• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Allende the tyrant and Pinochet the servant of the Republic.

I think the US State Department's own report into the the affair (The Church Report) should be enough to show that 90% of your claims are inaccurate or just plain wrong.
http://foia.state.gov/Reports/ChurchReport.asp

'After the March 1973 elections, in which opposition forces failed to achieve the two thirds majority in the Senate that might have permitted them to impeach Allende and hold new elections, the U.S. Government re-assessed its objectives. There seemed little likelihood of a successful military coup, but there did appear to be a possibility that increasing unrest in the entire country might induce the military to re-enter the Allende government in order to restore order.'

So about that you were wrong, unless of course you know more than the US State Department (I bet you probably think you do knowing your evident delusion)

'September 13 The new military government names Army Commander Pinochet President and dissolves Congress.

September- October The Junta declares all Marxist political parties October illegal and places all other parties in indefinite recess. Press censorship is established, as are detention facilities for opponents of the new regime. Thousands of casualties are reported, including summary executions.'


Why exactly did he need to dissolve congress (which by your account EXPLICITLY AUTHORISED a violent coup - despite your inability to highlight the unambiguous wording that orders this..) which was majority opposed to Allende? Why did he need to establish media censorship (despite the fact that most media was owned by big business and virulently anti-Allende)? Why did he need to place all other parties, even those that supposedly supported his actions, in indefinite recess (a recess that lasted 17 years)?

'1975

June 20 Pinochet declares there "will be no elections in Chile during my lifetime nor in the lifetime of my successor".

July 4 Chile refuses to allow the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to enter the country.

October 7 The U.N. Commission on Human Rights reports "with profound disgust" the use of torture as a matter of policy and other serious violations of human rights in Chile.'


Sounds like he was definitely dedicated to returning the country to Democracy and would have done it of his own free will without massive external and internal pressure! Thankfully, like he was over so many things, he was wrong.

'The next National Intelligence Estimate came out in June 1972. The prospects for the continuation of democracy in Chile appeared to be better than at any time since Allende's inauguration. The NIE stated that the traditional political system in Chile continued to demonstrate remarkable resiliency. Legislative, student, and trade union elections continued to take place in normal fashion with pro-govenment forces accepting the results when they were adverse.' The NIE noted that the Christian Democratic Party and the National Party had used their combined control of both Houses of Congress to stall government iniciatives and to pass legislation designed to curtail Allende's powers. In addition, the opposition news media had been able to resist government intimidation and persisted in denouncing the government. The NIE concluded that the most likely course of events in Chile for the next year or so would be moves by Allende toward slowing the pace of his revolution in order to accommodate the opposition and to preserve the gains he had already made.'

'CIA documents in 1973 acknowledge that El Mercurio and, to a lesser extent, the papers belonging to opposition political parties, were the only publications under pressure from the government' (and it must be noted that all these media were shown by the report to have been supplied with huge sums of money by the CIA to spread anti-government propaganda, so the governments aggressive attitude to them was somewhat justified - if a foreign government was paying, say, the NYTimes to publish anti-Bush propaganda, how long do you think they would let it lie?)


So just over a year before the coup, and nearly two years into the presidency, according to US intelligence, not only was Allende's Chile not moving towards dictatorship, but prospects for democracy were healthier than they had been at any time during his presidency.. (note there is no mention of any human rights abuses, unlike the Intelligence reports from Pinochet's rule).. sounds tyrannical.. depsite the reports of government intimidation of the media (and this was not violent intimidation, but threats to suspend newspapers that were accused of promoting social unrest by calling for nationwide strikes), they were still vocally opposing the government, which ahrdly sounds like they were under stalinist totalitarianism, and the best US intelligence suggests that he was trying to accomodate the opposition -again, hardly sounds tyrannical, unless you are a blinkered fascist who believes extremist propaganda, like you, Titus.

'A 1971 NIE predicted that although the Soviet Union would continue to cultivate channels of influence into Allende's government through the Chilean Communist Party, it would probably be unsure of its ability to make a decisive impact on key issues given Allende's desire for an independent posture.'

'However, the pattern of Chilean-Cuban relations was described in a 1971 NIE as one of ideological distance and closer economic ties. The NIE stated that despite Allende's long-standing personal relationship with Castro, he had refrained from excessive overtures to him.'

'Chile NIEs in 1971 and 1972 emphasized that Allende was charting an independent, nationalistic course, both within the hemisphere and internationally. Allende was, in short, committed to a policy of non-alignment.'

