Talk:Sandinista National Liberation Front/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human Rights Abuses

Really, I'm commenting on the page that is linked to. . . it's really biased and the only references are to righty websites. I have no idea if the content is accurate. Maybe someone who knows more than me can go check that page for accuracy. I don't come to wikipedia for summaries of "heritage.org" and frontpagemag.com.

Regarding this text

This is a TERRIBLE article. It reads like neo-con propoganda screed - not a encyclopedia article. While I do not have the expertise to fix even the obvious mistakes this artcle needs a huge rewrite to remove factual errors, unsupported statements, obvious bias, and other errors. See http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front for an example of what an article should look like.


To echo the above, this is a TERRIBLE article. I have tried to improve it slightly, by modifying some of the most blatant Reaganite propaganda. Incidentally, it is BLATANT NPOV to have an article 'human rights abuses of the FSLN' and not have one on the 'human rights abuses of the Contras'. The comparison would be constructive. The FSLN were authoritarian Marxists who used murder and torture (occasionally) in a war situation. The Contras were psychotic animals who practiced rape murder torture and genocide because they enjoyed it, and as a matter of choice. Their human rights abuses also dwarfed those of the FSLN in terms of scale. 86.1.194.43 22:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is all a bit confusing. Since the two contributors at the top said that this was a TERRIBLE article it has been heavy amended and is now quite good I think. Also people make references to parts of the article that have since been deleted. I suppose confusions like this are inevitable with live text. It might help if people dated and signed their comments then at least we would know who said what when. Just a thoughtSmokeyTheFatCat 17:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, honestly i can't be bothered to sign in to the page, but i do promise that i'll respect the rights of others to differing opinions. I'm a different poster than 86.1.194.43 up there; i'm from Taiwan and i really must concur w/86.1 up there: the article is a one-sided obscenity. I started off this latest round of edits about four days ago. While i'm willing to agree that the Sandinistas were somewhat authoritarian, i also would dispute even that as rather too simplistic a summation. The Sandinistas were basically an agrarian-based revolution that had a minority of Marxists and a good deal more populists, nativists, bouregoisie and tribalists as a contrasting majority. Certainly, the fundamental tenets of the party were nothing even vaguely like Leninist, Stalinist, or Maoist Marxism -- to put it bluntly, the Marxists had a snowball's chance in hell of getting any support for such an agenda. The long and the short of it is that the Contras were an obscenely brutal proxy army organized, funded and trained by conservative elements in the U.S. to fight the nativist, populist philosophy the Sandinistas represented. The irony is that, by creating the Contras, those same conservatives guaranteed that the Marxist elements in the Sandinista leadership would have the most fertile opportunity for wresting control of the party from the majority.

The Sandinista government began to openly challenge economic interests of the United States in the region. Ortega also began to appeal for economic and military aid from the Soviet Union and Cuba, and began supporting leftist revolutionaries in war-torn El Salvador, prompting much fear in Washington.

I wonder if someone could explain to me how a dirt-poor country like Nicaragua could "openly challenge economic interests of the United States in the region"?

Well, given our experience with Cuba... Trey Stone 04:25, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'll try: The US-based United Fruit Company owned a lot of the Nicaraguan land. A nationalization could lead to similar efforts. -- Error 02:58, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Also: "prompting much fear in Washington". Fear of what? An attack on Texas??? -- Viajero 22:04, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

An extension of communism and Soviet influence in Central America. See El Salvador and Manuel Noriega for episodes when the US government felt threatened. -- Error 02:58, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
A less forthrightly POV answer -- fear of loss of influence and control. That's true whether the U.S. feared Soviet totalitarian communism gaining another foothold as part of its plan for global domination, or it feared loss of its hegemonic imperialist stranglehold over exploited indigenous peoples. Frankly, I think the truth is closer to the latter than the former -- certainly in the case of El Salvador and Panama, less so with Nicaragua and Cuba. There was certainly fear of a domino effect, with what was happening in Nicaragua -- however you view it -- spreading to other nations of Central and South America. (Of course this is playing out once again today in South America -- with no Soviet bogeyman to blame it on.) -- Jibal 02:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Aren't the Sandanistas back in power at the moment? Didn't they win an election recently? Saul Taylor 06:19, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

They've got strength in municipal contests, but they're still the minority party. Trey Stone 03:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What the hell is this article, a joke!???

Here's an example of content presented in another encyclopedic entry of this length on this subject.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577584_5/revolution_and_rule.html#p141

This from MSN Encarta, which just updated their online encyclopedia. I'd never been too impressed with their history articles in the past, but the quality I've been seeing in many new articles lately, and the attention to recent historiography, is extremely impressive.

For now, I can hardly stomach having anything to do with such a page. The writers don't know much about Central America, it seems. 172 05:53, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A Joke? Please explain. I have done quite a bit of research into the human rights abuses of the Sandinistan government and thought these relavent to the page. TDC
Well, I'll be damned. There were human rights abuses? What a startling revelation: you should get the Nobel Prize in history. Who would expect human rights abuses in a Central American guerilla war? If that was the case, I wonder if the civil war has had any effect on Congo's human rights situation. 172 19:41, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Umm, the human rights abuses began before the guerilla war. Sorry if these revelations are disturbing your view of the Sandinistans as the third wrold savors that you seem to believe them to be.
The truth hurts, but it shall set you free. TDC

Where are the other users with some grasp of the complexities of historical development in Central America or political struggles in peasant societies in general? I've already suffered enough from have to deal with this simplistic, ethnocentric mindset when working on articles related to political unrest in the developing world. So I'm not bothering with this article. Where's Viajero? Jtdirl? Tannin? Roadrunner? Other users who didn't graduate from the Fox News school of political sociology? 172 19:41, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Putting aside "complexities" for a second, I prefer to recall the fact that Marxist-Leninist economies have been failures everywhere they've been tried, and all "true believers" have eventually had to concede to liberalization of the system. The top-notch "housing," universal healthcare, and government no-strike "unions" don't really make up for systematic indoctrination, either. Trey Stone 11:29, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Fox News school of political sociology, that’s cute. Did you learn this while studying for a go nowhere career at UC Berkley? TDC
No, I don't teach at "UC Berkeley." I guess I'm even worse off, given that salaries there are higher than mine.
The Center for Latin American Studies at UC Berkeley is a fine program, though. Here is their faculty website. http://socrates.berkeley.edu:7001/Academics/faculty/index.html Send them e-mail. They're constantly booked and extremely busy, but I'm sure that they could use a good laugh. 172 22:28, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I am sure they could use a good laugh, most marxists chuckle at the deaths of their victims, but I wouldn't expect you to read much Amis. TDC
Perhaps I should've given you the John Birch Society website instead. In the meantime, let Wiki be embarrassed by having your inane bullshit posted. I'll do something more productive than engage in this dead-end argument. After all, discussions with paranoid, crackpot trivia-buffs never go anywere. 172 22:46, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
For one, I don’t care much for the JBS, secondly what productive activity could a sociologist actually engage in? I mean, seriously? But, I have to know why were my contributions biased? Do you need to see the sources for them?TDC
You know very well that the problem is your selective presentation of the data. This will be my last posting for now, unless other users are showing an interest in the article. 172 23:09, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
WTF, "selective presentation of the data"?!? Wouldn't the original article also be considered a "selective presentation of the data". If you consider credible and verified accounts of Sandanistan human rights abuses "selective" then I suggest you stop taking so many estrogen pills. TDC

BTW, if you are done with this debate, I suppose, according to Wiki's POV policy, then I can delete the disclaimer. TDC

Yes, I am done debating the substance of the article with you. But if you remove the protection notice, you'll be out of the debate too. You'd no longer be able to edit the article. 172 23:59, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Selective presentation of the data" means, I think, devoting nearly half the article to a list of the Sandinista's sins, while ignoring or skimming over some basic information that people might want to know, namely:

  • Who they were (besides Danny Ortega)
  • Who influenced their political and social ideas (one sentence doesn't cut it)
  • What they did (besides kill and torture people -- surely there's something else?)
  • Who supported them and why
  • Who opposed them (besides the Contras and the U.S. government) and why
  • etc., etc. (I could go on)

172 is right; this article, as it currently stands, is ludicrous. The article needs serious help (unfortunately, I don't know enough to fix it). --No-One Jones 23:24, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I think I have done my part and added valubale information on the Sandinistans, information that would have been overlooked if the usual suspects were the only contributors. TDC

I've been present at several meetings of the CDR "Comité de Défense de la Révolution" during the revolution in Burkina Faso. They were organised following the Cuban model. They role was much more complex than many imagine, they were at that time a space of real debate. I don't know how were the CDS in Nicaragua but I doubt reducing them to a "network of local spy" is compliant with NPOV. Ericd 00:05, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Everything's jes so "complex," ain't it. Trey Stone 04:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OK if "network of local spy" is enough to summarize the CDS what is NPOV compliant for the contaras "death sqaudrons" or "freedom fighters" ?
Ericd 22:56, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough, but lets not kid ourselves as to some of the more intimidating and authoritarian aspects of the CDR's. If we are goinf to do this, then let us do this right. Also, how do I date stamp my posts?TDC
Use four tildes instead of three. Aurochs 13:05, May 16, 2005 (UTC)


For reports about Human Rights in Latin Ãmerica see : http://www.cidh.oas.org/pais.eng.htm Ericd 10:55, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Do the Atlantic Indians speak standard English or a local Creole? --Error 01:44, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What is "standard English"? Is that the kind the British speak? I knew a black guy from the Atlantic Coast named Anthony Bonnay McKenzie. (The Coast has a fair number of people with African ancestry, many of them descended from runaway slaves.) He spoke English with grammar that was similar to American English but an accent that sounded similar to Jamaican English. I guess that would qualify as Creole, which I think is a term that often means "Afro-English." Many costeños speak English, but some of the indigenous groups on the Atlantic Coast still use their original Indian languages and are trying to preserve it as part of their culture. The coast is a hodge-podge of cultures. The Garifuno, for example (Afro-Indian, also known as Black Carib), have bits of French, English and Spanish in their culture and language. --Sheldon Rampton 05:03, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I cut a couple of things from this article. There was too much discussion of how vile the Contras were. While I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that better belongs in the article on the Contras. I also cut the "Human rights organizations that have published reports about Nicaragua" section, how is this useful information? - SimonP 05:11, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

If you're going to cut the section about the contras from this article, there should at least be a mention of their notoriety for human rights abuses in northern Nicaragua. Otherwise, some of the sense is lost from the section immediately following, which describes Sandinista human rights abuses on the Atlantic Coast. Also, I think you should add the section you've cut about the contras to a separate article about the contras themselves.
Also, I think there's some inaccuracy in the section which describes Sandinista human rights abuses in the Las Tejas prison. Amnesty International did indeed criticize a number of Sandinista abuses, but AI also gave them credit for responding affirmatively to a number of human rights concerns, and overall groups like AI gave Nicaragua higher marks for human rights than a number of neighboring countries such as El Salvador. As currently worded, the paragraph that mentions Las Tejas reads more like right-wing boilerplate about Nicaragua than a balanced assessment. I realize that you didn't write that section. I've done some editing on this article in the past, and I left this paragraph intact at that time myself, despite my misgivings, because I didn't have the time to look up and document the specifics regarding what groups like Amnesty International said about Nicaragua. I'm mentioning it now because I think this is an area where this article should be improved. --Sheldon Rampton 07:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've read a lot of 172 comments on several political topics...it seems that every time a leftist dictator is the subject of conversation, a lot of "historical complexities" are discussed.

For the record, I'm not 172, and I'm the person who posted the comment immediately preceding yours. As for your observation regarding "historical complexities," history happens to be complex. As it happens, though, the Sandinista government was not a "leftist dictator." It began as a guerrilla movement that overthrew a dictator, then became a "governing junta" until it could establish a framework for elections, then became an elected government in 1984, and then left office after losing elections in 1990. At no point in that history was there a single figure governing the country who could be called a "dictator." There are lots of things to criticize about Sandinistas before, during and after their time in power in Nicaragua, but they were never a dictatorship. If that's too much complexity for you, then maybe that says more about you than it does about this topic. Have you ever actually met a Sandinista? --Sheldon Rampton 04:56, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, not a dictatorship, a provisional junta, followed by a "we're trying so hard to convince the U.S. that we're democratic" government.

Nope I haven't met any Sandinistas. Nicaragua ain't exactly high on my list of potential vacation spots. Trey Stone 04:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about Trey "I have absolutely no familiarity with the facts but am sure the Sandinistas were bad" Stone. BTW, I've never been to Nicaragua, but I have met Sandinistas. Avoiding any of those "complexities" that so confound Trey -- they were nice people. -- Jibal 02:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Aww, that's too bad, Nicaragua is quite beautiful. --chaizzilla 23:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I would call a government with the power to decide how/who lives and dies without questions asked a dictatorship regardless of how they came to power.

It seems to me that plenty of questions were asked. More than were asked of the Governor of Texas in the late 1990's. -- Jibal 02:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Flag

Is it a coincidence the similarity in colors of the Sandinista flag and the Spanish CNT and Falange ones?

I'd say the flag was based on that of Fidel Castro's 26th of July Movement, if it was based on anything at all. Red and black are international colours of revolution. [[User:DO'Neil|DO'Иeil]] 06:49, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

It also looks a lot like the flag of the ELN. See http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/c/co}eln.gif Descendall 09:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The sandinista flag was used for the first time by Sandino's Ejército Defensor de la Soberania Nacional back in the late 1920s. The red color stands for Freedom and the black for Death. His motto was actually "Freedom or Death".

