Given the US track record with coups in Latin America[1] in the 18th and 19th century, I would place the burden of proof on anyone claiming that a Latin American coup was not US-backed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

That's not how it works, before Batista's coup, the president was Prios Socarras, that had no beef with the US, I would say the opposite. Batista's coup, was an inside job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista#Military_cou...

> In 1952, Batista again ran for president. In a three-way race, Roberto Agramonte of the Orthodox Party led in all the polls, followed by Carlos Hevia of the Authentic Party. Batista's United Action coalition was running a distant third.

Batista was losing to a left-wing candidate, did a coup, and there was no election. Then he continued to support US corporate interests. This doesn't track at all with, you know, *gestures broadly at US intervention in Latin America* to you?