'The Note concluded by predicting that it was unlikely that Allende would provide financial support or training to facilitate the export of insurgency. A 1972 NIE stated that Allende had gone to great lengths to convince his Latin American neighbors that he did not share Castro's revolutionary goals'

'The most direct statement concerning the threat an Allende regime would pose to the United States was contained in a CIA Intelligence Memorandum, issued shortly after Allende's September 4 election victory. The Memorandum summarized the views of the Interdepartmental Group for Inter-American Affairs, which prepared the response to National Security Study Memorandum 97. The Group, made up of officials representing CIA, State, Defense, and the White House, concluded that the United States had no vital interests within Chile, the world military balance of power would not be significantly altered by an Allende regime, and an Allende victory in Chile would not pose any likely threat to the peace of the region. '

'Although the major problem concerning U.S.-Chilean relations continued to be that of compensation for the nationalization of U.S. companies, the 1972 NIE stated that Allende had taken pains to publicly stress his desire for amicable relations. A 1973 NIE concluded that Allende had kept lines open to Washington on possible Chilean compensation for expropriated U.S. copper companies.'


So in actual fact the country posed no threat to the US or others, and in fact was trying to pursue a friendly relationship with the US, despite the lie that it was going to become a soviet colony in the US's own hemisphere...

The fact that this document shows up most of your points as total fallacies (so you couldnt impeach the president then, despite what the people at the US State Department say?), and mentions Pinochet's widespread human rights abuses but does not mention any committed by Allende's government, although it was written by the government of a country opposed to allende, and the only piece of evidence you keep going back to is a document written by Allende's political enemies, which neither explicitly calls for a coup by the army or manages to state evidence of any precise incidents of human rights abuses, speaks volumes about either your level of ignorance or willing to fabricate ideological nonsense.

Revisionist appeaser of tyrants.
 
Last edited:
Bergslagstroll said:
So I will just try to understand that you saying: That it was ok to disolve congress because the uper house didn't accept the lower house demand of overthrowing the goverment. So you point is still trust the lower house because they saw the danger with Allende. But you have still show no proof why there where right execept that you personally like there ruling. So all this still boils down to your personal belifes. That you like the actions of the lower house but not that of the uper house and that of the Allende goverment. Therefor lower house good because they think like you Allende goverment and uper house bad because they don't think like you.

No what I am saying is that Pinochet was under orders from the Democratically elected Chamber of Deputies to remove Allende from power that is a fact. Tyrants too can be elected the key is looking at what they do after they gain power and in that regard Allende was most certainly a Communist tyrant. After the overthrow of Allende in '73 in an attempt to preserve the Republic Pinochet took on dictatorial powers which is not unheard of in a Democracy which is under threat from revolutionary forces, however, the key is to realize what Pinochet did with these dictatorial powers once he acquired them, he squashed the Communist revolutionaries and ratified a new Chilean Constitution in 1980 which led to free elections in 1988 that eventually had him removed from power Democratically in 1990. It is due to the fact that Chile is firmly Democratic today that I believe Pinochet was preserving the Republic and Democracy in Chile not trying to destroy it; furthermore, if Allende would have been allowed to retain power it is my position that Chile would be a Communist dictarship in the same light as Castro's Cuba to this very day.
 
Since the intelligence estimates in the Church report dismiss the claims that Allende was moving the country towards tyranny as sheer fantasy, Id like to ask - so you think that because after 17 years of dictatorship when the press was censored and criticising Pinochet resulted in torture, Chile's people finally got the vote back, that makes Pinochet a supporter of democracy? The one who in 1975 said that there wouldnt be a free election in Chile in his lifetime? What? I suppose that means that the soviet leaders were guardians of democracy because 70 years after theycame to power Russia had some elections...? How come all of the other countries in the Southern Cone except paraguay had already become democracies, after intense political campaigning against their horrendous neo-fascist miltary regimes? You still havent provided any other evidence than that one document (I dont know how many times I have to say this, but it doesnt mention any specific abuse events either) that any human rights abuses approaching those committed under the Pinochet regime occurred under Allende.

So they couldnt impeach the president with two-thirds of the vote could they, I was wrong about that wasnt I? What, I wasnt? You were totally wrong? Wow.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Well here's the thing you obviously didn't even read the damn begining of this thread and with that being said I don't feel it incumbant upon me to explain again why Allende was in fact the one who was the tyrant.
Please feel free to explain to me why you think someone that did NOT kill & torture to gain & maintain a hold on power is the tyrant whilst someone that did kill & torture to both gain & to hold onto power & is to be tried for it, is not the tyrant ?

Pressumably you think.. German communists in the 30's were tyrants but Hitler was not a tyrant becuase although Hitler's henchmen killed thousands of people, he stopped the communists, who might have killed people, from coming to power.
Actually your philosophy is not dissimiliar to Himmler's.

Himmler... 'The reason we kill the Jewish children is because if we allow them to grow up, they will do the same to us.'

Trajan Octavian Titus.... The reason we install a dictator that kills thousands is because their current leader might kill thousands.