POV

The parts on the Contra War need serious clean-up. The way it keeps referring to the "CIA-backed war" when the article has already clearly established U.S. involvement and the "freedom fighters" sentence are emotionally-slanted POV. Trey Stone 07:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And I was also under the impression that the opposition (if there really was much) in the 1984 election operated under such constraints that they were made essentially useless. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Trey Stone 04:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A bunch of right wing parties called the 'Coordinadora' boycotted the 1984 election, on grounds of not having been given enough preparation time (election was announced in Feb 84 for Nov 84). None the less, seven parties contested the elections, Sandinistas plus three right wing and three left wing parties. Sweden, France and Finland provided material and logistical assistance in organising the elections. 400 international observers monitored them, and declared them to be free and fair - eg Canadian Church and Human Rights delegation said 'the elections were well administered under exceptionally difficult conditions'. This info is from the book given in the reference section. Worldtraveller 22:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I put back in an explanation of how "contras" got their name. Also, Sandinista involvement in Somoza's assassination has never been conclusively proven. For example, there's a book titled Death of Somoza that attributes his assassination to the Argentinian Revolutionary Workers' Party. [1] Sandinistas may well have played a role, of course, but speculation shouldn't be presented as fact. --Sheldon Rampton 10:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I also think that there should be an additional to that "Sandinista platform section" explaining that a) Sandinismo is not a broad spectrum of ideas and b) many of the "promises" on that platform were never lived up to. Non-aligned foreign policy in particular is a good one. Trey Stone 11:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That's your point of view, but it's not accurate. The question of whether Sandinismo reflected a "broad spectrum of ideas" depends, I guess, on what you mean by "broad." The Sandinista movement consists of Christians (both Catholic and Protestant), Nicaraguan nationalists, leftist revolutionaries, and social reformers concerned with a wide range of issues. These groups have often disagreed with one another about just anything you can name. One case in point would be Sergio Ramirez Mercado, a novelist who was the country's vice-president during the Sandinista era but split from the party in the 1990s, became a vocal critic of Daniel Ortega's leadership, and created his own separate Sandinista party called the Movement for the Renovation of Sandinismo. Another case in point would be Herty Lewites, who was elected in 2000 as the Sandinista mayor of Managua. Lewites is a businessman with a definitely capitalist-oriented approach to policy issues. The Christian influence within the party has often been at odds with feminist factions on issues pertaining to divorce and abortion. During the Sandinista 1980s, the country was a hodge-podge of policy experiments. In the area of agriculture alone, for example, there were state-run farms, farm co-ops, purchase-only cooperatives, privately-owned farms, private banks and credit unions, and government-sponsored agricultural credit programs.
As for a "non-aligned foreign policy," I'd say that's an apt description of Sandinista policy in the 1980s. They maintained friendly relations with Soviet-bloc countries but also with Europe, Africa and most of the rest of the world. --Sheldon Rampton 06:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I still think that certain differences (especially as of late, after the Sandinistas lost executive power) were obscured by Ortega & co.'s committed Marxist-Leninist approach. As for foreign policy, saying that Nicaragua had a non-aligned foreign policy is like saying Castro is non-aligned because he trades with non-American Western countries. It doesn't work. Interior Minister Tomás Borge spoke (at the UN, I believe) about the need to support such "liberation" governments and movements against "imperialism" as the KWP, the Vietnamese puppet regime in Cambodia (no doubt a lot better than Mr. Pot, but still repressive,) and the PLO. This is not non-aligned foreign policy -- of course they're still gonna trade with whatever country they can, they wouldn't deliberately undermine their economy. Trey Stone 11:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You're using an entirely arbitrary definition of "non-aligned" based on the trivial anecdotal evidence of something you think Borge said at the UN. Even if what he said was exactly the way you remember it, so what? Lots of countries outside the Soviet bloc supported the PLO, and anyway Borge was the country's INTERIOR Minister, not its FOREIGN Minister. For a more careful analysis, based on actual study of Nicaragua's voting record in the UN, here's what Andrew Reding had to say:
A more accurate picture can be obtained by comparing Nicaragua’s performance [in the United Nations] with that of undisputed nonaligned nations such as Yugoslavia, Algeria, and India. These and other nonaligned countries exhibited a greater-than-90-percent correspondence with Nicaragua’s voting record. This suggests that Nicaragua is in the mainstream of the nonaligned movement, which has become increasingly alienated from the United States by the interventionist, anti-Third World policies of the Reagan presidency. Conversely, the relatively close correspondence between the U.S.S.R. and the nonaligned states is a reflection of the Soviet Union’s support for Third World initiatives.'
Examination of specific votes reveals a surprising degree of independence in view of the considerable military assistance Nicaragua is receiving from the Soviet Union. Nicaragua abstained (along with India, Algeria, Cyprus, and Finland) on the Afghanistan vote and (with China, Guyana, and Zimbabwe) on the Korean Airlines 007 vote. In a related development, Nicaragua participated in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics despite the Soviet boycott. For these reasons, among others, Nicaragua has been recognized by the international community as genuinely nonaligned. Thus it was elected to the Security Council in 1984, with the support of 104 countries, in marked contrast to Cuba’s failed bid in 1980. [2]
--Sheldon Rampton 18:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The fact is that the massive military buildup they were able to achieve was financed by the Soviet Union and Cuba. If in addition to this they were anti-U.S. (as they were at the time) then they are not non-aligned. If they spoke against "imperialism" in Southeast Asia (when in fact Vietnam had imposed a puppet government on Cambodia) they were not non-aligned (Borge did say that, it's a paraphrase of a quote, and even if he did not make foreign policy for the FSLN it is easy to say that Ortega & co. agreed with him given their general rhetoric.) It seems you're using the definition of "non-aligned" that naturally puts countries with "third world" ideals more into the Soviet sphere of influence. At the very least, if you are going to use those UN votes as proof of this "non-aligned" definition, you have to mention the fact that they were extremely anti-American and supported Communist developments in the Far East and Central America as well as the PLO's goals in Israel, all of which were generally opposed (to varying degrees) by the Western world, led by the U.S. Trey Stone 01:29, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Referring to "promises" in inverted commas is very POV. You seem to imply they deliberately deceived everyone as to what they were going to do. The Contra War prevented them from implementing much of their program, and the article could be clearer about that. I had added a bit about the Contras targetting teachers in the literacy program, which led to a rise in illiteracy after the initial sharp reduction, but it was removed without explanation and replaced with something unrelated about economic sabotage.
This is a talk page, I can POV all over the place. Trey Stone 11:46, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I realise that! It just raises concerns that you have a particularly POV agenda regarding the article. If the article was altered to reflect your view, as you are suggesting, its neutrality would be compromised. Worldtraveller 12:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I highly question this page's neutrality. It could not have been more pro-Sandinista if Ortega himself wrote it. Moreover, nowhere are the atrocities the Sandinistas committed against the people prior to seizing power described. The part about Somoza and the National Guard having superior weapons is also absurd. The Sandinistas were well-trained, highly efficient fighters trained by the PLO, Castro, the USSR, Red China, etc. Nowhere is it mentioned that Somoza's men were virtually out of ammo due to the U.S.'s arms embargo (which is the real reason the National Guard lost).


I suppose the GN's tanks and aircraft were outmatched by the FSLN's automatic weapons? No evidence of Red China supporting the FSLN. Since the 70's China had squared up against the USSR and could be found working with US in Angola (backing the FPLA) and Cambodia (backing Pol Pot). They also recognised Pinochet in 73...but I digress.....Also no proof of USSR backing the FSLN before the FSLN asked for help. No doubt PLO helped out but hardly a factor. A piss poor rebel force in the West Bank is hardly going to churn out a highly efficient latino army! Please use some common sense.

Read Nicaragua Betrayed, by Anastasio Somoza and Jack Cox. It's loaded with documentation, including Sandinista atrocities (which are also found in the February 20, 1980 Congressional Record), USSR, Red Chinese, Panamanian, Venezuelan, etc. support of the Sandinistas, U.S. support of the Sandinistas prior to and after their seizure of power, etc. The USSR supplied weapons through Cuba. Venezuela's president (I don't remember his name, so please excuse me) was a personal friend of Pedro Joaquin Chamorro (which explains his support of the Sandinistas). Costa Rica allowed Sandinistas to operate within its borders. Many Sandinistas received training at the Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, in Cuba, and in the Middle East by the PLO. All of the afore-mentioned nations provided arms, as well. The National Guard could hardly have had 'superior weapons,' if the U.S. imposed an arms embargo and prohibited all other nations from providing them with arms.

Hmm, I wouldn't take a book written by Somoza as a neutral point of view about Sandinistas. It's like asking Hitler if communists are bad. The book may be loaded with documentation, but it's also loaded with bias. Inti

Is this a joke - 'Nicaragua Betrayed' by SOMOZA ? Somoza was a ruthless and corrupt dictator who killed thousands and who never held an election in all the time he was in power. He even sold the people's blood from blood banks. None of this stopped the USA supporting him of course. SmokeyTheFatCat 15:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Costa Rica is an exceedingly neutral country and has no regular army. There is very little they could have done to the Sandinistas (or the Contras later on for that matter!) even if they wanted to.

As for China, that's wrong. They supported UNITA, not FPLA.

Well the US, China and South Africa all backed the FPLA until it was routed by the MPLA (with alot of Cuban help) during its march on the capital. It ceased to be a serious force after that hence the backing of UNITA by the very same nations. Check your facts. Not inclined to believe a book written by those particular experts. and stop calling it RED China.

Edits to the Article

1. Took out the entire Cuban Section, too much POV, a tad paranoid and overblown without any real proof.

Without any real proof eh? All of it is taken from various sources. I could list them if you like. TDC 23:42, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

2. Polished some bits,

a. US pressure forcing the FSLN to change its policies on the Atlantic Coast seemed a bit pro-US. Changed this to saying widespread international condemnation.

(counterpoint: surely the US arming Contra death squads in the region was partly responsible for the crimes committed by the FSLN. This would also be POV so I decided to make it the neutral version above)

b. The 1984 elections. Several groups did not claim the elections were free and fair, many international organisations/observers including the UN certified the elections as free and fair. The old version left the validity of the elections in doubt when only the groups with a vested interest (i.e. the U.S.) refused to recognise them as such.

c. Why the FSLN lost the elections. Added a bit pointing out the US has always threatened Nicaragua economicly if they dared elect the FSLN, and gave the most recent example of this which was in El Salvador.

The FMLN presidential candidate got whooped pretty badly, so I don't think you can just point to the U.S. as the end-all reason. J. Parker Stone 08:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Yes, please do list all your sources. Sources should be listed and not just called upon. Because as it is right now, your only souce is a single book. If the U.N. says the elections were fair, then if the Contras said otherwise, I would trust the U.N.
Atavi 13:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Cuba

Well TDC if you got em please list them here. For now that section is removed. Until you furnish up some proper proof from NPOV sources I suggest you change that paragraph to pointing out cuban assistance rather than implying they were in the driving seat. For example the bits about DGI involvement in training and helping the FLSN in prison breaks and assasinations is quite relevant and should be in the article. Its the tone more than anything else that is POV

The tone that is POV, I don’t quite understand? Most of the information is an amalgamation of 2 sources: The Mitrokhin Archive and an article from Global Security is [3].

This is a nice quote from Daniel Ortega

  • Before the triumph of the Revolution, we received aid primarily from Cuba. Cuba had always supported the Sandinista struggle. Later on, as we developed the struggle in our country, Cuba was able to give us much more support [4]



Authoritarians as a whole

Why do authoritarians that are communist posers (that's who they really are) always talk of struggle? Does anyone seriously believe that these people had good intentions when they nationalized ownership of the land from "Somoza collaborators?" It would be better to give it back to the original owners (the natives who farmed the land). While most of the criticisms are allegations, this revolution deserves the same criticism that the Nazis, Stalin Communists, and Falangists have. They are all authoritarian collectivists who will use any ideology to exert control on the uneducated poor. This is a continual theme in Central American politics, when you solely depend on the government for your freedom, you will not get it. Overall, the article should be more critical.

  • First off, not all authoritarians are communists. The Nazis could hardly be considered communists - in fact, they hated communists. I'm not too sure about the Fascists, but I think they were staunchly anti-communist, too. Oops, didn't read carefully enough. Second, on the nationalizing land ownership, many of those "original owners" were the collaborators themselves, or were dead. I also find it rather odd that you lump the Falangists in with the Nazis and Marxists. They're certainly not appealing to the poor. Overall, I find that your criticisms smack of a communist-hunter mentality. This is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda piece. NPOV, etc, etc. --Aurochs
I don't think the Nazis and Stalinists are really given a hard time at wikipedia. of course you are touching on very difficult issues, and as people have different views we have to make space for all views while sticking to the neutral point of view policy. As an encyclopedia we must reflect what the world knows about the subject, and not do our own original work. I strongly urge you to try editing the article, but be aware that others may edit your edits, SqueakBox 00:16, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)


I'm am just trying say that all these types of revolutionaries tend to have the same themes. Glorifying a few leaders for doing atrocities. You can even make the same case when we glorify our own "heroes." I see Communists the same way I see fascists, they want to control my life. Going to college and seeing kids wearing "che" clothing is offensive and ironic. Che was a revolutionary against American Imperialists, (ignore the fact that the Communist nations such as the USSR occupied many sovereign nations)and that same type of contrarian attitude which is protected under our consitution were squashed under these regimes. This hits home for me because my Mother's family fled from Nicaragua during the revolution. My mother thought there would be change. The same corruption still exists while the poor starve in many parts of the nation. Overt nationalism in any form can be dangerous and rob the uneducated poor.

