after a lengthy federal investigation. According to the charges laid out in the indictment, Ms. Cantrell abused public funds to facilitate a romantic relationship with her bodyguard, a city police officer, and then sought to cover up the personal time they spent together in New Orleans and on out-of-state trips while he claimed to be on duty. Ms. Cantrell's lawyer said on Friday that he needed to review the indictment before commenting; he declined to comment again on Saturday. Here's a look back at some of the most significant corruption scandals in Louisiana history: Richard Leche After the assassination of Huey Long, a popular Louisiana governor turned United States senator, in 1935, Richard Leche emerged as his successor. But Mr. Leche's single term as governor came to an early end when he resigned in 1939 amid corruption allegations. His resignation failed to stave off charges, and in 1940, he was convicted of mail fraud in a plot that prosecutors said involved a dealer selling trucks to the state's Highway Department at excessively high prices, and then giving Mr. Leche a kickback. He served five years in prison before President Harry S. Truman pardoned him in 1953. Huey and Earl Long Earl Long, the lieutenant governor under Leche in 1939, was swept into the state's highest office when his predecessor resigned. Mr. Leche's scandals loomed over Mr. Long's first term, and in 1940, Long was himself charged with embezzlement. The charges didn't stick, however, and Mr. Long would go on to win the governorship in two elections, holding office from 1948 to 1952 and from 1956 to 1960, in a career defined by personal excess and eccentric behavior. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.


Forbes
8 minutes ago
- Forbes
Urban Deployments Raise Questions: What Is Our Military For?
As noted in a recent report by the Center for American Progress, in 2022 Donald Trump stated that 'the next President should use every power at his disposal to restore order — and, if necessary, that includes sending in the National Guard or the troops' to conduct law enforcement activities on U.S. soil. In 2023, said that if restored to office, that he he would send troops to U.S. cities to combat crime: 'The next time, I'm not waiting. … We don't have to wait any longer.' Ominously, the president has talked of using troops to combat 'the enemy within." That time has come. Earlier this year the Trump administration deployed 700 Marines to Los Angeles to deal with immigration protests. At the time, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said 'We don't take lightly to the president abusing his authority and unlawfully mobilizing California National Guard troops.' The new target of troops deploying to a U.S. city is in Washington, DC. On Saturday August 16th West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrissey annnounced a plan to deploy hundreds of National Guard member of his state's National Guard to Washington, DC, stating that 'West Virginia is proud to stand with President [Donald]The question is why? Violent crime in Washington, DC is projected to be down 26% this year from 2024. The demonstrations in Los Angeles were overwhelmingly peacaful until the show of force – police, National Guard and Marines – prompted clashes between protesters and military and law enforcement officials. Local law enforcement officers have gone so far as to fire munitions that have left both protesters and journalists injured. Many veterans have taken exception to the deployments, and some have filed an amicus brief in support of California Governor Gavin Newsom's opposition to the troop presence. One of them, Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, said 'This is the politicisation of the armed forces. It casts the military in a terrible light." President Trump's rationale for sending troops into U.S. cities is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which does indeed allow the president to deploy troops for domestic law enforcement in the event of an insurrection. But neither the immigration protests in Los Angeles nor the crime rate in DC qualify as an insurrection, by any stretch of the imagination. The deployments are deeply disturbing, and should be questioned by our elected leaders across the spectrum, along with veterans and average citizens concerned about federal overreach. Questions about the troop deployments need to be louder and more persistent. This is not a partisan issue. It is a basic issue about the role of the. military in a democracy. We can't afford to ignore it and go about business as usual.