The end result was.. hypothetical murders & human rights abuses by Allende were turned into into real murders & human rights abuses by the CIA & Pinochet.

What is more, none of this was done in the name of the freedom & democracy of the Chilean people, as per your ludicrous claim. It was done for the benefit of ITT, mining companies & other US multi national corps. The people that really pull the strings in Washington... or perhaps you are too naive to realise that.
 
Last edited:
robin said:
Please feel free to explain to me why you think someone that did NOT kill & torture to gain & maintain a hold on power is the tyrant whilst someone that did kill & torture to both gain & to hold onto power & is to be tried for it, is not the tyrant ?

Pressumably you think.. German communists in the 30's were tyrants but Hitler was not a tyrant becuase although Hitler's henchmen killed thousands of people, he stopped the communists, who might have killed people, from coming to power.
Actually your philosophy is not dissimiliar to Himmler's.

Himmler... 'The reason we kill the Jewish children is because if we allow them to grow up, they will do the same to us.'

Trajan Octavian Titus.... The reason we install a dictator that kills thousands is because their current leader might kill thousands.

The end result was.. hypothetical murders & human rights abuses by Allende were turned into into real murders & human rights abuses by the CIA & Pinochet.

What is more, none of this was done in the name of the freedom & democracy of the Chilean people, as per your ludicrous claim. It was done for the benefit of ITT, mining companies & other US multi national corps. The people that really pull the strings in Washington... or perhaps you are too naive to realise that.

Umm perhaps because that's untrue revisionist history the fact of the matter is that Allendes methods were just as bad as Pinochet's and Allende was trying to create a totalitarian Communist dictarship and if it had not been for the Pinochet regime Chile would be Communist to this very day.
 
Touchmaster said:
Since the intelligence estimates in the Church report dismiss the claims that Allende was moving the country towards tyranny as sheer fantasy, Id like to ask - so you think that because after 17 years of dictatorship when the press was censored and criticising Pinochet resulted in torture, Chile's people finally got the vote back, that makes Pinochet a supporter of democracy? The one who in 1975 said that there wouldnt be a free election in Chile in his lifetime? What? I suppose that means that the soviet leaders were guardians of democracy because 70 years after theycame to power Russia had some elections...? How come all of the other countries in the Southern Cone except paraguay had already become democracies, after intense political campaigning against their horrendous neo-fascist miltary regimes? You still havent provided any other evidence than that one document (I dont know how many times I have to say this, but it doesnt mention any specific abuse events either) that any human rights abuses approaching those committed under the Pinochet regime occurred under Allende.

So they couldnt impeach the president with two-thirds of the vote could they, I was wrong about that wasnt I? What, I wasnt? You were totally wrong? Wow.

Yes you are wrong it said might have permitted an impeachment but seeing as there is no viable impeachment procedure built into the Chilean Constitution it is highly doubtful.

And don't get me started on the Commie/Socialist dominated state Department at the time the Church report was written; furthermore their assessment of the ground situation in Chile was simply wrong as can be seen in the numerous Constitutional violations perpetrated by the Allende regime listed in the Chamber of Deputies resolution.

You continue to ignore the fact that Allende violated just as much if not more of the Chilean Constitution than did Pinochet.

Then you take one quote from Allende and use it to say that he was un-Democratic when the mere fact that Chile is today a Democracy alone can attest to the fact that Pinochet preserved the Republic rather than destroyed it.

Allende on the other hand was setting up a Marxist totalitarian government by stealing away the legislative power for the executive from the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate.

And finally you continue to ignore the various grievances made by the Chilean Chamber of Deputies in their resolution to grant the overthrow of Allende and you just dismiss it as a non-issue.
 
Last edited:
Here's another article supporting the claim that Allendes Marxist tyranny was the cause of his removal from power:

posted October 08, 2003

Marxism caused Allende's overthrow​

by Patrick Chisholm | csmonitor.com

WASHINGTON – When the 30th anniversary of the overthrow of Chilean president Salvador Allende passed by recently, the myth that the United States was responsible was alive and well. The reality is otherwise. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find a more self-destructive mode of governance than that implemented by the Allende regime.
In the span of three years (1970-73), Allende impoverished the country, tore apart the fabric of Chilean society, and brought the polarized populace to the brink of civil war. It was a predictable consequence of a Marxist agenda.


To blame the chaos on the United States is to ignore Allende's anti-democratic proclivities and his fantastically reckless economic policies. The US's principal actions during this period merely involved providing funding for opposition newspapers, radio stations, and political parties, as well as cutting off loan money to Chile (since it was highly unlikely a Marxist regime would pay the money back; and sure enough, it defaulted on its existing debts). The US had no involvement with the coup plotters. In his memoir "Years of Upheaval," then-National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger is adamant about this point, while freely admitting the US helped fund the opposition. Historians' accounts of the Allende years back up those claims.