At my college,the funniest observation was a Che computer wallpaper on a toshiba laptop made in China. The dual ironies of America being chummy with a communist nation and computer that would never have been developed if Che had his way proves my point. Communism has never survived because people are not called on to protect themselves. The next time I hear, "what will the government do for us?" I see the US losing its soul. I do have primary sources of speeches my Grandpa made to Esteli condeming Somoza's regime. I could scan them. I am quite annoyed by the one-sidedness of my professors. I guess I am a communist-hunter, and proud of it. There have been no successful true communist nations. The best we can get is a mixed economy that ensures individual liberty.

"In 1959, Guevara was appointed commander of the La Cabana Fortress prison. During his term as commander of the fortress from 1959–1963, he oversaw the hasty trials and executions of many former Batista regime officials, including members of the BRAC secret police (some sources say 156 people, others estimate as many as 500). Poet and human rights activist Armando Valladares, who was imprisoned at La Cabana, documented Guevara's particular and personal interest in the interrogation, torture, and execution of prisoners." (Wikipedia)

"Come on you pack of drug fiends, come on and murder us on our own land. I am waiting for you on my feet at the head of my patriotic soldiers, and I don't care how many of you there are. You should know that when this happens, the destruction of your mighty power will make the Capitol shake in Washington, and your blood will redden the white dome that crowns the famous White House where you plot your crimes." (quoted in Zimmermann)

"Facing the fact of not being heard on the political stage, Mao responded to Liu and Deng by launching the Cultural Revolution in 1966, in which the Communist hierarchy was circumvented by giving power directly to the Red Guards, groups of young people, often teenagers, who set up their own tribunals. The Revolution led to the destruction of much of China's cultural heritage and the imprisonment of a huge number of Chinese intellectuals, amongst other social chaos." (Wikipedia)

  • And what, exactly, does any of the material in this rant have to do with the article? --Aurochs

Its pretty much the truth of everything. Its ironic that saying the Sandinistas were an oppressive regime is considered a POV, but then again some people still dont believe the Earth is a sphere. My parents also grew up fighting Somoza, they weren't compelled to leave until they were so violated by Che Ortega's regime. They were far from being capitalist conspirators or "burges", they only wanted to have the freedom to debate like we are doing now. Reagan didn't care too much about the fate of Nicaraguan individuals, but the majority of Nicaraguans would pick Reagan over the Sandinistas except those who would directly benefit from their personal relationships with socialist leaders. (Jpineda84 01:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

Why do right wing ignoramuses that are pseudo-intellectual posers treat WP talk pages as if they were a forum for spewing their ill-informed political rants? -- Jibal 10:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"The first American nation to recognize its multiethnic nature"?

...the National Assembly unanimously passed an Autonomy Law in 1987 that made Nicaragua the first American nation to recognise its multiethnic nature, guaranteeing the economic, cultural, linguistic and religious rights demanded by the indigenous groups of the Atlantic Coast.

Was it really the first? Surely the United States and Canada had also done something by the mid-1980s to recognize indigenous rights, however unsatisfactorily from some points of view. In the U.S., for instance, tribal treaties were already being enforced anew, and reservations have had autonomous self-government on a par with the states since the 1920s, IIRC. Perhaps the author meant "Latin American nation"? Or maybe the claim of being the first "to recognise its multiethnic nature" isn't really tenable on closer examination? --Skoosh 19:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Ortega's properties

One wonder's why this article does not mention Ortega's properties, the ones he confiscated from "Somocistas" for the people and then held on to apparently for the "good of the people." xe xe (El Jigüe, 11/1/2005)

It was not only Somocistas, property from exiles were confiscated as well.

Yeah Ortega wanted to make sure no dirty capitalist got their hands on those sweet Managuan mansions by moving in and raising up that beautiful black and red flag of equality on the lawn. What a great guy, I wonder if he changed the welcome mat.

==Reasons of FSLN electoral losses== (or, an anon defending his edits)

Hostile U.S. policy towards the FSLN has been a reason for their electoral defeats: 1. By channeling funds and exercising influence, the U.S. have made sure that there have never been strong two right-wing candidates up for election to ensure that even if the PLC is factually divided in two, it will always run only one presidential candidate.

That can be mentioned if sourced. CJK 00:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
There have never been two strong right-wing candidates in Nicaraguan presidential elections, the only one seriously running against Chamorro, Aleman and Bolaños was Ortega.
The US influence in Nicaraguan elections is mentioned at least here: [5] (Next year there will be three serious candidates, but that is because there is a split in the left, supported by the U.S. embassy: [6])
That can be included, thank you.

2. Even after the U.S. sponsored 1990 victory, there have been repeated threats to cut down aid should the FSLN ever return to power. In a country as economically dependent of the United States as Nicaragua, this means directly manipulating the electoral process. Not that the U.S., acting in it's own interest, shouldn't do it, but it is a fact worth mentioning.

Do you have a citation for this? CJK 00:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The 1996 election [7]
The 2001 election [8]
The 2006 election [9]
While the quickly googled sources could be more authoritative, I think that establishes the pattern well enough.

The first link does not explicitly mention a US aid cut-off or embargo in the event of a Sandinista victory (maybe I missed it though) and even says the US took a lesser role than in 1990. The second link reads like a pro-FSLN propaganda piece and only mentions that it would not be in "American interests" if Ortega won. No specific threats were detailed. The third link does not mention US specific pressure either. CJK 15:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

3. The contras were, for all intents and purposes, U.S. sponsored puppets. They did their best, not to achieve military victory, but to do as much damage as possible, by attacking schools, hospitals, co-operatives. Not to forget the CIA-supported mining of Nicaraguan harbors. If this, plus the economic embargo (which by the way violated a trade agreement that both countries had signed) doesn't merit to "U.S. sponsored aggression", what does?

The idea that the contras were U.S. puppets is frankly incorrect. This was basically the impression that the Sandista government wanted to give to international sympathizers. To get a really good understanding of who the Contras really were it would be useful to look at''The Real Contra War: Highlander Peasant Resistance in Nicaragua by Timothy C. Brown. He has very good documentation (half of the volume is actual photocopies of authentic documents of the post-war disarmament lead by the new democratic government) concering the numbers of Contras who laid down their weapons after the 1990 elections as well as their orientations. In fact, it is a huge misconception that the Contras were in any way controlled or concieved by the CIA. I think the perpetuation of this idea has little to do with evidence and more with anti-American sentiments as well as the willingness to listen to people such as Noam Chomsky who rarely have evidence to back up their claims. The "Contras", a Sandinista term, actually became active before the Reagan administration, and at the time were known as the MILPAS. The MILPAS were the large bulk of the resistence which came from the northern mountains. These were peasant farmers, and represented the majority of the resistence. The MILPAS later joined the U.S. backed FDN which composed of many ex-Gaurdia. The Gaurdia were only a tiny percentage of the resistence. Human Rights abuses went both ways and accusations of human rights abuses was much easier to point out by the Sandinista government since they had control of the media and we able to villainize the resistence (Communist governments are experts at propoganda ex. most North Koreans think they live in the wealthiest nation in the world). If you study Nicaraguan history, you will see that the struggle of the highlander peasants and the people of the plains began way before the Nicaraguan Revolution. In essence your claim that the contras did not want to achieve victory is baseless. Farmers did not want to be controlled by an authoritarian government that would change their traditional way of life. In a poor country like Nicaragua, the propertied "bourgoisie" were in fact the dirt poor farmers. (Jpineda84 04:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC))

people such as Noam Chomsky who rarely have evidence to back up their claims -- This is blatantly false. Little that is said about Chomsky by his critics has any relationship to the actual person. A characteristic of Chomsky's writing (and speeches) is his extensive use of direct quotes, as in http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-2-03.html. What is lacking is any evidence that anything he writes in that piece is in error. -- Jibal 10:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I think Sam Huntington might disagree with the notion that Chomsky uses quotes accurately. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 11:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Lovely bit of non sequitur strawman innuendo. I didn't say that Chomsky "uses quotes accurately", and no doubt someone somewhere "might" think otherwise. Again, what is lacking is any evidence of error in what Chomsky wrote in the cited piece -- or elsewhere. As for Huntington, he disagreed with the conclusions Chomsky drew from his comments, but that doesn't make the conclusions incorrect (and Chomsky noted as much in his reply). But I don't intend to debate Chomsky or anthing else with you -- nor is there any point, as your positions are entirely predictable. -- Jibal 02:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

a:"Agression" is a POV propaganda word. All that stuff can be mentioned without calling it "agression". (Did "Cuban aggression" oust Samoza? Was the El Salvador insurgency kept alive by "Nicaraguan aggression"?)

What would then be a better word? Simply calling it "war" leaves out the economic side of the "aggression" - the origin of which, since it existed because of their funding, could as well be pointed out.
An another point, the difference between Cuban or Nicaraguan sponsored "aggression" and U.S. sponsored "aggression" is obvious: it was the Nicaraguan people that ousted Somoza and the Salvadoran people kept their insurgency alive. While there was some aid coming from Cuba and Nicaragua, respectively, it had little effect on the outcome. Thus it is not the "aggression" that maintained those conflicts. On The other hand, the Contras who had practically no popular support, were kept alive only through direct U.S. funding. Those who lost their foreign funding, like Eden Pastora, disappeared from the scene quickly. Thus the very U.S. sponsored "aggression" was what kept the Contra war going. Also, there was no (technically unlawful) economic pressure or direct attacks on commerce from Cuban or Sandinista governments towards Somoza or El Salvador, respectively.
--80.221.37.23 06:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. But "American aggression" could be better worded as "U.S. sponsored war and embargo". CJK 15:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC) Rewording and NPOVing is of course welcome as long as the facts are there. =) --80.221.37.23 02:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Human Rights Abuses, redux

Can the use of poor military tactics (the part about Russian style wave attacks) be considered a human rights abuse? Obviously they were stupid tactics to use for a number of reasons, as noted, but an abuse of human rights? I don't think so.

The conscripts used included young teenagers who were forcibly taken into service by soldiers waiting for them at places like schools and buses and then used them as cannon fodder at battles. How is this not a human rights abuse? Kaven06 06:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Human rights has a very specific meaning, which you can discover by clicking on Human rights. The right of a country to conscript its citizens -- though I personally oppose it -- is not considered a violation of human rights. Moreover, the questionable paragraph does not target the conscription (note that countries like the United States have conscripted teenagers for hundreds of years) but rather the tactics. Assuming the description to be accurate, this is better characterized as poor generalship rather than human rights violation. Corrections have been made.

I do believe this would be considered human rights abuses. A nation has the right of introducing conscription, how ever there are regulations to be followed and conscripts must be given proper notification and time to appeal. However, Sandista conscription was unorganized an ill prepared. Many conscripts were in fact kidnapped from their schools and taken to the front the very next day. (Jpineda84 03:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC))

I've removed the following paragraph from the article:
The Sandinistas are blamed by some for using poor tactics to combat the Contras, resulting in the death of thousands of young Nicaraguan conscripts. The Sandinistas used their battalions consisting of 600 conscripts in three waves of 200 to attack Contra positions. These battalions would be ordered to attack machine-gun nests in the hope that by the third wave the Contras would run out of bullets and be overrun. Nicaragua, a country with just about 3 million inhabitants, could not afford the luxury of losses in ratios of 20-to-1 as Russia did with the Germans in World War II and the North Vietnamese against the Americans.
I haven't seen any credible reference (or any reference whatsoever, outside of this article) suggesting that this was actually a Sandinista military strategy. For starters, the idea that battles with the Contras involved "machine-gun" nests is hard to believe. The Contras were a guerrilla army that engaged in hit-and-run tactics, mostly with civilian targets. Setting up a machine gun in a fixed location is unlikely, and in fact the Contras never held a fixed piece of territory inside Nicaragua for more than a day during the entire Contra war. --Sheldon Rampton 10:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Worldwide & unreferenced

This article has many POV claims which are unreferenced. This is a US-centric article. Beside, it is important to note that the Sandinistas organized the elections which they lost; after all, if they were so bad, they could have just indefinitely postpone them... Tazmaniacs

They were forced into elections. The contra war had forced them to sign a treaty (Esquipulas II, 1987) guaranteeing elections. After they lost they not only stole property, but government-controlled businesses to guarantee funds for their party. Kaven06 06:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This is true, there was huge international pressure for Ortega to call elections. President Arias of Costa Rica, a staunch critic of the Sandinistas, was given a Nobel Prize in his part for creating a coalition of Latin American nations to force a peace treaty. Also, the Contra War was a huge factor. Once the FDN handed in its weapons it was obvious that they had a popular following from within. (http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1987/arias-bio.html) (Jpineda84 03:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC))

It was my understanding that under the new constitution, elections took place every six years. First one was in 1984, the second one in 1990. So it was a regularly scheduled election. My take on the FSLN overall is that they did a lot of really good things and a lot of really screwed up things too. Loveandlight

Revert

I've reverted edits by 66.68.69.130 (talk · contribs). The quote he added was not only irrelevant, but mangled from the original which described Blandon and Meneses by name, not the Contras. —Viriditas | Talk 08:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Now before someone wipes my recent edits away claiming that I have seen Red Dawn one too many times, please come here first. All material added is referenced, and considering its significance and the way it will alter the article I realize there will be some “debate”. Ten Dead Chickens 21:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well it seems that no one used the talk page, so here goes.

