The Bolivian Diary of Che Guevara: A Primary Source Analysis

In the remote, rugged mountains of southeastern Bolivia, a small band of guerrilla fighters led by Ernesto “Che” Guevara spent the final months of 1966 and most of 1967 trying to ignite a continental revolution. Among their meager belongings was a leather-bound notebook in which Guevara recorded daily events: the movement of troops, the scarcity of food, the sickness and desertions, and the growing encirclement by the Bolivian army. That notebook, captured after his death and later published as The Bolivian Diary, became one of the most consequential primary sources of twentieth-century revolutionary history. It is a stark, unadorned account written in the heat of a failing campaign, and its pages offer an intimate view of a revolutionary at the edge of collapse.

What Happened?

Guevara arrived in Bolivia in November 1966, using a false identity, to organize a guerrilla “foco” that would ignite a broader Latin American revolution. The campaign began with cautious optimism but quickly encountered difficulties: poor recruitment among Bolivian peasants, disagreements among the fighters, and relentless pursuit by the Bolivian military, advised by U.S. Special Forces. Guevara kept a daily diary from the moment he entered the guerrilla zone until his capture on October 8, 1967. The diary records his strategic assessments, his personal doubts, and the physical suffering of the men.

• November 7, 1966: Guevara arrives at the guerrilla camp in the Nacahuasu valley.
• March 23, 1967: The guerrilla group wins its first combat against the Bolivian army.
• April–August 1967: The campaign deteriorates; Guevara’s diary notes growing hunger, illness, and the failure to win local support.
• September 26, 1967: The guerrilla column is nearly destroyed in an ambush at Quebrada del Yuro.
• October 8, 1967: Guevara is wounded and captured by the Bolivian army.
• October 9, 1967: Guevara is executed on the orders of the Bolivian government.
• July 1, 1968: The diary is published in Havana, Cuba, with an introduction by Fidel Castro.

How It Was Seen at the Time

When the diary was published in 1968, it was immediately read as both a heroic epic and a tragic confession. Fidel Castro, in his introduction, called it a document of “exceptional value” and praised Guevara’s “absolute confidence in the victory of the people.” The diary’s raw honesty—the admissions of failure and doubt—struck readers as proof of Guevara’s authenticity. In Latin America, it was seen as a testament to the possibility of revolution, even in the face of defeat. In the United States and Europe, the diary was read with a mix of fascination and fear, as a window into the mind of a man who had become a symbol of armed resistance. The New York Review of Books, in a 1971 review, described the campaign as “a heroic project” but also noted its “unmistakable failure.”

“It is only in part Fidelista, to reverse the long series of guerrillero defeats in Guatemala, Nicaragua, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Argentina, and thereby reassert the validity of Fidelista strategy in Latin America (and Fidel’s independence from the Soviet Union).” — John Womack Jr., The New York Review of Books, 1971

Historical Snapshot

Eyewitness Accounts

The most direct eyewitness account is the diary itself. Guevara’s entries are terse, factual, and often self-critical. For example, on August 21, 1967, he wrote: “The situation is becoming difficult; the men’s morale is low, and hunger is beginning to be felt.” These entries are not polished for publication; they were written in the field, often by candlelight. The diary’s authenticity was never seriously questioned, as the NYRB review noted: “Once the authenticity of the text was proven, everybody assumed that no modifications had been introduced between the first Cuban edition and” later ones. The diary provides a direct, unfiltered view of the campaign’s daily reality.

Letters & Diaries

The diary is the central document, but it also contains references to other communications, such as the “Instructions to Urban Cadres” and the “Communiqués to the Bolivian People.” These were written by Guevara to maintain contact with the outside world. The diary also includes notes on the behavior of his men, his own reflections on strategy, and his growing awareness of the campaign’s failure. In one entry, Guevara admits: “The people are not with us, and we have no base of support.” This candid self-assessment is what makes the diary a uniquely valuable primary source.

Different Perspectives

Fidel Castro and the Cuban Government

Castro’s introduction to the diary, written in 1968, frames the campaign as a necessary and heroic attempt, even if it ended in death. He argues that Guevara’s example would inspire future revolutions. He wrote: “Che was a model of revolutionary virtue, and his diary is a lesson in revolutionary spirit.” This perspective sees the diary as a moral and political document, not just a military log.

The Bolivian Government and Military

The Bolivian government, which had captured the diary, initially treated it as evidence of foreign interference. They released portions to the press to show that Guevara had been defeated. The diary was later used to justify the military’s actions. The Bolivian army’s official reports, which were later published, emphasized the defeat of the guerrillas and the restoration of order.

What the Sources Got Wrong

One of the most significant errors in the diary’s publication history concerns the edits made to the original manuscript. A 2008 academic study, “Comparación razonada de 4 ediciones del Diario del Che en Bolivia,” examined the differences between the first Cuban edition and later editions. It found that the Cuban edition had been edited to remove certain critical remarks about the Bolivian Communist Party and to soften some of Guevara’s more pessimistic statements. This was not discovered until decades later, and it means that the diary as first published was not entirely faithful to the original. The study concluded that “the literal content was never questioned once the authenticity of the text was proven,” but that later editions had introduced subtle changes.

How Historians See It Today

Historians today view the diary not only as a revolutionary testament but as a historical document that reveals the challenges of guerrilla warfare in the 1960s. The NYRB review, written in 1971, already noted the campaign’s “heroic project” but also its failure. Modern scholars, such as those who have compared the editions, emphasize that the diary is not a transparent record but a text with a complex editorial history. They also point out that the diary’s publication was a political act, designed to preserve Guevara’s image as a martyr. The diary remains a crucial source for understanding the Cold War in Latin America, but it must be read with the understanding that its publication was not neutral.

Common Misconceptions

Timeline

• November 7, 1966: Guevara arrives at the guerrilla camp in Nacahuazu.
• March 23, 1967: First combat with Bolivian army.
• April–August 1967: Increasing difficulties; diary notes hunger and desertion.
• September 26, 1967: The column is decimated at the Yuro ravine.
• October 8, 1967: Guevara captured.
• October 9, 1967: Execution.
• July 1, 1968: Diary published in Havana.

Key Documents

• The Bolivian Diary (1966–1967) – The primary source, written by Guevara, covering the entire campaign.
• Introduction by Fidel Castro (1968) – Castro’s framing of the diary as a revolutionary testament.
• Instructions to Urban Cadres – Guevara’s directives for urban resistance, included in the published diary.
• Communiqués to the Bolivian People – Propaganda documents written by Guevara’s group.

Conclusion

The Bolivian Diary remains a powerful and deeply human document. It captures the last months of a revolutionary who knew he was failing, yet continued to fight. The diary’s primary source value is immense, but it must be read with an understanding of its editorial history and the political contexts of its publication. It teaches us that even the most iconic figures of history are not immune to doubt, and that the records we have of them are never innocent. The diary is a reminder that history is written not only by those who live it, but also by those who publish and interpret it.