But wait. A new book called "The Pinochet File" is touted as making the case, through newly declassified documents, that the United States orchestrated Allende's downfall. Upon learning of the documents, I thought Kissinger might be exposed. So I went to the bookstore, grabbed a copy of book, and searched for the red meat. I found none.

In fact, the book makes clear that the US provided no strategic support, equipment, guarantees, or anything else that materially helped the 1973 coup plotters - just as Kissinger said. While there were some hardliners within the U.S. government who would like to have fomented a coup, they did not get their way. And to be sure, in 1970 the CIA did take part in a clumsy scheme to try to prevent Allende from taking office (which was already common knowledge long prior to the newly declassified documents), but once he was in office, the CIA ceased such activities.

"The Pinochet File," by Peter Kornbluh (editor), plays up the US funding of Chilean opposition groups and the anti-Allende sentiment among many in the US government, while completely ignoring the poisonous policies of the Marxists.

Certainly, the 1970 scheme was a blunder. I am tempted to say that US funding of the opposition groups also was a mistake, since this made the US a more convenient scapegoat. But it was not necessarily a mistake. After all, without the funding, the opposition could have been weaker, and Allende could have had a better shot at achieving his goal of "total, scientific Marxist socialism."

Yes, those were Allende's words. He said them early in his administration during conversations with French leftist RÈgis Debray. Allende added, "As for the bourgeois state, we are seeking to overcome it, to overthrow it." Regarding his allowance of democratic guarantees, they were only temporary - a "tactical necessity" for "the time being."

The blame-America crowd invariably highlights the fact that Allende was democratically elected. But even tyrants can be democratically elected. The key is to observe what leaders do after they gain office. While the Chilean congress (barely) stayed intact and elections still went on, Allende's government closed some opposition newspapers and radio stations. He pardoned left-wing extremists imprisoned for terrorism and other crimes. He moved to gain greater leftist control of universities. He unveiled a plan - never implemented - to reorganize primary and secondary education in order to indoctrinate all students in Marxism. He also tried to replace the congress with a unicameral legislature to boost his control.

Take it from a former member of the Chilean Communist Students Organization. Roberto Ampuero wrote recently in The Washington Post, "the Chilean left's principal failing was to have mentally cast aside our democratic system in order to try to replace it with a system which, by any reasonable measure, had already failed in Eastern Europe."

Further evidence of Allende's ulterior motives was the arrival of 13 wooden crates from Cuba in 1972, which Chilean customs did not examine on the orders of Allende's interior ministry. It was among the first of many shipments to arm Allende's supporters. He did not openly advocate force but acquiesced to it - e.g., when unions forcibly seized major textile enterprises. By mid-1973, Chile had become an armed camp, ripe for civil war.

Allende's disastrous economic policies were what mainly did in the country - and himself. From his election in 1970 until his overthrow in 1973, the government increased the money supply by 3,400 percent in order to pay for massive programs it could not afford. Strict price controls radically disrupted commerce. Expropriations devastated whole industries. Hyperinflation thrust multitudes into poverty. Shortages of basic goods - that inevitable byproduct of Marxism - were widespread.

In the "March of Empty Pots," thousands of women protested the lack of food and rising cost of living - and believe me, they were not acting at the behest of the CIA. Weeks before the coup, hundreds of thousands of people went on strike in protest of the government. Law and order broke down, and violence proliferated. At that point, the military stepped in.

Perpetuators of the myth that the United States caused Allende's downfall are unable to see or refuse to see the utter devastation that Marxism inflicts on a society. It is every bit as bad as fascism; whereas fascists hate rich minorities, Marxists hate the rich in general. And any system fueled by hatred will not be long for this world.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1008/p25s01-cogn.html
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Allendes methods were just as bad as Pinochet's
Oh really !

The Score Board
Allende murders ..... nil
Pinochet murders.....8,000

You're beyond the pale old bean.
 
Last edited:
robin said:
Oh really !

The Score Board
Allende murders ..... nil
Pinochet murders.....8,000

You're beyond the pale old bean.

It's simply fallacious to claim that there were no murders of dissenters under Allende, he was arming left wing death squad militias to squash dissentors, and your 8,000 number is inflated currently Pinochet awaits trial for the disappearance of only 9 dissidents not 8,000 and Allende armed left wing militias to engage of attrocities of their very own, I admit that Pinochet wasn't perfect but when taken into the context of the millions who would have starved to death under Allendes disastorous economic policies then Pinochet is much better than the alternative especially considering that Chile is firmly Democratic today.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
your 8,000 number is inflated currently Pinochet awaits trial for the disappearance of only 9 dissidents
So you believe just nine were murdered by Pinochets thugs !
Saddam is on trial for being connected with just a few murders, does that mean he's not responsible for more ?