Pg 41, Andrew, Christopher; Mitrokhin, Vasili. The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World.

  • As part of Aleksandr Shelepin’s grand strategy of using national liberation movements as a spearhead of the Soviet Unions foreign policy in the third world, in 1960 Shelepin organized funding and training in Moscow for twelve individuals that Fonseca handpicked.

Pg 40 Andrew, Christopher; Mitrokhin, Vasili. The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB Pg 181 Andrew, Christopher; Mitrokhin, Vasili. The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World.

  • These were to be the core of the new Sandinistan organization and Fonseca specifically chose them because of their revolutionary zeal and sympathies to Moscow. In the following several years, the FSLN tried with little success to organise guerrilla warfare against Somoza’s government.
Pg 44-47 Andrew, Christopher; Mitrokhin, Vasili. The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB
  • After several failed attempts to attack government strongholds and little initial support from the local population, the National Guard nearly annihilated the Sandinistas in a series of attacks in 1963. Disappointed with the performance of Shelepin’s new Latin American “revolutionary vanguard”, the KGB reconstituted the core of the Sandinistan leadership in Honduras and Costa Rica in 1964 and monitored their training and progress from their Mexico City embassy.
Pg 48 Andrew, Christopher; Mitrokhin, Vasili. The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB
  • During the following three years the KGB handpicked several dozen Sandinistas training in Honduras and Costa Rica for intelligence and sabotage operation in the United States. In 1966 this KGB controlled Sandinistan sabotage and intelligence group was sent to the US/Mexican border. Their primary targets were southern NORAD facilities the oil pipeline running from El Paso Texas to Costa Mesa California. A support group, codenamed SATURN, passed as migrant farm workers to conceal themselves and smuggle in arms caches.
Pg 53 Andrew, Christopher; Mitrokhin, Vasili. The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB
pg 363 Andrew, Christopher; Mitrokhin, Vasili. The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB

I know ... I know ... shades of Red Dawn, but what are you going to do, the truth is, as they say, stranger than fiction.

  • After a Cuban reorganization of the FSLN structure and tactics in the 1970s
pg 385 Andrew, Christopher; Mitrokhin, Vasili. The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB
  • The FSLN had, in fact, been actively suppressing opposition parties while leaving moderate parties alone with Ortega claiming that the moderates "presented no danger and served as a convenient facade to the outside world"
pg 121 Andrew, Christopher; Mitrokhin, Vasili. The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB

Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

First, why are these citations on the talk page? They belong in the article itself. There is a referencing/citation system now available; why aren't you using it?

Citations are here because they are numerous, and I did not want to clutter the article with them. But, if it is more appropriate to have them in the article, then I will put them there. For brevity, I will label “The World Was Going Our Way” WWGW and “The Sword and the Shield” SAS. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Second, various comments you have added need to be attributed to someone, not presented as fact in the editorial voice, such as:

  • In contrast to the Cuban revolution, the Sandinista government practiced political pluralism throughout its time in power although this was primarily to appeases its external critics.
  • The FSLN had, in fact, been actively suppressing opposition parties while leaving moderate parties alone
I believe they were, but that is fine. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to verify your citations with only partial success:

Pg 41, Andrew, Christopher; Mitrokhin, Vasili. The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World.

The "search inside" function of Amazon does not indicate any reference of this kind, on page 41 or any other page [10]

Don’t look for Amador, look for Fonseca, but either will work, so I don’t understand why you could not find it. Relevant sections include, but not limited to SAS pg41:
The FSLN leader, Carlos Fonseca Amador, codenamed GIDROLOG (“Hydrologist”), was a trusted KGB agent … The KGB’s second major penetration of the Sandinistas was probably the recruitment by the Mexico City residency in 1960 if the Nicaraguan exile Edelberto Torres Espinosa (codenamed PIMEN), a close friend of Fonseca as well as General Secretary of the anti Somoza Nicaraguan United Front in Mexico ….
Also, you can “search” specific page numbers. A query of “41” in SAS (or any other searchable book on Amazon for that matter) will return all references with 41 in it, including page numbers. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As part of Aleksandr Shelepin’s grand strategy of using national liberation movements as a spearhead of the Soviet Unions foreign policy in the third world, in 1960 Shelepin organized funding and training in Moscow for twelve individuals that Fonseca handpicked.
Pg 40 Andrew, Christopher; Mitrokhin, Vasili. The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB
Pg 181 Andrew, Christopher; Mitrokhin, Vasili. The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World.

I can find the Shelepin cite but not the one about Fonseca [11].

This is on pg 42 WWGW, and relevant sections include:
Shelepin reported to Khrushchev in July 1961:
In Nicaragua … at present time – via KGB agents and confidential contacts PIMEN, GIDROLOG and LOT – (the KGB) is influencing and providing financial aid to the Sandio (Sandinista) Revolutionary Front and three partisan detachments which belong to the Internal Revolutionary Resistance Front, which works in co-ordination with its friends (Cuban and Soviet block intelligence services).
The Residency (Mexico City), through the trusted agent GIDROLOG in Mexico, selected a group of students (12 people), headed by the Nicaraguan patriot-doctor PRIM (Andara y Ubeda), and arranged for their operational training. All operations with PRIM’s group are conducted by GIDROLOG in the name of the Nicaraguan revolutionary organization “The Sandinista Front”, of which he, GIDROLOG, is the leader. The supervision of the group’s future activities and financial aid given to it will be provided through GIRDILOG. At Present time PRIM’s group is ready to be dispatched to Honduras, where it will undergo additional training and fill out its ranks with new gueriilas, after which the group will be sent to Nicaraguan territory.
Also 363 from SAS
At the top of the list of national liberation movements cultivated by the KGB was the newly founded Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) in Nicaragua, which was dedicated to following the example of the Cuban revolution ………
Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • These were to be the core of the new Sandinistan organization and Fonseca specifically chose them because of their revolutionary zeal and sympathies to Moscow. In the following several years, the FSLN tried with little success to organise guerrilla warfare against Somoza’s government.
Pg 44-47 Andrew, Christopher; Mitrokhin, Vasili. The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB

The "search inside" function of Amazon does not indicate any reference of this kind, on pages 44-47, or any other page [12]

  • After several failed attempts to attack government strongholds and little initial support from the local population, the National Guard nearly annihilated the Sandinistas in a series of attacks in 1963. Disappointed with the performance of Shelepin’s new Latin American “revolutionary vanguard”, the KGB reconstituted the core of the Sandinistan leadership in Honduras and Costa Rica in 1964 and monitored their training and progress from their Mexico City embassy.
Pg 48 Andrew, Christopher; Mitrokhin, Vasili. The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB

The "search inside" function of Amazon does not indicate any reference of this kind, on pages 48, or any other page [13] [14]

  • During the following three years the KGB handpicked several dozen Sandinistas training in Honduras and Costa Rica for intelligence and sabotage operation in the United States. In 1966 this KGB controlled Sandinistan sabotage and intelligence group was sent to the US/Mexican border. Their primary targets were southern NORAD facilities the oil pipeline running from El Paso Texas to Costa Mesa California. A support group, codenamed SATURN, passed as migrant farm workers to conceal themselves and smuggle in arms caches.
Pg 53 Andrew, Christopher; Mitrokhin, Vasili. The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB
pg 363 Andrew, Christopher; Mitrokhin, Vasili. The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB

I can find the material cited on page 363 but not the Honduras/Costa Rica text [15]

Extrapolation. At this time the FSLN was reconstitution in Honduras and Costa Rica, I was simply assuming that this is where the KGB drew its recruits from. It could be removed, but it is a minor point at best. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • After a Cuban reorganization of the FSLN structure and tactics in the 1970s
pg 385 Andrew, Christopher; Mitrokhin, Vasili. The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB

The actual text reads: By 1970, in the Centre's view, the DGI [the "KGB's Cuban ally"] had effectively "expropriated" the Sandinista ISKRA guerilla group. As the text did not elaborate on what ISKRA was, on what grounds do you extrapolate that it concerned the Sandinistas as a whole? [16]

My extrapolation is simple, ISKRA was the core Sandinista movement and leadership reconstituted after their initial defeats. “Expropriate” the leadership and key memebers and you expropriate the entire movement for all intents and purposes.
In 1964, with the assistance of Torres, the Mexico City residency reconstituted a sabotage an intelligence group (DRG) from the remnants of Andara y Ubeda’s (PRIM’s) guerrillas. The group was given on of the great historic codenames of Soviet history … ISKRA –“Spark”. By 1964, however, the extravagant optimism in the Centre at the prospects for Latin American revolution which had inspired Shelepin’s 1961 master-plan had faded. The KGB plainly expected that it would be some years before the Sandinista “spark” succeeded in igniting a Nicaraguan revolution. - pg 48
Torres (codename PIMEN) was the Nicaraguan exile recruited by the KGB in Mexico city in 1960.
More on 386 SAS, with regard to this issue:
At a meeting with Fonseca in February 1971, Pinero restated the conviction of the Cuban leadership that for most Latin American countries armed conflict was the only path to liberation. Though Cuba remained willing to offer the Sandinistas “any kind of support and assistance” they would need to make major changes in their organization if they were able to avoid the defeats and heavy losses they had suffered during the past decade. The Centre concluded that future attempts for special actions against US targets would have to be made in collaboration with the DGI.
If there is anything else I have failed to address, pleas let me know. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Viajero | Talk 14:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for proceeding

A couple of comments: as ex-intelligence sources go, Mitrokhin is a decent one. Still:

  1. It is important that when citing a primary source like this, the citation be explicit in the article text, not merely in notes, and certainly not merely on the talk page. This is a primary source, unevaluated by historians. Intelligence archives are never simply to be taken at face value as historical truth: intelligence people lie to exaggerate their own importance or to tell their bosses what they think they want to hear (Our Man in Havana anyone? or WMDs in Iraq?). That doesn't mean it's uncitable, it just means that it should be dead clear where the statements come from.
  2. It is equally important not to extrapolate from what the sources say. I haven't looked closely at this, but from Viajero's remarks, it sounds like some of what TDC added is extrapolation (that ISKRA is interchangeable with the Sandinistas) or, in cases like the remark about appeasing external critics, straight-out opining. More troubling, there is some of this that Viajero, upon looking, cannot find at all.

Viajero and TDC, it would be very helpful to try to get the specific citations into the article itself. Viajero, it would be very helpful if you could give a comprehensive list of what you dispute, so that the issues can be identified and then addressed one by one. And, TDC, it would be very useful if you would (1) look through your citations and make sure that you have them right; where Viajero cannot find things, you probably should quote at least the start of the relevant passages here on the talk page so that they can be found. (2) Look through what you wrote and see if there things that you wrote that are problematic per Viajero's remark that begins, "Second, various comments you have added need to be attributed to somone…" If you've got attribution, cite it. If not, could you please help mitigate this conflict by just removing these yourself? It would speed the inevitable. - Jmabel | Talk 19:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree for the most part with your comments, but I must address several of them. I have provided exact quotes from the book to make verification simpler. I don’t know how well Viajero looked for the citations, so that is why I provided the verbatim quotes. Mitrokhin’s information has been verified, in parts, by many. Andrew, for one, is a well respected historian, and I have not read anything too critical of his work in this manner. Much of what was in the WWGW with relation to KGB operations in India has led to a number of investigations as well as legal action. An Italian government’s commission on Mitrokhin’s information (PCI’s funding from the Soviets and the Czech’s support of the Red Brigades for example) led to the conclusion that the shooting of the Pope was done on behalf of the GRU.
Some of what is presented here is not interpretive or a paraphrase from Andrew, but direct excepts from the documents. My extrapolations, are explained above, and I believe they are more than reasonable.
I would also comment that my "opining" about "appeasing external critics" is a quote from Ortega based off a conversation notes from pg 120-121. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Since we have heard nothing from TDC for more than a week, I am removing the Mitrokhin material. I think there is useful information there which should be included in the article, but it needs to be verfied, properly cited within the article, and the POV needs to be attributed, per the discussion above. Viajero | Talk 12:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been a little busy, but I will respond, in full today. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I don’t know how well Viajero looked for the citations
I included the Amazon "Look inside" search query for each of the citations I looked at above as an external link, so you can see yourself exactly how I tried to track them down. Viajero | Talk 00:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I just clicked on the one link for Fonseca and found the information, so I dont know why it did not wor for you. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Viajero, You were looking in the wrong book [17] [18], try this :[19]. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What the...!!!???

What's this? Come on... let's get serious around here. This article reflects an absolute ignorance on Nicaraguan history. I wonder if the author actually lived in Nicaragua or if he just tuned in FoxNews, like someone said here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.98.170.169 (talk • contribs) 7 April 2006.

Indeed. How many citizens of the USA ever killed by the Sandinistas? The answer is a bit fat zero. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SmokeyTheCat (talk • contribs) 8 July 2006.

