These brief notebooks are quite concise and were only intended for his personal use. He certainly never had the time to flesh out his notes at the time they were written. Nevertheless, through his account of his life as part of the military effort, the battles and skirmishes, as well as the tragedy of fallen compañeros, one can sense Che’s strict respect for the truth. In his preface to Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War,1 he urged others writing about these events to adopt the same approach.
The small notebooks in which he wrote his diary served as the basis for his renowned Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War, which revealed a new level in his narrative style, as well as his intellectual and political maturity. The fact that Che’s Reminiscences had already been published was not the only reason why his Diary of a Combatant has not been published before now. One of Che’s notebooks is missing and the Che Guevara Studies Center has not been able to locate it. This will be seen in the gap in the sequence of numbered notebooks.
Fidel Castro has also made a major contribution in the recent publication of some of his memoirs of the revolutionary war, as part of his commitment to producing a “rigorous history of the events”2 in his capacity as the leader and commander. This prompted the Che Guevara Studies Center to reconsider and see the value in publishing this diary even though some parts of it are missing.
The text of Che’s diary has been subjected to an exhaustive review, using other sources on that epoch that have identified the correct names and places, in order to rectify Che’s mistaken or imprecise references, especially in the early period when he was not familiar with the geography of the area where the events he narrates took place, as well as mistakes he made in the dates of events and names of combatants.
Despite possible errors that might not have been caught in this edition and the absence of some important diary entries, which constitute a challenge for future researchers, an effort was made to compensate with historical documents and footnotes as a way to guide anyone wanting to appreciate the real significance of Che’s quest that began on December 5, 1956, with what he described as his “baptism of fire” at Alegría de Pío. As Fidel commented in a war bulletin on the military situation in Las Mercedes on May 26, 1958, “Those who have fallen, and all who will fall, will live on in the ideals of the revolution.”
Che Guevara Studies Center
Havana
For further reference, the editors recommend:
Pedro Álvarez Tabío and Heberto Norman Acosta, Diario de la Guerra, 2 vols (Havana: Oficina de Publicaciones del Consejo de Estado), 1991.
Fidel Castro, La Victoria Estratégica (Mexico: Ocean Sur), 2011.
Fidel Castro, La Contraofensiva Estratégica (Mexico: Ocean Sur), 2011.
1. Ernesto Che Guevara, Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War (Melbourne and New York: Ocean Press), 2006.
2. See Fidel Castro, La Victoria estratégica (Mexico: Ocean Sur), 2011 and La Contraofensiva Estratégica (Mexico: Ocean Sur), 2011.
Foreword
CHE AND THE CUBAN REVOLUTIONARY WAR
THE SIERRA AND THE LLANO1
ARMANDO HART
Those reading the pages of this book will see that heroism and complete devotion to the cause of the redemption of humanity are united in Che along with his extraordinary intellectual capacity, talent and grace in describing in detail what others tend to ignore, forget, or put aside in some dusty corner of the memory. Che, in his unbounded sincerity, comparable only to the infinite generosity and solidarity of those souls exceptionally gifted to take up truth and justice in a radical way, left us a written record of everything, or nearly everything, that passed through his refined and caustic intelligence.
We must thank this Argentine Cuban for having recreated his guerrilla life in such a way that, in the future, those who will live long into the 21st century will be able to understand and appreciate the adventures that took place in the mountains of Oriente province during the years when a New Cuba was being forged as the country emerged from its past history and the glories of José Martí and Simón Bolívar.
Some of those writing about Che have presented a one-sided and quite often superficial image of him, obscuring or overlooking nuances. Thus they offer simply a caricature of a past that can only legitimately be approached with intelligence and love. When either is missing, the intimate privilege and joy of exalting what is most noble and transcendent in this history is lost.
I was at the center of the complicated story of the revolution that Che, from his guerrilla trench, describes in these memoirs. I absorbed the revolution’s most intimate, contradictory and vital features, they became the marrow of my bones, and I fused them with my own heart.2
Those of us who have lived loving this history have a view of it that doesn’t get lost in the labyrinth of events or fall into tendentious interpretations. We aspire to reveal what is essential about this history.
In this text there are, from the point of view of the person Che was then, polemics between the sierra and the llano in which I had the honor to participate from the clandestine trenches of our cities. This forces us to take up matters the roots of which reach into the process of gestation of the Cuban revolution, of which Che was one of the great forgers. In that period, he reaches his highest peak, together with Fidel and Raúl.
For me it is an honor and a stroke of good fortune that the Che Guevara Studies Center has asked me for comments on this diary, as they are aware of my relation to some of the events described in it and the opinions Che offers about them. The intellectual effort required for me to express in an adequate way that which I carry in my heart is great and complicated. But I should not—must not—evade this task, as I feel I am the depository of truths that can assist a better understanding of Che’s greatness, Fidel’s originality and some essential aspects of the Cuban revolution.