The Allende murders are hypothetical. The Pinochet murders are real.

You aren't taking into account any of the causes & effects with this.

You'd move politically to the left if you had to work like a slave in a dangerous copper mine for a dollar a day digging up one of your nation's major assets only for a foreign corporation to see any benefit from it.
 
Last edited:
robin said:
So you believe just nine were murdered by Pinochets thugs !
Saddam is on trial for being connected with just a few murders, does that mean he's not responsible for more ?

The Allende murders are hypothetical. The Pinochet murders are real.

You aren't taking into account any of the causes & effects with this.

You'd move politically to the left if you had to work like a slave in a dangerous copper mine for a dollar a day digging up one of your nation's major assets only for a foreign corporation to see any benefit from it.

Has Pinochet been convicted of anything in a court of law? No not one murder has been attributed to him or his regime, the Allende murders are hypothetical in the same sense that the Pinochet murders are hypothetical.

Furthermore; when the Allende regime took over the economy of Chile tanked due to his Marxist economic policies which have been proven to be wrong in every country they have ever been tryed, this economic down turn would lead to famine, the sky rocketing of prices, and the shortages of the most basic of needs, and when Pinochet took over and instituted a policy of privatization to counter the Allende debacle the economy went back up again.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Has Pinochet been convicted of anything in a court of law? No not one murder has been attributed to him or his regime, the Allende murders are hypothetical in the same sense that the Pinochet murders are hypothetical.
Then by your logic, Milosovic's & Saddam's crimes are also hypothetical becuase they've not been convicted of anything yet, therefore they are blameless good guys, as you claim Pinochet to have been.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Furthermore; when the Allende regime took over the economy of Chile tanked due to his Marxist economic policies which have been proven to be wrong in every country they have ever been tryed, this economic down turn would lead to famine, the sky rocketing of prices, and the shortages of the most basic of needs, and when Pinochet took over and instituted a policy of privatization to counter the Allende debacle the economy went back up again.
So who do you think was mainly to blame for the economic problems... Nixon or Allende....

"The government of President Richard M. Nixon launched an economic blockade conjunction with U.S. multinationals (ITT, Kennecott, Anaconda) and banks (Inter-American Development Bank, World Bank). The US squeezed the Chilean economy by terminating financial assistance and blocking loans from multilateral organizations. But during 1972 and 1973 the US increased aid to the military, a sector unenthusiastic toward the Allende government. The United States also increased training Chilean military personnel in the United States and Panama.
According to notes taken by CIA director Richard Helms at a 1970 meeting in the Oval Office, his orders were to "make the economy scream." It was widely reported that at the covert level the United States worked to destabilize Allende's Chile by funding opposition political groups and media and by encouraging a military coup d'état. The agency trained members of the fascist organization Patria y Libertad (PyL) in guerrilla warfare and bombing, and they were soon waging a campaign of arson. CIA also sponsored demonstrations and strikes, funded by ITT and other US corporations with Chilean holdings. CIA-linked media, including the country's largest newspaper, fanned the flames of crisis. While these United States actions contributed to the downfall of Allende, no one has established direct United States participation in the coup d'état and few would assign the United States the primary role in the destruction of that government.
During the second and third years of the UP, demand outstripped supply, the economy shrank, deficit spending snowballed, new investments and foreign exchange became scarce, the value of copper sales dropped, shortages appeared, and inflation skyrocketed, eroding the previous gains for the working class. A thriving black market sprang up. The government responded with direct distribution systems in working-class neighborhoods. Worker participation in the management of enterprises reached unprecedented proportions. The strapped government could not keep the economy from going into free fall because it could not impose austerity measures on its supporters in the working class, get new taxes approved by Congress, or borrow enough money abroad to cover the deficit. "


Also don't you think this is as evil as anything one might see from Stalin or Hitler & yet your country instigated it......

"Allende either was assassinated or committed suicide while defending (with an assault rifle) his socialist government against the coup d'état. Several cabinet ministers were also assassinated, the universities were put under military control, opposition parties were banned and thousands of Chileans were tortured and killed, many fingered as "radicals" by lists provided by the CIA. Although sporadic resistance to the coup erupted, the military consolidated control much more quickly than it had believed possible. Many Chileans had predicted that a coup would unleash a civil war, but instead it ushered in a long period of repression."
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/chile/allende.htm
 
But atleast know the situations look better for socialist movements in South America. There are more countries and there can therefor help eatcheter out and increase the trade between them. Also countries like Venezuela have natural reasources that now goes up in price like oil instead of how it was for Chile in the 70 then the price of copper droped. Also countries like Argentina has ended there debts to the worldbank. Also CIA and USA is to day to busy fighting terrorism and "liberating" Iraq today.
 
robin said:
Then by your logic, Milosovic's & Saddam's crimes are also hypothetical becuase they've not been convicted of anything yet, therefore they are blameless good guys, as you claim Pinochet to have been.