While I agree with your point, this last statement is technically incorrect. When CIA employee Eugene Hassenfuss's aircraft was shot down (we seem to lack an article on Hassenfuss. Surprising. Do I have it misspelled?) the other two people in the plane, both also U.S. citizens, died. And I suspect that at least a few other U.S. citizens died on the Contra side of the Contra war. (The only other U.S. citizen fatality I can think of offhand—Ben Linder—was a civilian engineer helping to build a dam, and it was the Contras who killed him.) - Jmabel | Talk 05:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there is an article on him. His name is spelled Eugene Hasenfus. I'll create a redirect to it from your spelling. In addition to the cases you've mentioned, there is only one other case I recall of a U.S. citizen who died in Nicaragua during the war, but she died as a result of an accident, not of violence by combatants on one side or the other. --~~

Relationship to Catholic Church

This seems a little bit biased? Maybe it's just me. It says:

"...the revolutionaries were perceived as proponents of “godless communism” that posed a threat to the traditionally privileged place that the Church occupied within Nicaraguan society."

It does not seem inconceivable, to me, that the Church would oppose "godless communism" because it placed itself vocally in opposition to any sort of faith in a man they thought (and still think, if memory serves me correctly) was God incarnate. It is not the 13th century, Innocent III is no longer in power; I am sure that if Ecclesiastical officials were interested only in living lives of privilege, and not in their faith, there would be far better ways of achieving their goals than through the church. This just seems logically more believable than what's up there now, to me.

There were three priests in the FSLN government. There was absolutely nothing ever done to oppose or hinder church activities in Nicaragua under the Sandinistas. A far cry from El Salvador in the same period where many priests were killed, many nuns raped and the Archbishop Ramos murdered.SmokeyTheFatCat 17:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.172.205.160 (talk • contribs) 19 April 2006.

You are thinking of Archbishop Oscar Romero, not Ramos. I recall another incident when Pope John Paul II visited Nicaragua and would not allow the new guerilla government to kiss his ring because of the "blood on their(Sandinistas) hands." The only time he ever had to ask an audience at mass to quiet down was that same day when he lost patience and yelled "SILENCIO."

I remember French Catholics collecting money for Nicaragua around 1982.... Ericd 15:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Proper noun & other things in lead paragraph

In the first paragraph, "Opposition" is capitalized. Is this referring to some particular entity (in which case it should probably be linked) or not (in which case it should probably be lower-case). - Jmabel | Talk 00:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, in this context "the Somoza government" is going to be very unclear to anyone who doesn't know the history, since it refers to government by at least three different members of the Somoza family; linking to one of them does not really clarify.

Further, Sandino was not the first to oppose Anastasio Somoza Delbayle, just the first to lead an armed opposition. - Jmabel | Talk 00:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


You're thinking of Archbishop Oscar Romero, not Ramos. I recall another incident when Pope John Paul II visited Nicaragua and would not let the Sandinistas kiss his ring because of the blood on their hands. Later at mass, he had to ask the crowd to quiet down, the only time he ever yelled at an audience of one of his sermons?

_Marco Murillo (DC)

'scuse me? This seems to have nothing to do with comment. - Jmabel | Talk 06:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What a mess!

The article is turning into a mess! Multiple reference sections, repeated information, that often contradicts itself, and boatloads of uncited material. Probably needs a rewrite. Suggestions for improvement?Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how taking out all references to the election of 1984 makes for a better article.SmokeyTheFatCat 21:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

References to the 84 elections were kept. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope they were all gone until I reinstated a mention.SmokeyTheFatCat 21:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I though I only removed the contradictory ones, oh well my bad I guess. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Mitrokhin Material, and objections to it

What objections, specifically, do you have to either the factual conclusions, or the use of Mitrokhin’s material? No one has seriously questions any of it, and it is all derived from primary sources, namely documents he copied and smuggled out in the early 90’s. Please be specific, as much of this was discussed in a prior thread, Talk:Sandinista National Liberation Front#Recent Edits, and objectionable material was removed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I skimmed the previous thread. The objections I have remain, and are the following. This is a book written by two persons, one of which is presumambly (I don't know) ex-KGB. All the information mentioned would be pretty much conclusive, except they are based on what one person says, and it seems to me we have to take his word for it. These documents that he copied, has anyone else seen them and/or verified them?
P.S. I only just saw your post, as I was looking in all the wrong places...
--Atavi 15:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Mitrokhin is a former KGB archivist. The book was written by one person, Christopher Andrew, based on Mitrokhin's archival material and interivews with him .MI6 reviewed the material and the author of the book Andrew is the official historian of MI6 and teaches at Oxford. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The Mitrokhin material is crank theory. Has anyone noticed that Mitrokhin's material used in the FLSN article closely hews to the plot of the fictional movie, Red Dawn? The allegations Mitrokhin, a down on his luck unemployed intelligence officer, make have never been confirmed by a third party. Until there is third party confirmation of Mitrokhin's fantastic claims, they should be considered crank theory. The American Historical Review puts Mitrokhin and his incredible and uncorroborated material in context:

(106:2, April 2001): "Mitrokhin was a self-described loner with increasingly anti-Soviet views . . . Maybe such a potentially dubious type (in KGB terms) really was able freely to transcribe thousands of documents, smuggle them out of KGB premises, hide them under his bed, transfer them to his country house, bury them in milk cans, make multiple visits to British embassies abroad, escape to Britain, and then return to Russia, and carry the voluminous work to the west, all without detection by the KGB . . . It may all be true. But how do we know?."

Abe Froman 20:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Funny what the ...'s often leave out as far as "context" goes:
Vasili Mitrokhin worked as a KGB officer from 1948 until his retirement in 1984. Disillusioned by Soviet repression of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and influenced by the dissident movement in Moscow, Mitrokhin spent the last twelve years of his career secretly transcribing materials from the KGB's foreign intelligence archives, where he worked. In 1992, he emigrated to Britain with his secret archive documenting KGB overseas espionage around the world over several decades. Christopher Andrew, a prolific writer on Soviet intelligence, collaborated with Mitrokhin to produce this massive 700-page volume.
The book is a fascinating read. Separate chapters deal with Soviet espionage in individual countries, and the book provides both new detail on known events as well as a few sensational revelations. In correcting old stories, Mitrokhin's research shows, for example, that it was Arnold Deutsch who recruited the famous "Cambridge Five" in the 1930s, rather than Alexander Orlov. The "Odessa Partisans," heroes in the Soviet pantheon of World War II, were supposed to have heroically fought the Nazi occupiers to the last man but turn out to have quarreled with one another in their caves and executed each other as often as the Nazis did.
Clearly the reviewer found one hell of alot more to like in the review than to dislike, although we will never know because the article in question is only open to subscribers of the AHA. Would you like me to cite from one of the thousands of other favorable reviews on the subject? Also, many of Mitrokhin claims have been verified by third parties, including much of what was revealed about KGB operations in India. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Who corroborates Mitrokhin's absurd claims regarding FSLN infiltration at the US border, KGB orchestration, etc. Mitrokhin's allegations are also in the plot of the movie, Red Dawn, as you are no doubt well aware. You Wolverine, you.  :-) Abe Froman 21:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction, but that does not make it any less true. Outside of the one, grossly out of context book review you posted, you have yet to present any credible evidence that the material in Andrew’s book is bad, while I could bring countless recommendations for it in its entirety.
And there does appear to be corroboration. On Fonseca bieng a KGB agent, Hearings Before the Committee on International Relations, hearings May 3rd, 1978. On the FSLN's sabotage and scout teams see United States Congressional Housee Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Military Research and Development Report, ISBN: 0160605016. Corroborated ? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Respond to the request, please. Who has corroborated Mitrokhin's fantastic claims regarding FSLN infiltration to the US border, KGB orchestration, etc. I am concerned a movie plot based on Red Dawn has been recycled by a crank and regurgitated back onto Wikipedia as fact. Abe Froman 21:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Link, please. Citations should be immediately verifiable. Abe Froman 21:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I have differnet research tools available to me than you do. Corroboration for the FSLN infiltration to the US border can be found in the United States Congressional Housee Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Military Research and Development Report, ISBN: 0160605016; page 42. Go to a library if you dont beleive me. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
So TDC is somehow able to post fantastic claims on Wikipedia, but can only cite research in library card catalogs to support them? This Mitrokhin information is crank theory, and possibly lifted from a major motion picture. What verifiable sources, the kind you can click, corroborate it? Spevifically, FSLN infiltration to the US border, KGB orchestration, etc. Abe Froman 22:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You asked for corroboration, and I gave you corroboration. If you dont want to take the time to look into the congressional record, and if you dont want to take my word for it, thats too bad. As said previously, no one has raised serious questions about Andrew's work. It fits the criteria for WP:V and WP:RS, you are beating a dead horse, no one is doubting this material except for you. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll wait 24 hours before removing the passages on FSLN infiltration to the US border, KGB orchestration, etc. Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence, and TDC's citations do not even mention page numbers in his single sourced allegations. Abe Froman 23:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, could you at least please look at the previously discussions I had with Jmabel and Viajero, and neither of them objected. You will remove nothing, because the material is well cited to a very reputable source. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I have. Other than a single possibly crank source, and citations that seem to be unverifiable from the internet, I cannot corroborate FSLN infiltration to the US border, KGB orchestration, etc. Incredible claims need sound evidence. I do not see that standard being met re: FSLN infiltration to the US border, KGB orchestration, etc. Abe Froman 04:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I really don't know much about this Mitrokhin. I only found about him through this article. But if User:TDC cites a Congress reference, I believe it is legitimate, and should be verified. Unfortunately I can't do it myself, as I don't live in the U.S. Maybe someone else can? --Atavi 09:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
TDC's source is not congress, but a crackpot (Mitrokhin) and his editor. He sports Congress as corroboration, but cannot seem to find a citation verifiable online. Even if there was congressional testimony, I seriously doubt it confirms what Mitrokhin has to say. I think the allegations of FSLN infiltration to the US border, KGB orchestration, etc are paranoid fantasy. That is why I am seeking corroboration for these incredible claims. Abe Froman 12:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Congress has generated millions of pages of testimony and it is not surprising that I could not find a web link, but surprising even myself, I did [20]! Aside from the Sandinistan teams sent out to reconnoiter targets in the southwest it also describes infiltration and sabotage teams sent to Flathead Dam in Montana. They also talk about KGB/GRU arms caches that were planted in many NATO countries (several of which have been found and the Russian have admitted to placing them there). And why would it be so improbable that the KGB would use their FSLN assets to do the same work along the US/Mexican border? At the time, 1966, the FSLN wasn’t doing much of anything in Nicaragua, and the KGB had all these assets and agents, like Fonseca, basically sitting around doing nothing, why not put them to good use. But this conversation is truly pointless, I have provided my citation, and it is certainly considered reliable. You have provided nothing but a lot of rhetoric. Out of all the editors who have weighed in on this, none have objected after it was discussed; that’s called a consensus, please recognize this and abide by it. Unless you can site some credible or notable individual from a WP:RS that refutes this, it stays. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. The person testifying to Congress in the citation is quoting Mitrokhin, "Mr. Mitrokhin also transcribed..." One of the people testifying is actually the author of the book itself. This is repetition, not corroboration. Who has independently verified Mitrokhin's claims? He is the sole source for the FSLN infiltration to the US border, KGB orchestration passage so far. Fantastic claims need excellent evidence. So far, we have a single crank. Abe Froman 16:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The person testifying is Christopher Andrew, Official Historian of MI6. He is the one who verified Mitrokhin's documents. From The Secret History Of The CIA; Joseph Trento (hardly a right wing source):
" We know the Mitrokhin material is real because it fills in the gaps in Western files on major cases through 1985. Also, the operational material marches western electronic intercepts and agent reports. What MI6 got for a little kindness and a pension was the crown jewels of Russian intelligence."
We could play this game all day, but you cannot remove sourced material from a WP:RS because you personally don’t agree with it (or more likely don’t want to believe/don’t want other people to see it). Removal of properly cited material, material that conforms to WP:RS and WP:V is vandalism. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Without weighing in on the immediate matter at hand (I haven't read the cited material), there is absolutely no requirement that one cite online material. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. - Jmabel | Talk 06:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Fonseca, Sandinistas, KGB

Following,

There isn't really space or time here to get into content and verifiability, but "nobody notable is disputing it" sounds very weak to me for such a claim. Such tendentious editing, while it may be a problem if TDC keeps it up, is not a breach of his current restrictions. Use normal dispute resolution to resolve this. --Tony Sidaway 15:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought I would begin a discussion about the issue. As I said earlier:

KGB agent, retaining them in another section ("Early Years"). This was reverted by Torturous Devastating Cudgel saying noone notable is disputing it. In my view, allegations such as this need notable backing and not notable disputing. And as far as I know the only backing is from a book by Mitrokhin. If there are other references that he was a KGB agent, they should be introduced in the article (and I will of course accept them) Atavi 15:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Sorry about putting this in your user page (oops!). I meant to put this in your talk page! Sorry again, it was sloppy of me.--Atavi 15:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Mitrokhin and Andrew are extremely credible sources. This material has recently been the focus of parliamentary investigation in both Italy and India. I dont understand why this is so contentious. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I moved all of the discussion here, so we would both look in one place.--Atavi 15:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


