The “open letter” again glorifies the blameworthy acts of the Khrushchov group during U.S. imperialism’s military blockade and acts of piracy against Cuba last autumn. However, the more the revisionists hold forth on this subject, the more they give themselves away.
They still do not explain the reasons why they installed missiles in Cuba and subsequently withdrew them. For it is no explanation to say, in the words of the “open letter”:
“This resolute step on the part of the Soviet Union and Cuba was a shock to the American imperialists. . . . Since the point at issue was not simply a conflict between the United States and Cuba, but a clash between two major nuclear powers, the crisis in the Caribbean area would have turned from a local clash into a world clash. A real danger of world thermonuclear war arose.”
That is certainly a case of adventurism.
Why were the missiles withdrawn from Cuba? Here again, we quote the “open letter”:
“Every sober-minded person fully understands that in case of aggression by American imperialists, we shall come to the assistance of the Cuban people from Soviet territory. . . .”
But did not such a possibility exist earlier?
Was Khrushchov therefore not a “sober-minded person”?
Only one explanation is valid: Khrushchov and Kennedy reached agreement to strike a blow at the Cuban revolution, to humiliate it and dim its radiance.
Among the fine phrases concerning Cuba in the “open letter” let us point out this one:
“. . . Revolutionary Cuba is living in peace and building socialism. . . .”
“Living in peace”?
Why give this “soothing” appraisal which in no way corresponds to reality since one knows that the economic and transport blockade continues and that Cuba remains the target of bombing raids and intrusions by counterrevolutionaries backed by U.S. imperialism or its satellites.
“Revolutionary Cuba is not beaten.”
To be sure! But to attribute this victory of the peoples to the Kennedy-Khrushchov agreement is odious deceit. It is like pretending to have saved someone’s life, after having given him a poisoned drink which he did not want to take.
The Kennedy-Khrushchov agreement was not a compromise: Kennedy dictated his conditions.
“I feel respect and confidence about the statement you made in your message of October 27, 1962, to the effect that there will be no attack against Cuba. . . .”
Did Khrushchov write that to Kennedy on October 28 or not? Why does the “open letter” say today:
“The Chinese comrades argue that the imperialists cannot be believed in anything, that they are bound to deceive you. But this is not a case of faith but of sober calculation.”
Did not Khrushchov also write (October 28, 1962): “As I have already pointed out to you in my letter of October 27, we are ready to reach agreement with you for U.N. representatives to go to Cuba in order to be able to verify the dismantling of weapons which you call ’offensive.’” This was sacrificing Cuba’s sovereignty, and creating the possibility of Cuba’s becoming a new Congo.
An analysis of the facts demonstrates that the Kennedy-Khrushchov agreement sacrificing Cuba’s sovereignty was rejected by the Cuban people and that, thanks to this firmness and action by the peoples of the world, U.S. imperialism drew back.
The joint attempt of Khrushchov and Kennedy was fortunately defeated. But the revisionists will for ever be branded with infamy for this shameful deed.