Revimw".
There is still another remarkable omission. When Blas Rots wrote his article, he had before hin a copy of the April issue of the Monthly Review which contains the stand taken by the editers Leo Huberman and Paul M-Sweesy on Castro's January 15 speech- Yet he dosa not say a word about the Monthly Review or the very important isaues raised by the two editors He acts as if he hed never heard about the deduction made by the Monthly Heview concerning advisers who possibly supplied Fidel Castro with the cateriai used in attacking"Trotekyiam-"
The proof that Blas Roca had this issue of the Monthly Review before him is, I think, compelling. In hia article, he quotes the following sentence written by Adolfo Gilly, but without indicating ites source: " The verticinous politiosl evolution of the Cuban lesdership in recant monthe confirms the opinion thet it is true that thay have either assassinated Guevars or that they ere restraining him by some means or other from expressing himself politically." The source of that quotation is page 29 of the April,1946, issue of the Monthly Review This is the same iasue that contained the editorial statement by Leo Huberman end Paul M.aweesy-. (We shall return to the question of Guevara. }
Blas Roca failed to refer to the Monthly Review in order te facilitate evading the cardinel politiosl issues. This is the same pattern followed by fus Hall, the main Spokesman of the Aserican Communiat Farty, in his Jone to the stend taken by the Monthly Review. (See World Outlook, May 6.) Huberman and Sweesy challenged Fidel Onetro on the “ugly and perhaps “sainous” aspeot of his speech in which he charged that Trotskyists are “agents of imperialism." " It was precisely this aceusation which provided the
rationalisation for the Soviet purge trials of the 1930's " they said. Fidel Castro has not yet reeponded to the challange issued by the Monthly Reyisw- Blas Roca chose to step forward instead. Hut he remained silent about the reference to the Moscow trials.
Does he atill support the "rationalization" used in purging Stalin's opponents or possible opponents? Does he think the doviet government under Krushchey was wrong in adding to the mountain of evidence proving that Stalin framed up his victims? He dosa not say-
However, wea see that he proceeds as if Stalin had been vindloated. Thereby he provides a sost illuminating insight into the nature of some of Fidel Castro's advisers and offers confirmation of the reasoning of the editors of Monthly Review, that to revive the accusation used in the Moscow trials is a "sure sign of either dgmorance or calice" and that in this ecatter " the malice comes from advisers who never abandoned the attitudes and methods which underlay the trials."