I think that you have indeed provided an answer to my concerns (not conclusive though) by saying that there have been parliamentary investigations in Italy and India. I will try to find some things and will get back.
One of the reasons, I was initially so negative about this book is because I did not know about its origin (ex-spy). From the title it seemed like a book by less than credible sources.
I did a little web searching and I must admit that this Mitrokhin source seems quite reliable. His information could have resulted in prosecutions.
I must apologize for being so suspicious and adding comments on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement.
I was wary of your edits because I was a bit idealistic about the Sandinistas , and because someone else had recently deleted all entries relevant to U.S. support of the Contras in the Contras article.
I kind of saw this as a follow-up, swayed by the fact that you edited about the Contras as well, although it appears it was certainly not anything like.
Again, apologies, and I will post a relevant message in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement.
---Atavi 16:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, no problem if we got off on the wrong foot. The miscommunication was mutual. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, then. :) -Atavi 17:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I think that the article about Fonseca as it is, with "alleged KGB" in the introduction is how it should be, although if you want to discuss it further I'm open.-Atavi 16:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Who says Mitrokhin's a "reliable" witness? Simply because prosecutions might arise from a literary work that involved the collaboration between someone who calls himself a "KGB defector" (absolutely unverifiable) and an admitted agent of MI6, one of the most active propaganda and intelligence organizations in Europe? Come, come, now -- unless there is verifiable academic sourcing for these assertions, they should at the very least remain qualified in the article. Media figures and politicians are no less liable to the artistry of a good con -- and far more likely to be targetted -- than any other Joe Blow. 61.231.8.107 14:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I purport to be skeptic, many times I tend to be naïve as to believing what someone who appears credible has to say. It had scarcely occured to me that this might all be propaganda on the part of MI6. Everything's in the game I guess.--Atavi 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Everyone who has commented on Mitrokhin has deemed him to be reliable and have noted quite favorably on his material. So far there has yet to be one cited example of someone credible or notable who has cast doubt on he and Andrew’s work. As far as this information being cited to credible academic source, please look at the article citations again. Christopher Andrew is Professor of Modern and Contemporary History, Former Chair of the History Faculty at Cambridge University, Official Historian of the Security Service (MI5), Honorary Air Commodore of 7006 Squadron (Intelligence) in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, Chair of the British Intelligence Study Group, and former Visiting Professor at Harvard, Toronto and Canberra. If this is not a qualified academic and notable source, I don’t know what is.
While it may be your personal belief that Andrew and Mitrokhin are part of some conspiracy to defame and misinform, you have yet to provide any meaningful citation of this, and as such, speculations like this belong in talk, not in the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Still waiting on that 3rd party corroboration of Mitrokhin's claims. 15 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, you'd think someone other than Mitrokhin or his immediately involved authors/researchers would have some confirmation of his fantastic claims of KGB/Nicaraguan sabotage in America. Abe Froman 21:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The odes is on you to present evidence that Andrew's scholarship and material is not credible, not the other way around. Andrew's stature in academia as well as the positive reviews he has received for his work speak for themselves. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Who other than Mitrokhin and his researchers and authors support this incredible claim? The American Historical Review takes a dim view of Mitrokhin's lone-wolf allegations, which 15 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, have yet to find backers outside Mitrokhin's circle. Abe Froman 22:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
As shown above, the citation of the American Historical Review was taken slightly out of context. But some more examples:
The Secret History Of The CIA; Joseph Trento:
" We know the Mitrokhin material is real because it fills in the gaps in Western files on major cases through 1985. Also, the operational material marches western electronic intercepts and agent reports. What MI6 got for a little kindness and a pension was the crown jewels of Russian intelligence."
Jack Straw
Thousands of leads from Mr Mitrokhin's material have been followed up world wide. As a result, our intelligence and security agencies, in cooperation with allied governments, have been able to put a stop to many security threats. Many unsolved investigations have been closed; many earlier suspicions confirmed; and some names and reputations have been cleared. Our intelligence and security agencies have assessed the value of Mr Mitrokhin's material world wide as immense
Of course, if we actually read the article that TDC referenced above, we arrive at the following conclusion (which TDC of course has conveniently omitted):
To what extent could Vasili Mitrokhin be considered a trustworthy source with access to sensitive details regarding the KGB's operations abroad?
Mitrokhin served in the operational division of the Foreign Intelligence Directorate of the KGB till 1956. He was then removed from the operational division because of his unsatisfactory performance and posted in the Archives in which he continued to function till his retirement in 1985 -- that is, for a total of 29 years.
During this period, he was not posted abroad again. Nor was he sent out on foreign travel. This speaks of his poor professional reputation in the organisation.
Would a man considered incompetent and untrustworthy for operational work be put in a job where every day he would have access to hundreds of sensitive operational files? Unlikely. What the Russians call Archives is called the Record Room by other countries.That is where, all files in which no action is required any longer are sent for safekeeping.
So he was an archivist ... like he said ... very good ... continue. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
All intelligence agencies more or less follow the same rules of security in order to safeguard the identities of their sources and the modus operandi of the operation. ... If Mitrokhin's story is to be believed, none of these security precautions were followed in the KGB. ...
According to him, it took 12 years for all the files to be transferred from one building to another, thereby giving him adequate time to go through many of them and take down notes. One finds it very difficult to believe all this. ...
The Mitrokhin notes and the two books based on it written by Andrew are part of the MI-6's psywar against Russia.
Does the book add anything to our knowledge of the techniques followed by the KGB?
It does not. ... Amongst the techniques identified by it are the collection of intelligence from bureaucrats through the use of money and women, softening political leaders through offers of money and election funding, and manipulation of the media and use of disinformation to undermine the influence of other countries. These are classic intelligence techniques followed by intelligence agencies from the day the profession was born. There is nothing special about them in the case of the erstwhile USSR or the present day Russia, the US, the UK or any other country
What is the counter-intelligence value of the details (presuming they are correct) given by Mitrokhin?
Zilch.
In short, the author of the article that TDC cited above expressly refutes the conclusions that TDC is trying to draw regarding the credibility of Mitrokhin's and Andrew's claims. --Sheldon Rampton 03:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thats cute, but you might want to continue after the "zilch", lest someone suggest you ommited something:
Zilch.
Most of the information given by him relate to alleged operations of the 1950s,the 1960s and the 1970s. The individuals involved in those operations are either dead or no longer active. His information is more of historical than current operational interest and value.
History? Like this article! And who was the author, Bahukutumbi Raman! While he was in the government in charg of security, the KGB ran amock in India! Imagine my suprise that he would try to cast doubt on Andrew considering how poorly this reflects on tenure. But you notice he never goes so far as to say that Andrew and Mitrokin are wrong or lying, only that the revelations should be taken "cautiously. That was a nice try, but like I said, this aint sourcewatch. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I might also add that the above article adds nothing. Raman's point is that Mitrokin could not have access to operational files, and guess what, he didn't! He was an archivist, and all the files he had were archives, old operations which had ended, thats why there is little mater past the early 80's. Your article demonstrates nothing. But I have got to give you credit for trying your best to twist the facts at hand. Sure, most people might not know the difference between operational and archival files in the KGB's structure, but you manage to obsfucate the two, to confuse. Nice try. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
If Raman's main thrust was that Mitrokin's information on the KGB's penetration of the Indian government of Indira Gandi was not true, perhaps we will let the head of the Delhi KGB elaborate: "The embassy and our intelligence service saw all this, but for Moscow Indira became India, and India Indira."[21]. Oh, well, I guess I will have to wait for the white paper. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
David Leigh in the Guardian
Once the British intelligence agencies had finished with Mitrokhin, they then briefed other friendly intelligence services, firstly the Americans. With hindsight, we can now see Mitrokhin's hand in the sudden arrest by the FBI in February 1996 of Robert Lipka, a former employee of the super-secret code-breaking organisation, the National Security Agency. Long before in the 1960s, Lipka had, it turned out, been selling details of US troop movements in Vietnam to the Soviets.
Here, TDC conveniently omits David Leigh's observation that "the perils of sensationalised spy dossiers were instantly revealed" after "misleading leaks" based on Mitrokhin's documents and that some of Mitrokhin's allegations "may need to be treated with caution."
Robert Siegel of NPR
A trove of the Soviet Union's darkest secrets was smuggled out of Russia in 1992. Vasili Mitrokhin, a former archivist for the KBG, defected to the West, bringing with him tens of thousands of pages documenting the whole history of KGB spying.
Pravda
The story started 13 years ago, when the chairman of the KGB archive department, Vasili Mitrokhin, escaped to Great Britain. The intelligence officer took a big file of documents along. The papers contained secret information about the activity of Soviet special services from 1918 to 1980. When the officer was working in the department, he simply copied the files that he found most interesting. In spite of the fact that Mitrokhin left Russia in 1992, the information that the officer had at his disposal was disclosed just a short while ago.
Needless to say that the publication of the book provoked an international scandal. A new scandal is gathering steam in Italy: Soviet nuclear torpedoes are said to have been resting at the coasts of the Italian peninsula for 35 years. The submarine of the Central Intelligence Department and the maritime intelligence placed more than ten torpedoes on the bottom of the Gulf of Naples in January of 1970. The operation was repeated three months later. Italian experts, who studied the information of Mitrokhin’s archives, say that there are about 20 nukes resting on the seafloor close to the Italian coast. The nukes were supposed to be put into action with the help of satellite communication.
The Tribune of India
Vasily Mitrokhin, who died in 2004, was a KGB operative, who worked in the intelligence agency’s archives from 1956 to 1985. He copied documents and defected to the West in 1992, just after the Soviet Union disintegrated. The two volumes of the “Mitrokhin Archives” reflect the realities of Cold War rivalries in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. The Soviets then funded political parties, politicians, newspapers, trade unions, journalists and front organisations like the Indo-Soviet Cultural Society to influence Indian policies. The Americans acted similarly, but in a more subtle and discreet manner.
Needless to say, your claims of dubiuous credibilty are on rather poor ground. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Those sources above merely repeat Mitrokhin's fantasies. That is repetition, not corroboration. Who has found Mitrokhin was correct, independently of his book? There has been 15 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall to find out. Apparently, from the dearth of corroboration, nobody has backed Mitrokhin's incredible claims. Abe Froman 22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Contras a proxy army

TDC edited out mentions of the fact that the contras were a proxy army that primarily engaged in terrorist attacks against civilian targets, calling them "unsourced." Here's a source:

  • Chamorro, Edgar. (1987). Packaging the Contras: A Case of CIA Disinformation. New York: Institute for Media Analysis. ISBN 0941781089; ISBN 0941781070.

Edgar Chamorro was a former member of the contra directorate who became disillusioned after being given the CIA's now-infamous instruction manual giving advice on how the contras should conduct economic sabotage and terrorism. His book thoroughly documents both the fact that the contras were a U.S. proxy army, and the fact that they avoided confrontations with the Sandinista army and focused instead on terrorist attacks against civilian targets. Both of these facts are well-supported by numerous other contemporaneous reports, including for example reports by human rights groups such as Amnesty International or Americas Watch. --Sheldon Rampton 17:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, thats good, now at least we have something we can attribute this to. But the language is still problematic. Labeling the Contras as a "proxy army organized, funded and supported by the United States" is clearly misleading. It ignores the initial foundation of the Contra movement, which, by all accounts was an indigenous movement comprised of several groups. Was Edén Pastora, for example, part of the CIA's proxy army in 1979 when he split ranks with the FSLN an opposed them? The language is a not too subtle attempt to turn the Contras into nothing more than an extension of US foreign policy in the region. Sure, the US (and Argentina ... why arent the Contras called an Argentinean proxy army, but I digress) aid was instrumental in keeping the Contra movement a viable thorn in the FSLN's side, but that is already addressed. And, interestingly enough, the death blow to the Somoza regime was the embargo that the Carter administration placed on it in 1979. And, if its all right to call the Contra's a "proxy army" based on the US support after they were founded, woult it then be alright to call the FSLN a Soviet puppet considering Fonseca's line of work?
As far as the word terrorist goes, this is not sourcewatch, and loaded terms like that have to be handled in as unbiased a manner as possible. I still think its redundant, seeing as how there is an entire subsection in the article that discusses this.
Interesting though, you never commented on the material above.
I will rewrite and reincorporate the material. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The contas may not have been started by the United States, but it is common knowledge who was paying the bills. Federal dollars, and drug money. Abe Froman 00:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Thats right the US did not start the Contra movement, but the KGB did start the FSLN. How do we work that into the article Abe? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I cannot support the inclusion of the movie plot from Red Dawn as fact into this article. The KGB didn't pay attention to FSLN until they were already there. So TDC has a single crank source who says otherwise. It fits into the predictable as the rain Fox News worldview he espouses. But 15 years since the fall of the USSR, and not a single shred of corroborating evidence to back TDC's crank, Mitrokhin, up over KGB incubation of FSLN? It is not credible, it's fantasy. Abe Froman 03:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep beating the horse Abe, but no one else agrees with you. Its notable, its verified, and it is most certainly relevant. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not true that no one else agrees with Abe, and TDC should stop using this kind of hectoring, insulting language. I agree with him that Mitrokhin's claims are controversial and certainly suspect at best with regard to the notion that the Sandinistas ever attempted any kind of "intelligence and sabotage" operation inside or even near U.S. borders.

