This question is outside of my area of expertise, but it’s been a few days. I thought I would try to give you an answer. Unfortunately, most of the allegations in this article are true. The United States obviously did support Cuban exiles at the Bay of Pigs and through Operation Mongoose. They also did little to prevent terrorist attacks, which were designed to destabilize the Cuban economy and cause Cuban intelligence agencies to become more intrusive (making them an easier target for criticism). Throughout the Cold War, high level reconnaissance aircraft flew missions over Cuba. The CIA even attempted to assassinate Castro on multiple occasions. The only one that jumps out to me as most likely false is the allegation that the CIA introduced dengue fever to the island. Dengue fever spreads when a person gets bitten by an infected mosquito, and a mosquito gets infected by biting a person who already has the disease. Any tourist visiting Cuba from the dozens of countries where the disease was already thriving could have unknowingly brought the disease to Cuba, been bitten by a mosquito while there, and inadvertently introduced the disease.

That being said and as you probably know, history is as much about the interpretation of facts as it is about the facts themselves. This article blatantly presents a biased interpretation for modern political purposes, which runs contrary to what historians are trying to do in academia and, I hope, here on AskHistorians. In reality, it is very easy to cherry-pick historical facts to support a political narrative about the present. That is what is troubling about this article to me. For example, although the article demonizes US involvement with Cuban exiles (as it should), it fails to acknowledge the complicated, changing stances that US leaders took in regards to Cuba. Interactions with Cuba took many different forms over the decades; keep in mind that Castro’s control of Cuba coincided with ten presidential administrations through the vicissitudes of the Cold War. The positions of leaders from both countries changed over time. For example, the article does not acknowledge that Kennedy and later presidential administrations backed off Operation Mongoose. It barely mentions the extent (or lack of extent in most cases) that politicians were actually involved or supported the CIA’s actions. It also does not mention other positive attempts in Latin America to influence change like the Alliance for Progress or the Peace Corps. Additionally, the article portrays Cuba as a paragon of international law, but Cuba frequently tried to “export the revolution.” They sent revolutionaries to Angola and Bolivia (among others), where they fought and killed innocent people as well. Cuban actions brought the world closer to nuclear armageddon than it has ever come, and the author does not mention the human rights abuses by the Cuban government against its own people.

Instead of a cherry-picked historical narrative that downplays complexity, I would rather read a source that encourages discussion of these complicated, challenging issues. As a historian, I would like to see both sides of an argument. Historians should embrace nuanced, gritty evidence that reflects what the world was like in the past rather than simplify it. I want to hear lots of perspectives, not just one, and I want to experience what it was like on both sides for average people like you or me. In short, this article neither wrestles the multitude of diplomatic, social, or political issues that characterized the period nor the complexity with which both sides negotiated and asserted their individual interests in a global context. For me and, I hope, other historians, pursuing these endeavors are much more interesting and rewarding reasons to study history than pushing an agenda.

edit: last sentence.