So who do you think was mainly to blame for the economic problems... Nixon or Allende....

"The government of President Richard M. Nixon launched an economic blockade conjunction with U.S. multinationals (ITT, Kennecott, Anaconda) and banks (Inter-American Development Bank, World Bank). The US squeezed the Chilean economy by terminating financial assistance and blocking loans from multilateral organizations. But during 1972 and 1973 the US increased aid to the military, a sector unenthusiastic toward the Allende government. The United States also increased training Chilean military personnel in the United States and Panama.
According to notes taken by CIA director Richard Helms at a 1970 meeting in the Oval Office, his orders were to "make the economy scream." It was widely reported that at the covert level the United States worked to destabilize Allende's Chile by funding opposition political groups and media and by encouraging a military coup d'état. The agency trained members of the fascist organization Patria y Libertad (PyL) in guerrilla warfare and bombing, and they were soon waging a campaign of arson. CIA also sponsored demonstrations and strikes, funded by ITT and other US corporations with Chilean holdings. CIA-linked media, including the country's largest newspaper, fanned the flames of crisis. While these United States actions contributed to the downfall of Allende, no one has established direct United States participation in the coup d'état and few would assign the United States the primary role in the destruction of that government.
During the second and third years of the UP, demand outstripped supply, the economy shrank, deficit spending snowballed, new investments and foreign exchange became scarce, the value of copper sales dropped, shortages appeared, and inflation skyrocketed, eroding the previous gains for the working class. A thriving black market sprang up. The government responded with direct distribution systems in working-class neighborhoods. Worker participation in the management of enterprises reached unprecedented proportions. The strapped government could not keep the economy from going into free fall because it could not impose austerity measures on its supporters in the working class, get new taxes approved by Congress, or borrow enough money abroad to cover the deficit. "


Also don't you think this is as evil as anything one might see from Stalin or Hitler & yet your country instigated it......

"Allende either was assassinated or committed suicide while defending (with an assault rifle) his socialist government against the coup d'état. Several cabinet ministers were also assassinated, the universities were put under military control, opposition parties were banned and thousands of Chileans were tortured and killed, many fingered as "radicals" by lists provided by the CIA. Although sporadic resistance to the coup erupted, the military consolidated control much more quickly than it had believed possible. Many Chileans had predicted that a coup would unleash a civil war, but instead it ushered in a long period of repression."
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/chile/allende.htm

LMFAO the U.S. ended trade relations with a Communist nation wow, hay guess what? We quit giving loans to Chile because we knew that a Communist nation would default on their loans and suprise suprise they defaulted on their loans. Are you seriously under the impression that the U.S. is under some sort of obligation to give loans to countries that we know won't pay back those loans? What a crock. The U.S. doesn't have to give money to anyone that it doesn't want to.


The U.S. never supported the Coup plotters with material, financial, or logistical support, the U.S. only supported rival political parties and Media outlets that were sympathetic to Capitalism and I challenge you to prove anything other than that, oh and op-ed bullshit doesn't constitute as proof; furthermore, like I said in the begining of this thread the Chilean military was under orders from their own Government to oust Allende.

Marxism got the tyrant Allende overthrown not the U.S.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
But atleast know the situations look better for socialist movements in South America. There are more countries and there can therefor help eatcheter out and increase the trade between them. Also countries like Venezuela have natural reasources that now goes up in price like oil instead of how it was for Chile in the 70 then the price of copper droped. Also countries like Argentina has ended there debts to the worldbank. Also CIA and USA is to day to busy fighting terrorism and "liberating" Iraq today.

To bad for you that Latin America was already socialist and due to their failed socialist economies they have moved towards a policy of privatization in line with the Washington Consensus. Kinda throws a wrench into your whole socialist revolution in Latin America theory huh?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
To bad for you that Latin America was already socialist and due to their failed socialist economies they have moved towards a policy of privatization in line with the Washington Consensus. Kinda throws a wrench into your whole socialist revolution in Latin America theory huh?

That time period are you talking about? Because yes during the 90's they tried neoliberal politics. But they didn't exactly work out so now alot of countries is turning into another directions. But for example nationalizing the gas in Bolivia and the oil in Venezual is inline with neoliberalism and privatization.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
That time period are you talking about? Because yes during the 90's they tried neoliberal politics. But they didn't exactly work out so now alot of countries is turning into another directions. But for example nationalizing the gas in Bolivia and the oil in Venezual is inline with neoliberalism and privatization.