If you have any citation that casts doubt on this, you are more than welcome to present it. As the citation says, the Sandinistas under control of the KGB were here to reconnoiter targets, not act out on them. They were surveillance teams, the Soviets admitted to sending many of these to the Northern regions of the United States as well. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why TDC finds it "interesting" that I "never commented on the material above." Unlike him, I'm not obsessed with this article. He comes back several times a day to hector people on the talk page, to insert poorly researched, tendentious and factually flawed claims, always aimed at inserting his point of view ("Sandinistas = communist conspiracy = bad"). I, on the other hand, rarely edit this article and rarely comment on the talk page.

In response to TDC's refusal to recognize that the contras were a "proxy army," I've added a reference to an essay from the National Security Archives, which quotes former Edgar Chamorro as follows: "We were a proxy army, directed, funded, receiving all intelligence and suggestions, from the CIA. We had no plan for Nicaragua, we were working for American goals." As a member of the contra directorate, Chamorro was certainly in a better position to know whereof he spoke than for example Mitrokhin, who had no direct role in shaping Soviet policy toward the Sandinistas and whose claims are all based on his interpretations of documents whose authenticity remains unproven.

Edgar Chamorro’s statements are his personal opinion, notable yes, but an opinion just the same. The article has to make that clear. Mitrokhin may not have had any roll in shaping Soviet policy toward the Sandinistas, but he did get to see all the juicy details. As for the authenticity of his material, I could provide hundreds of citations that speak very favorably of his and Andrew’s work. This combined with parliamentary commissions in India and Italy, the revelation about Salvador Allende as well as Andrew’s credentials speak louder than the voices of dissent from a Wikipedia talk page. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've retained TDC's mention of the role played by Argentina's military dictatorship in supporting the contras. It's true that they were involved early. Most scholars regard Argentina as an agent of U.S. policy in this regard, but Ariel C. Armony has argued that Argentina was acting on its own initiative rather than as a U.S. surrogate. In any case, I have no objection to noting that the contras' other support came from a military junta that killed thousands of its own citizens and then went to war with Britain over the Falkland Islands.

As for TDC's objection to the use of the word "terrorism," this is an accurate description of the contras' main strategy, and it is incorrect for TDC to write that avoiding attacks on the military is somehow reflective of "classical insurgency techniques aimed at civilian populations." As Wikipedia's article on guerrilla warfare states, "Guerrillas in wars against foreign powers do not principally direct their attacks at civilians, as they desire to obtain as much support as possible from the population as part of their tactics." However, terrorists do use "violence, or threat of violence targeted against innocents or non-combatants ... to bring about compliance with specific political, religious, ideological, and personal demands." Indeed, the targeting of civilian noncombatants is precisely what distinguishes terrorism from other types of warfare. If TDC wishes to argue against this meaning for the word "terrorist," perhaps he can show us where he has tried to make similar arguments against the use of this term in reference to Hezbollah or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Otherwise, I'll have no choice but to conclude that this is just another example of someone objecting to the word "terrorist" when the terrorist in question happens to be someone they like.

Please refer to WP:Words to avoid#Terrorist.2C terrorism for the guidelines. If the Sandinistas, guilty of the same charge of “terrorism” on the indigenous populations that they label the Contras, did call them terrorists or their actions terrorism, then it has to be attributed, as per the guidelines. Once again, I have to remind you that this is not Sourcewatch. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I've revised TDC's absurd claim that "the Sandinistas' long history and growing ties with the Soviet Union and Cuba" made "peaceful alignment and cooperation with the U.S. ... impossible." It certainly wasn't impossible. There are numerous examples of countries that managed to have peaceful alignment and cooperation with the U.S. and the Soviet bloc simultaneously, so this clearly wasn't "impossible." Examples range from Finland to India. Another (quite deplorable) example is the peaceful alignment and cooperation that both the U.S. and USSR provided to Saddam Hussein's regime during the Iran-Iraq war. --Sheldon Rampton 06:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the FSLN’s leadership was comprised of KGB agents and that the FSLN were Soviet/Cuban puppets, peaceful alignment and cooperation was impossible. Carter thought it was possible and made an attempt, fortunately for Nicaragua, Reagan knew better. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Just to add an endorsement to the "proxy army" issue. I agree. Since the U.S. funded the contras and provided training (through the CIA), both facts being strongly documented, the term proxy army is supported. --Atavi 09:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Does this mean that the FSLN was a Soviet/Cuban proxy army until they rose to power? Same logic applies. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Different situations. Unless TDC sees the Contras and FSLN as the same army. Abe Froman 21:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
No, not different situations, both were, at one time a guerrilla movement organized and funded by a superpower. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps from a conspiracy theory point of view. But from a more rational perspective, both movements started out of local conditions, and the superpowers supported them later for their own reasons afterward. Abe Froman 21:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Partialy true. The Contras were started out of local conditions and then supported by the US. The FSLN was started by a KGB agent, and supported by the USSR. That means that the USSR had a direct role in the formation of the FSLN. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The FSLN was started by Nicaraguans. A single crank source, Vasily Mitrokhin, may say otherwise. But since no third party has endorsed his view, I find it safe to ignore it. Abe Froman 22:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Since neither one of us will budge, I suppose its off to mediation. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"The Threat of a Good Example"

There was a very good book/pamphlet of this title published by Oxfam some 20 years ago, long since out of print, in robust defence of the Sandinistas. Sandinista policies (land reform, literacy campaigns, healthcare provision etc.) were very popular among the people but threatened the profits of United Fruit(Dole) and Del Monte by taking some of their vast estates of land and redistrubuting them to the landless poor. Such a scheme of government would have been very popular throughout Central America and the Carribean. This was not acceptable to the Reagan administration and so all the nonsense about the 'Soviet threat' was made up and the Contras hugely supported. As was the case in Chile 10 years earlier profits for US-based multinationals were more important than human life.SmokeyTheFatCat 18:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

RFC

A dispute currently exists over the inclusion of material from Vasili Mitrokhin. Does the material conform with WP:RS and should details relevant to the subject be included in the article without prejudice?

Discuss. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No need for discussion, see pages above. Simply provide third party corroboration of Mitrokhin's fantastic claims. Not repetition. Not Vasily's author or hangers-on. 15 years since the USSR fell, someone must have corroborated Mitrokhin, if what he claimed about the FSLN sabotaging the United States from within were true. Abe Froman 01:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I did see above and this was settled some time ago. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Then why the need for this RFC. Just provide links to satisfy the above, third party corroboration FSLN was sabotaging inside the US. Links that merely repeat Mitrokhin's fantasy novel will not do. Abe Froman 08:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Human rights abuses

I've removed the following paragraph from the human rights abuses section:

Another tactic used by the Sandinistas was the indiscriminate shelling of towns recently captured by the Contras, an action which was viewed by many as "punishment." This Sandinista practice resulted in the Reagan Administration issuing orders to the Contra to stop further capture of cities and to concentrate on a "wasting" war while the U.S. was outspending the Soviet Union into bankruptcy, effectively curtailing the military support to the Sandinistas.

I'm unaware of any evidence suggesting that this was the case. Moreover, it is highly implausible. During the entire war, the Contras never held a city for so much as a day. I remember during the late 1980s there was an incident when this fact was being discussed during congressional debates, with members of Congress saying that they were reluctant to approve further funding for a military insurgency that had shown no ability to capture or hold territory for any significant period of time. Moreover, Soviet support for the Sandinistas continued until they lost power in the 1990 elections, so the notion that "outspending the Soviet Union into bankruptcy" curtailed military support to the Sandinistas runs contrary to known facts. This whole paragraph seems to me to be nothing but ideologically-motivated fantasy, and if someone wants to restore it, they have an obligation to provide credible citations for it. --Sheldon Rampton 06:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Cuban Sections

TDC, I sense your influence on this article in the Cuban influence sections. While no one doubts the importance of Cuban teachers, doctors, and others in the Sandinista’s programs, there are a few sections that need citation. There are also a few sections that seem to be tendentiously written.

“By 1970 the DGI had managed to train hundreds of Sandinista guerrilla leaders and had vast influence over the organization,” you write. “Vast” is an evaluative word that rarely belongs in an encyclopedia article, especially when it is such a powerful assertion about something that is little known and impossible to objectively measure: you’re talking about the influnce of the DGI on the Sandinista organization.

You follow by noting that the DGI’s influence after 1979, apparently already “vast,” still managed to expand “rapidly.” Your proof? Nicaragua and Cuba re-established diplomatic relations. And a DGI agent was named as the ambassador to Cuba. I’m sure you’re well aware that the CIA regularly operates out of US foreign embassies. I just don’t see how your characterizations are supported by the evidence you present.

You go on to present Álvaro Baldizón, a Sandinista defector I’ve never heard of, as the source of the amazing allegation that Cuban “advice” was treated as if it were “orders” by the Sandinistas in contact with the “over 2,500” DGI operatives “at all levels of the Nicaraguan government.” You use one defector to support the allegation that, apparently, the entire Nicaraguan government was a puppet regime of the Cubans. You are talking about a situation that is almost impossible to objectively measure and so it’s questionable if it should be an encyclopedia article at all. Your support for your amazing argument, again, is a single defector.

Later on you provide such unsourced and amazingly evaluative gems as this: “While the Cubans would like to have helped more in the development of Nicaragua towards socialism, they realized that they were no match for the United States' pressure on Latin America.” They realized they were no match for the United States? Really? When did Fidel say that?

Defying rational belief, it goes on. Again, unsourced: “The commission has overseen approximately 300 million dollars (U.S) between the years 1979 and 1987 in assistance to Nicaragua and according to Prevost it does not include military aid or the cost for schooling Nicaraguans in Cuba.” I assume somewhere in Prevost’s writing you can find this figure. I wonder, however, if, in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, it would be possible to find any article anywhere that asserts a fact and cites a single author who wrote a book on the subject as the source (in the article, no less).

Another fact I’ve never seen: “Critics of the campaign contend that this effort was thinly disguised communist indoctrination, and point to the fact that elementary school books taught basic mathematics with illustrations of hand grenades.”

You cite Prevost so many times, in these and following paragraphs, that I begin to get the feeling that you are student writing a book report.

I don’t want you to think I’m picking on you. The paragraph about the Mitrokin Archive was obviously written by one of your detractors and contemptuously sums up Mitrokin’s work and dismisses it. I don’t see how that tone belongs in wikipedia either. I just mention the Cuban parts (apparently written by you) because they are such a glaring departure from what an encyclopedia article should look like.

I could find a book written by someone who published in a relatively mainstream press to argue anything I wanted: from “the CIA staged the moon landing on a stage in Burbank” to authors who denied the existence of the Holocaust. Encyclopedia articles should cover information that is widely known by governments and non-governmental agencies with a neutral point of view. --MarkB2 22:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Real quick, I did not write most of what you are attributing to me. The section on Cuba underscores the influence they had on the FSLN, but that is the only section I wrote in its entirety. I have been working on a major re-write of the article for a few weeks and will put it up when It is finished. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure the Sandinistas would be overjoyed to know that a guy with a devotional picture of Ronald Reagan illustrating his homepage will be writing their Wikipedia article. Please condense the Cuban sections, if you can, and delete or cite sources for the evaluative (i.e., editorial) parts.--MarkB2 07:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights again

I've restored the human rights section that was deleted recently by an anonymous IP number. However, I've rewritten it somewhat, in particular a passage which alleged that Amnesty International had documented abuses in prison. While it's true that Amnesty documented a number of human rights abuses committed under the Sandinistas, I don't believe that their reports described the specific abuses mentioned in the paragraph I removed. Also, AI and other human rights groups noted a number of positive achievements and reforms by the Sandinistas in the area of human rights, so I've noted those as well.

It appears that someone (perhaps the same individual) has blanked the contents of the FSLN human rights abuses article. I haven't restored it, because the contents that were blanked are clearly problematic and extremely POV. For starters, they rely exclusively on right-wing sources. Moreover, the blanked contents go well beyond the claims made even by those right-wing sources. For example, the article relies on a Heritage Foundation article which alleges persecution of Jews, and claims that "Nicaragua was and is home to many Jews" — a claim that is contradicted by the Heritage article. In fact, Nicaragua's Jewish population was very small. (The Heritage article says the total Jewish population in Nicaragua shortly before the revolution was only 200.) The section on Jean-Paul Genie also contains a number of glaring inaccuracies, and the article throughout is marred by numerous spelling errors and other obvious flaws.

I think it would be fine to have a sub-article examining the Sandinista human rights record, but it should be based on reputable human rights observers such as Amnesty International, America's Watch or Human Rights Watch — not on ultra-rightist publications such as FrontPage Magazine. Also, it should have a less POV name. Instead of "FSLN human rights abuses," I would suggest "Sandinista human rights record." --Sheldon Rampton 04:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd bet that what with solidarity volunteers, the FSLN brought far more than 200 Jews into Nicaragua. I personally have known four who spent significant time there in those years. - Jmabel | Talk 06:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
For that matter, Herty Lewites, who was a respected Sandinista figure (Minister of Tourism during the 1980s, later mayor of Managua and a rival of Daniel Ortega's in the current presidential election until his untimely death from a heart attack) was also Jewish. --Sheldon Rampton 23:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Multiple Inconsistencies in Article

I don't even know where to begin. There are plenty of errors. Names, dates and historical data are inaccurate. This article needs to be rewritten asap. I don't know if the author himself has ever been in Nicaragua. There is a lot of imagination involved in this... crap... sorry but I can't find another word for this.