In my book, Albadonazo,3 I mention an incident that is key to understanding what I would like to say. I wrote:
Although security principles recommended that any sensitive document travel by a different route than that of the combatants, we were carrying a very valuable load of papers and photographs that were captured by the dictatorship’s soldiers and which the regime was able to take advantage of.
Among these was the draft of a letter that I was preparing for Che. I had read it to Fidel, who asked me not to send it, but I nevertheless committed the indiscretion of saving it among my papers. I’ve always blamed myself for having carried it with me and that all this caused problems for Fidel and Raúl.
I expressed in that letter my point of view about Che’s opinion of some leaders of the llano. The debate was related to the socialist ideas that had already crystallized in him and that among a lot of us in the llano were still in the process of gestation, and not without doubts and contradictions.
At the same time, this fact could not but influence the situation. In evaluating revolutions of national liberation, and the origin and positions of its cadres, certain ideas that did not correspond to the reality and history of our countries had a lot of weight in socialist thought on an international scale.
What is important about this is that, in reality, thanks to Fidel’s genius, the Cuban revolution, of which Che was one of the main architects, had already moved in practice far beyond such theoretical disputes. As we debated the revolutionary process that together we were pushing forward, the roots of those differences were being left behind.4
Within a few months of the January 1959 victory, Che, with his exceptional talent, understood with greater clarity than any of us, the root causes of the problems that were besetting the international communist movement and how to confront and enrich the movement theoretically with the experience of the Third World and Latin America.
From 1959, among Che’s closest collaborators were compañeros who had had major responsibilities in the llano.
Never did these nuances affect the respect that each one of us had for Che; on the contrary, his prestige only grew ove
r the years until he became one of the greatest symbols of revolutionary struggle internationally.
I remember that when a functionary of the US consulate in Santiago de Cuba, with whom the July 26 Movement had had some relations, read the paragraphs of the letter to which I referred above, and which was published by the army, he went to Haydée [Santamaría] and said to her, “María, how is it that Jacinto [Armando Hart’s nom de guerre] has written this?” To placate him she responded, “But he’s attacking Stalin!” Then the US functionary pointed out. “That’s not the heart of what he is saying—read it carefully…”5
Here are some paragraphs from my letter that Batista’s army seized and published:
Sierra Maestra
December 25, 1957
My very much admired Che,
I write this second note after receiving the one that you sent Daniel6 and his response. I regret even more not having gone to see you days ago, but believe me, we’ve had to deal with a thousand things and my presence outside is becoming indispensable.
I am sure that a conversation between us would solve a thousand problems, even your proper and legitimate doctrinal concerns in relation to us.
But I must say to you that, in addition to being gross, you have been unjust. That you think that we are rightists or come out of the native petit bourgeoisie or more accurately, that we represent that class, is logical and doesn’t surprise me, because it is in keeping with your interpretation of the historical process of the Russian revolution. But in the end we’ve had no option but to undertake this small national revolution because the guides of the world proletariat transformed the powerful explosion of 1917 into a nationalist revolution that took up first of all—something very legitimate for the Russians—a liberation movement against tsarist feudalism. But they left the peoples situated outside that country without the opportunity of unleashing a universal revolution that perhaps will now take an unexpected route.
The worst thing about this is that Stalin wasn’t French, English or German and therefore did not go beyond the limits of being a Russian ruler. Had he been born in Paris perhaps he would not have viewed the world so narrowly.
I repeat, none of this is our fault, but is due to the political incapacity to evaluate this broader situation on the part of the real geniuses of the October revolution.
What does make me a little angry is your lack of understanding in relation to our attitude to a pact7 that we were always going to reject. As soon as I reach Santiago I will send you all the documents about this. I want to say, dear Che, that if there might be differences in the international aspect of revolutionary policy, I am to be found among the most radical in terms of the political outlook of our revolution.
We rejected the pact and insisted that they comply with our points. We did not make this public because at that time it would have created confusion among the people, but rather we waited to exhaust the possibility that they might accept our points to discuss with Fidel the need for a public rejection. And we felt great satisfaction when we saw that Fidel was publicly presenting positions identical to ours. We felt great satisfaction when in Miami one of the signatories to the Manifesto of the Sierra Maestra, Raúl Chibás,8 said that what we were raising encompassed his points also. We felt great satisfaction in seeing that there was complete agreement between “the leftist leader of the petit bourgeoisie” and the petit bourgeoisie that you say we embody.
I do want to tell you that I feel very happy with being considered petit bourgeois because my conscience is clear and I know that such jibes can’t affect me… [Furthermore] I have focused on organizing workers and know that they will become the determining force in our revolution. If we have followed the wrong road, I beg you to point out the right one. […]
With respect,
Jacinto9
As I have explained, many of us were still becoming who we are today and were not exempt from having prejudices against socialism. What is tragic is that these prejudices were confirmed by events that were officially denounced in the critical reports prepared for the 20th congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956. Those criticisms, however, never went to the root of the matter, and that year also saw the well-known events of the tanks rolling into Hungary.