I take it you mean is not inline with neo-liberalism and privatization, but those are two exceptions to the rule the majority of Latin America has been following the Washington Consensus for quite some time now, and it's working out very well for them, in fact they're p!ssed because we aren't practicing what we preach, they won't agree to the FTAA (Foriegn Trade Agreement of the Americas) because of the U.S. policy of farm subsidies.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Bullshit Allende was usurping executive legislative power from the congress in attempts to set up a dictatorship, as well as, funding militia revolutionary groups, indoctrinating the children with Marxist principles, suppressing the press, and putting Marxist's at the heads of the military and the police force in order that he might secure his power.

As for Pinochet killing his own citizens, I think you are the type of person who would be of the opinion that if the Weimar Republic's congress ordered the German military led by Rommel to kill Hitler and remove the Nazi party from all aspects of society by any means necessary to save the Republic, you'de be crying in your milk if some National Socialists lost their lives.

Apparently it's not an easy think to preserve a Democratic Republic against a Communist revolution as can be seen that this is the only time in history that it's ever been successful.

Yes Allende did act worryingly at times but softed towards the end of his presidency by giveing military officials cabinet jobs and breaking his links with paramilitary groups. If pinochet was really concerned about the lack of democracy in chile he would firstly have not have overthrown Allende when he was at his most moderate and Secondly not have set up a brutal dictatorship. Unlikle the national socialists put to death after the nurenburg trials the popular unity coalition members where killed by carrying out an electoral mandate given to them by the chilean people and didnt mass murder millions of people. Incidently many killed by pinochet had nothing to do with the PU coalition and where just trade unionsts, writers, or anyone else who criticised pinochet.

Allende, and his two rivals where all socialists of varying degrees, and between them recived the vast majority of votes. By setting up a neo-liberal dictatorship Pinochet was going against the will of most chileans. This shows he obviously didnt belive in democracy or being a servant to the chilean people. How on earth can you claim that somone whos killings inspired the creation of the worlds most influential human rights organisation is a hero?
 
Red_Dave said:
Yes Allende did act worryingly at times but softed towards the end of his presidency by giveing military officials cabinet jobs and breaking his links with paramilitary groups. If pinochet was really concerned about the lack of democracy in chile he would firstly have not have overthrown Allende when he was at his most moderate and Secondly not have set up a brutal dictatorship. Unlikle the national socialists put to death after the nurenburg trials the popular unity coalition members where killed by carrying out an electoral mandate given to them by the chilean people and didnt mass murder millions of people. Incidently many killed by pinochet had nothing to do with the PU coalition and where just trade unionsts, writers, or anyone else who criticised pinochet.

Allende, and his two rivals where all socialists of varying degrees, and between them recived the vast majority of votes. By setting up a neo-liberal dictatorship Pinochet was going against the will of most chileans. This shows he obviously didnt belive in democracy or being a servant to the chilean people. How on earth can you claim that somone whos killings inspired the creation of the worlds most influential human rights organisation is a hero?

How? Because the only reason why Chile isn't a totalitarian Marxist government intrenched in poverty that mirrors that of Cuba, is because of the actions of Pinochet. Yes they were harsh, yes they were inhumane, but no more inhumane than slow starvation that the Chilean people would have faced under a misguided ruler attempting to create a Marxist Utopia which was destined for failure.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
How? Because the only reason why Chile isn't a totalitarian Marxist government intrenched in poverty that mirrors that of Cuba, is because of the actions of Pinochet. Yes they were harsh, yes they were inhumane, but no more inhumane than slow starvation that the Chilean people would have faced under a misguided ruler attempting to create a Marxist Utopia which was destined for failure.

Well if Allende was that bad the chileans could have defeated him at the ballot box. What you are effectivly saying is that the chilean people where not capable of makeing there own decisions democracticially so the C.I.A and Pinochet had to make the descision by themselves. I thought you belived in freedom? Sounds more like colonianlism to me.

To an extent chiles economic problems where not entirely down to Allende. Upon Allendes election the president of america anounced his intention to "make the economy scream" [this is all recorded in Nathenial davis's memoirs] I.E to try and remove Allende through manufactured economic problems
 
Last edited:
Red_Dave said:
Well if Allende was that bad the chileans could have defeated him at the ballot box. What you are effectivly saying is that the chilean people where not capable of makeing there own decisions democracticially so the C.I.A and Pinochet had to make the descision by themselves. I thought you belived in freedom? Sounds more like colonianlism to me.

To an extent chiles economic problems where not entirely down to Allende. Upon Allendes election the president of america anounced his intention to "make the economy scream" [this is all recorded in Nathenial davis's memoirs] I.E to try and remove Allende through manufactured economic problems

No because Allende was usurping legislative power for the executive, he was putting into place the first steps of dictarship, if he would have been allowed to continue to rule free elections would not have been held. And Pinochet was under orders from the elected Chilean government to remove Allende, the CIA had nothing to do with it and gave no logistical or material support as you leftists would have us believe:

Marxism caused Allende's overthrow​


by Patrick Chisholm | csmonitor.com

WASHINGTON – When the 30th anniversary of the overthrow of Chilean president Salvador Allende passed by recently, the myth that the United States was responsible was alive and well. The reality is otherwise. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find a more self-destructive mode of governance than that implemented by the Allende regime.
In the span of three years (1970-73), Allende impoverished the country, tore apart the fabric of Chilean society, and brought the polarized populace to the brink of civil war. It was a predictable consequence of a Marxist agenda.