For example, The "Group of Twelve," a group of "indignant businessmen????," are pictured as "bandidos" that stole money from Somoza that was originally intended to feed and to clothe the homeless after the 1972 earthquake... Hm, wait a minute... wasn't the Group of Twelve founded five years later by initiave of the FSLN? Where they not a group of intelectuals and prominent figures from Nicaraguan society in those years?

Or later on when Carlos Fonseca and Daniel Ortega (in a post-Somoza Nicaragua) acknowledged that the FSLN owed a great debt to Cuba. Eh.... wasn't Fonseca assassinated by the Guardia Nacional, three years before the FSLN took power in Nicaragua??? Now, suddenly, the author of this article is a psychic and we didn't know!!! Talkin' about ghosts...

And so further... I can go on and on and on... but I think you got the point... Rewrite! ASAP!

--Magicartpro 07:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is that people with intense ideology by no real knowledge about the topic keep trying to inject their POV into the article. I don't have time to clean it all up myself, but I hope you will. --Sheldon Rampton 23:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the nonsense you mentioned about the Twelve. It's absurd. Out of curiosity, I reviewed the history of this article to see when this stuff got inserted. Here's the diff from the date when it was created: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front&diff=prev&oldid=33476530
The individual who added it was an anonymous editor, IP #69.57.107.4, who also added some other completely ridiculous nonsense about supposed Sandinista Russian-style human wave attacks on Contra machine gun nests. I deleted that stuff when I noticed it, but unfortunately am not in the habit of reading this article closely throughout. Given that the Twelve didn't even exist as a group at the time of the 1972 earthquake, I'd say it is safe to delete that passage in its entirety. --Sheldon Rampton 23:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll give this a article a try when I have some time. I'm currently updating some info and expanding the articles on the Nicaraguan municipalities. The first suggestion I can think of is shortening the introduction a bit and leave only two paragraphs.

Paragraph 1: Keep it. (The Sandinista National... ...he was never a Marxist)

Paragraph 2: (The Sandinistas were the product of three disparate social and ideological groups) is inaccurate. The FSLN split into three factions in the 70's. Suggestion; Delete.

Paragraph 3 & 4: (After emerging... and During this nascent period) belongs, the first to the section Sandinistas vs. Contras and the second to Opposition (since 1990)

Paragraph 5: Keep it. (Today the FSLN remains ... ...has left a lasting impression in the country)

Magicartpro 00:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


History 1961–1970

My observations on the History 1961–1970 section. Maybe to much to read for you, but if you all agree I will begin editing this first part and the introduction. Let me know. Cheers!

The original text is in cursive.

The Sandinistas were initially several disparate groups that came together from various Nicaraguan regions to cooperate in the overthrow of the Somoza regime. In general, the groups were organized locally from among peasants and aboriginal inhabitants...

Sandino had several aboriginal inhabitants or miskitos in his army in the early 30's, but the indigenous population of the Nicaraguan Atlantic Coast never simpathized with the struggle of the new Sandinistas. There are three reasons for that; 1) The repression and brutality of the Somoza regime was focused mainly on the population of the urban and rural areas of the Pacific Coast. 2) The North-American transnational companies dominated the economy of the small towns in the Nicaraguan Atlantic Coast and were seen as a progressive force that brought modernity to these areas (electrical power, etc.) 3) Cultural reasons. The young Sandinistas had no experience in dealing with the ethnic population of Nicaragua (miskitos, sumos, etc.)

On the other hand, the people involved in the incipient insurrectional groups of the 50's came from diverse social and economical backgrounds. They were not only local peasants, there were also students, workers and leaders of the local oligarchy and traditional parties.

The first of these groups was organized by Eden Pastora, an activist who was later to become more widely known as "Commander Zero". Pastora organized his group -- which was later to take the official name ADRE -- in the late 1950's, and was the first group to call itself "Sandinistas".

1) Pastora's group was known as Frente Revolucionario Sandino (FRS) and was founded in 1957. Pastora abandoned the armed struggle in 1963 after an amnisty and becomes member of the Nicaraguan Conservative Party (PCN), in oppposition to Somoza.

After a short stay in prision in 1967 Pastora integrates the FSLN for the first time. That year, the Sandinistas suffered an historical defeat in Pancasán, and Pastora goes in to exile. He returned to Nicaragua and to the FSLN two years later and remained there until 1973 when he abandoned the armed struggle once again and moves to Costa Rica. In 1976 he joined the FSLN for the last time. In 1981 he abandoned the FSLN for the third time and goes into exile.

In 1982 Pastora organized a his own army against the Sandinista government which took the name Democratic Revolutionary Alliance (ARDE). Pastora abandones the struggle in 1986. He returns to Nicaragua in 1989 to support the Social Christian Party (PSC) in the upcoming elections of 1990.

2) The other group of Sandinistas, under the direction of Carlos Fonseca, Santos López (lieutenant in Sandino's army), Noel Guerrero, Tomás Borge, Silvio Mayorga and others took the name Frente de Liberación Nacional (FLN) in 1961.

Carlos Fonseca was until then a member of the Nicaraguan Socialist Party (PSN), together with Noel Guerrero. Guerrero was one of the most influent leaders inside the FLN and opposed to call the FLN Sandinista. His believe was that Sandino wasn't radical enough. Sandino fought against the U.S. ocuppation, but he was not an anti-imperialist or a true socialist in Guerrero's eyes.

The break-up of Fonseca with Guerrero and the change of the name of the organisation to FSLN in order to include the word Sandinista occured a year later thanks to the organized study of the life and ideology of Sandino, the compromise of the FLN with the idea to realize a genuine revolution with a national character and last but not least, the fact that Fonseca emerged as the indisputable leader of the movement in 1962.

During 1961, another group -- the FSLN -- was formally organised by three Marxist students from Managua, Carlos Fonseca Amador, Tomás Borge Martínez and Silvio Mayorga.

Carlos Fonseca was born and raised in the northern city of Matagalpa and studied in the Law School in León, Nicaragua where he met Tomás Borge Martínez and Silvio Mayorga. Together with Heriberto Carillo, a student from Guatemala, they organize the first subversive marxistic student group in 1956.

In a disputed book published under one "Mitrokhin" -- a man alleged to have worked as a Soviet-era, KGB archivist for some 30 years -- it has been asserted that these students were recruits of the KGB. This view has yet to be verified by independent research other than secret, non-public evaluation undertaken by agents of Britain's Intelligence branch, MI6. Consequently, there is some question as to the authenticity of the documents presented by "Mitrokhin", and until further corroborating material comes to light his assertions remain questionable, at best.

In 1957 Fonseca attends the Fifth World Youth & Student Festival in Moscow. He also visits Kiev, Leningrad, East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Switzerland. Back in Nicaragua, after three months in Somoza's jail, he writes the book "A Nicaraguan in Moscow".

The allegations (KGB agent) are based mainly on those to two episodes of Fonseca's life.

As it says above, these assertions are questionable. If anyone dare to take a closer look at Fonseca's life, his writings and his struggle within the FSLN for a nationalization of the revolutionary movement, he sure can make his own conclusions.

What is undeniable -- and openly admitted by the founders and main historical players in the FSLN -- was its close cooperation and reliance upon the government of Cuba, which provided the FSLN with materiel, organizational training, and strategic and tactical support throughout its years of revolutionary conflict.

It's true, but material (weapons) and monetary support came also from other parts of the continent, including the U.S.

Nevertheless, during these early years the FSLN was never completely subsumed to Cuban leadership, largely because of its commander-in-chief, Eden Pastora's close relationship with the Panamanian leading political family.

1) Pastora visited Cuba for the first time in 1978. 17 years after the foundation of FSLN and only 1 year before the Sandinista victory in 1979.

2) Pastora was never commander-in chief of the FSLN. Furthermore, the FSLN guerilla was not an army, it was a minor, incipent political-military movement in those early.

The word "Sandinista" in reference to the FSLN appeared two years later, when the nascent organization combined its forces with those of Pastora. This new incarnation of the Sandinistas continued to present its struggle as a "movement for national liberation", pointing to the injustices committed by the kleptocratic, U.S.-imposed Somoza dictatorship its oppressive, exploitative hold over the Nicaraguan, their rights, and the national economy.

Pastora's FRS and Guerrero's FLN never joined forces (See above). Pastora didn't become part of the FSLN until 1967.

--Magicartpro 03:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I read your text and think it's good, but have some suggestions to make.
I think I would like to see some more information on Pastora, such as the nature of the amnesty he received, the reasons for his wavering, if they have been documented.
Working based on your observations you could restructure the content -scrap the old text and start from scratch- per your own judgement, so that information is cohesive.

"If anyone dare to take a closer look at Fonseca's life, his writings and his struggle within the FSLN for a nationalization of the revolutionary movement, he sure can make his own conclusions."

I think this is a bit vague and could be worked upon.
--Atavi 09:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Atavi: Thank you so much for your comments.

I didn't put further information on Pastora for the main reason that I expect (sometime in the near future) to expand his own article on Wikipedia with more data. On this particular article (FSLN) he played an important roll on three significant moments:

1) In 1957 with the creation of Frente Revolucionario Sandino (FRS), he was the first one to call himself Sandinista. Although, the FRS hadn't a direct influence (political or military) on the foundation and development of the FSLN as a revolutionary movement. The FRS was already extinct when he disbanded the organisation in 1963. The FRS was an ephemeral movement in the Sandinista history. 2) With the assault of the National Palace in 1978 Pastora became a local celebrity, a sort of a legend in the Sandinista history. His nickname, Comandante Cero ("Commander Zero") came from that operation. 3) The break-up with the Sandinista goverment in 1981 and the subsequent foundation of an anti-Sandinista armed movement (ARDE) in Costa Rica.

If anyone dare to take a closer look at Fonseca's life, his writings and his struggle within the FSLN for a nationalization of the revolutionary movement, he sure can make his own conclusions.

This was intended to be a personal comment, not to be included in this article. It's a bit contradictory to state that Fonseca was a KGB agent when his struggle (despite his Marxistic background) was to build up a nationalistic revolutionary movement, a sort of socialistic, progressive movement with a local flavour. --Magicartpro 18:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right that the great bulk of information on Pastora should be put in his own article.
I kind of forgot that you were only making observations, and not writing text as it will appear in the article.
--Atavi 21:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
As to Fonseca, Martínez and Mayorga's recruitment by the KGB, a few things. There is little doubt to the authenticity of Mitrokhins material. A number of other historians have weighed in on it, and it reinforces older allegations of collusion between key members of the FSLN and Soviet intelligence (see above). I would also add that much of the FSLN's relationship with Soviet block intelligence agencies is also corroborated by John Koehler's book "Stasi: The Untold Story of the East German Secret Police", including the fact that the Sandinistan government had a special police unit trained by the East Germans whose sole mission was to undermine and eliminate political opponents. The material that was recently in the article, and cited in this sections is the opinion of one editor, and hardly noteworthy. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Both the Soviet Union and East Germany provided material, logistical and economical assistance to the Sandinista's police forces and intelligence groups. But that was after 1979, not before. The Soviet Union's sister organisation in Nicaragua was the Nicaraguan Socialist Party (PSN) and the PSN's part in the Nicaraguan revolution of 1979 was extremly modest.

--Magicartpro 21:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And I have cited two sources that say Soviet support for the FSLN goes back to its founding. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

My sources: 1) Edelman, Marc: The Other Super Power. The Soviet Union and Latin America 1917-1987. Nacla, 1987. 2) Blachman, Morris: Confronting Revolution. Pantheon Books, New York 1986. 3) Domínguez, Edmé: The Soviet Union and Latin America. Anthology: Europe and the World, Padrigu, 1988. --Magicartpro 21:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The three sources you have cited are all from the mid to late 80's, significant information has come forth since then, would you not agree? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The allegations of the FSLN as a security threat launching sabotage missions within the United States are ridiculous. The Sandinistas hadn't at that time the capacity of fighting Somoza's National Guard. They were a clandestine movement with a few men barely trying to survive. --Magicartpro 22:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

They owed their continued funding and support to the KGB and did what their task masters asked of them. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
TDC is not open to reason about this topic. See discussion from July. If his information is questionable, I suggest tagging and then eventually reverting it. He is on content revert parole, so explain why you revert so he isn't left hanging. Abe Froman 22:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Once again, I have cited an WP:RS, and two editors who are much more experienced and knowledgeable, as well as both being administrators did not object to my edits after I made the and took their comments into account. Put the Red Dawn garbage in again, and it will be reverted as vandalism. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, you say that;

The word "Sandinista" in reference to the FSLN appeared two years later, when the nascent organization combined its forces with those of Pastora.

Pastora disbanded the FRS in 1963. He joined the FSLN for the first time in 1967. The FSLN was already known as Sandinista since November 1962. Can you explain that to me? --Magicartpro 22:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I cant explain it because its not my contribution, it was cut from an earlier version, and I would not object to its removal or altering as I have no judgement on its factual nature. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

But you reverted it? Isn't that a violation of stated policies? --Magicartpro 22:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Had I know it was erroneous, it would have been, but I did not know the factual nature of the material (and it had no source). Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The documents Mithrokin provided were not originals, they were pieces of paper, handwritten copies of KGB files that Mithrokin smuggled past the security guards and took to his home. The Mithrokin files have never been authenticated and cannot be cited as a source. --Magicartpro 05:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front/Archive_1&oldid=789562467"