I will never forget that Fidel told me in the Sierra Maestra not to send the letter to Commander Guevara in order to promote unity of our forces. But since the army published it, and Che refers to these issues in his diary, I have presented the original text [of the letter] to show that, despite these difficulties, we never abandoned our admiration for the Argentine who had joined Fidel in Mexico, landed in Cuba as part of the Granma expedition, and who became one of the most beloved heroes in Cuban history.
Today I can assure those who read this diary that those compañeros whom Che mentions and whom he assumed were not communists at that time—and, in part, he had some justification for his comments—have remained with the socialist revolution and with Fidel. Some died in combat and would have shared these lines with me.10
Among them is René Ramos Latour (Daniel), one of the most principled and loyal leaders of the llano. That is why one is so moved by the description Che gives, in relation to his death in combat, when he writes: “René Ramos [Daniel] and I were political enemies with profound ideological differences separating us, but he knew how to die fulfilling his duty on the front line. And when one dies in that way it’s because one feels an inner conviction, something that I had denied him; so at this moment I stand corrected.”11
That inner drive is what made Daniel and Che great men. History unites such individuals above and beyond the political differences of the moment.
In Cuba, among those of us who were involved at the center of those discussions, we embraced socialist ideas and love Che as one of the great glories of humanity in the 20th century. This analysis is necessary to point out the true dimension of the uniqueness of the work done by Fidel, and the fact that differences of opinion between principled revolutionaries, those of the sierra and those of the llano, did not affect the indestructible unity of the first socialist revolution of the Americas. It is an example we hope others might learn from.
There was something else that greatly accelerated the radicalization of the “generation of the centennial”: imperialism. From 1931 to December 1958 Batista was the strong man in Cuba, protected despite the terrible crimes committed on Cuba’s streets and in Cuban jails and fields in the 1950s. He was the guarantee that the interests of the North Americans would be defended, and they supported Batista’s March 10, 1952, coup with everything they had, even as he acted criminally and illegally against our people.
Che did not know our country Cuba directly at that time, and obviously did not instantly have the sense of its history he acquired months later. He was only beginning to discover Cuba; and we were beginning to discover socialism, which we arrived at through our cultural heritage and the sense of justice we inherited from our parents and grandparents.
With the publication of Che’s Diary, where these references appear to the ideological debates of those years, I feel it is my duty, with the serenity that the years bring, and in homage to the Cuban guerrillas, to say that these were not the only differences that existed between the combatants in the sierra and the llano.
Such differences must be analyzed in the context of a movement of practical changes and adjustments, which is reflected in the vision of revolutionaries who are looking for the correct road in the fight against the enemy. In the Sierra Maestra, the vision of the guerrillas was developing in such a way that it led to victory. In the cities, the cadres and combatants were developing an outlook that led to the outcome of the April 9, 1958, strike.
Independently of the emphasis that each of these perspectives gave to the action through which victory would be achieved, for all of us it was clear that the foundations of the revolution were the mass armed insurrection, the revolutionary general strike, the July 26 Movement program and Fidel’s undisputed lea
dership.
The peoples of our America, in the face of the political impossibility of achieving their immediate objective, have developed a historical consciousness of the importance of the example of fighting, and dying if necessary, in defense of an ideal. We—and Che demonstrates this sublimely—know the historic value that the example of sacrifice in the struggle for higher political and social aspirations can have.
Ernesto Che Guevara received and enriched that spiritual legacy, and he decided to forge his character to adopt, in his deeds and by dedicating his life, an unflagging commitment to defending with his great talent, valor and virtue, the rights of the poor of the Americas and Martí and Bolívar’s aspiration to the moral integration of the Latin American homelands.
In the spiritual background of the psyche of this Argentine-Cuban-Latin American patriot existed, in one form or another and to varying degrees, the same ethical and cultural roots of Martí’s thought. And those roots—which as a child and adolescent Che could not have learned in the form Martí gave them—led him toward a humanism of the poor. He worked as a doctor in the sad leper colonies of our America and came into contact with those who live in misery in various corners of our hemisphere.
These Latin American and universal values, expressed in a culture of serving the interests of the poor, is what united Che and Fidel. If it had been simple rebelliousness this alliance might have been transitory. But it was through this cultured, educated rebellious spirit that the union between the two men became solid.
The bonds between Che and Martí’s homeland also became unbreakable due to the wealth of moral and spiritual values emanating from our America, which were also present in Guevara. Fidel and Che are united by the same culture, and that root ties the passion for justice and human liberty to a profound knowledge that is in those who have within them a deeply noble spirit.