To blame the chaos on the United States is to ignore Allende's anti-democratic proclivities and his fantastically reckless economic policies. The US's principal actions during this period merely involved providing funding for opposition newspapers, radio stations, and political parties, as well as cutting off loan money to Chile (since it was highly unlikely a Marxist regime would pay the money back; and sure enough, it defaulted on its existing debts). The US had no involvement with the coup plotters. In his memoir "Years of Upheaval," then-National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger is adamant about this point, while freely admitting the US helped fund the opposition. Historians' accounts of the Allende years back up those claims.

But wait. A new book called "The Pinochet File" is touted as making the case, through newly declassified documents, that the United States orchestrated Allende's downfall. Upon learning of the documents, I thought Kissinger might be exposed. So I went to the bookstore, grabbed a copy of book, and searched for the red meat. I found none.

In fact, the book makes clear that the US provided no strategic support, equipment, guarantees, or anything else that materially helped the 1973 coup plotters - just as Kissinger said. While there were some hardliners within the U.S. government who would like to have fomented a coup, they did not get their way. And to be sure, in 1970 the CIA did take part in a clumsy scheme to try to prevent Allende from taking office (which was already common knowledge long prior to the newly declassified documents), but once he was in office, the CIA ceased such activities.

"The Pinochet File," by Peter Kornbluh (editor), plays up the US funding of Chilean opposition groups and the anti-Allende sentiment among many in the US government, while completely ignoring the poisonous policies of the Marxists.

Certainly, the 1970 scheme was a blunder. I am tempted to say that US funding of the opposition groups also was a mistake, since this made the US a more convenient scapegoat. But it was not necessarily a mistake. After all, without the funding, the opposition could have been weaker, and Allende could have had a better shot at achieving his goal of "total, scientific Marxist socialism."

Yes, those were Allende's words. He said them early in his administration during conversations with French leftist RÈgis Debray. Allende added, "As for the bourgeois state, we are seeking to overcome it, to overthrow it." Regarding his allowance of democratic guarantees, they were only temporary - a "tactical necessity" for "the time being."

The blame-America crowd invariably highlights the fact that Allende was democratically elected. But even tyrants can be democratically elected. The key is to observe what leaders do after they gain office. While the Chilean congress (barely) stayed intact and elections still went on, Allende's government closed some opposition newspapers and radio stations. He pardoned left-wing extremists imprisoned for terrorism and other crimes. He moved to gain greater leftist control of universities. He unveiled a plan - never implemented - to reorganize primary and secondary education in order to indoctrinate all students in Marxism. He also tried to replace the congress with a unicameral legislature to boost his control.

Take it from a former member of the Chilean Communist Students Organization. Roberto Ampuero wrote recently in The Washington Post, "the Chilean left's principal failing was to have mentally cast aside our democratic system in order to try to replace it with a system which, by any reasonable measure, had already failed in Eastern Europe."

Further evidence of Allende's ulterior motives was the arrival of 13 wooden crates from Cuba in 1972, which Chilean customs did not examine on the orders of Allende's interior ministry. It was among the first of many shipments to arm Allende's supporters. He did not openly advocate force but acquiesced to it - e.g., when unions forcibly seized major textile enterprises. By mid-1973, Chile had become an armed camp, ripe for civil war.

Allende's disastrous economic policies were what mainly did in the country - and himself. From his election in 1970 until his overthrow in 1973, the government increased the money supply by 3,400 percent in order to pay for massive programs it could not afford. Strict price controls radically disrupted commerce. Expropriations devastated whole industries. Hyperinflation thrust multitudes into poverty. Shortages of basic goods - that inevitable byproduct of Marxism - were widespread.

In the "March of Empty Pots," thousands of women protested the lack of food and rising cost of living - and believe me, they were not acting at the behest of the CIA. Weeks before the coup, hundreds of thousands of people went on strike in protest of the government. Law and order broke down, and violence proliferated. At that point, the military stepped in.

Perpetuators of the myth that the United States caused Allende's downfall are unable to see or refuse to see the utter devastation that Marxism inflicts on a society. It is every bit as bad as fascism; whereas fascists hate rich minorities, Marxists hate the rich in general. And any system fueled by hatred will not be long for this world.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1008/p25s01-cogn.html
 
Back
Top Bottom