1973 Chilean coup defeated
- Thread starter walmart
- Start date
Really? These claims seem a bit hard to believe. Mind giving a source?
I would recommend reading the newspaper articles of the time. Here are some examples.
Cared to elaborate on that?
As I cannot read Spanish, I seek your help on who are the Leftist (and rightist) militias in pre-coup Chile, how strong are they, what’s their connection to Cuba, what are their respective agendas, and how connected are they to the President.
I thing was, despite emphasis on their threat to Chilean democracy, post coup, the Army had little difficulties in defeating all of them within a short time.
I think how much President Allende was willing to involve himself with the leftist militia determines what would happen to Chilean democracy after the coup.
Taimur500
Banned
Considering who backed the coup, english sources are only a hammer blow if the hammer is inflatable.
I see we're spreading conspiracy theories now. Tell me how Allende punching young protesters is a smear to prepare for a coup, I'm very interested in your analysis that totally won't be nonsense.
Taimur500
Banned
Conspiracy theories? The coup happened, and it was us backed, lmao
Him punching a protester is not right but he did nothing that warranted a legitimate impeachment, since illegal methods had to be resorted to in order to remove him.
No one's saying it didn't happen. But the coup was motivated by the fact that Allende was eroding Chilean institutions and the country was teetering on the brink of oblivion. The US helped in the coup itself, yes, but the Chilean military made the decision to overthrow Allende on their own and requested US support in doing so. You're ignoring that the Chileans fucking hated Allende by the time the coup happened.
Taimur500
Banned
Saving eroding institutions by eroding the foremost institution of the state.
You sound like a mises institute article.
I didn't say that the military coup took the right course. Allende eroded institutions, and Pinochet continued to erode them further.
Nazi Space Spy
Banned
And you sound like someone who can’t rebut the reality that Allende, while no where near as bad as his killer and successor, was hardly a saint himself.
This is me working off memory so take it with a grain or twelve of salt, but the majority of the militia were left wing. Foremost among them, and best connected to the presidency, was MIR who had one of Allende's children associated with them along with his long time mistress being a part of their central planning committee. The weren't that connected to the Cuban's, but they were connected to multiple out of country revolutionary groups by the time of the coupe and had developed an indigenous weapons factory on Chilean soil. They were a straight up communist burn down the system political movement, one which despite being close to the presidency had signifigent political disagreements with Allende and the more moderate members of the UP coalition. To add to the mess you had the peoples militia, and the various compansino groups, who tended to do things like take over factories and re apportion their ownership without consulting the government, they weren't heavily armed or that well established as armed groups (Which is the reason they were not called out during the coupe, they were good enough to bully factory owners and the like but in any armed confrontation they had as much chance of survival as a snowflake in hell.) So they were not a military factor, but a major destabilizing force in Chilean politics at the time. Ideologically communist but tended to be more about improving the lot of their members then actual revolutionaries. Finally, and most importantly, there was the newly established presidential guard; Ideologically pure, displacing the military in their traditional roll, trained, armed, and led by the presidents son in law a DSG colonel (A Cuban military officer). From my reading they were not completely stood up by the time of the coupe, but they were functional and defended the palace against the military. Very much intended as a long term replacement for the military, and semi publicly acknowledged as such (I'm sure you can see the problem here...)
On the right you had the trucking unions, who were striking pretty regularly and being funded by the CIA, despite being nominally capitalist and USA aligned they were concerned with their members lives, not ideological thought. PyL was the right wing militia, but they were not really a factor beyond being nutjobs and then once the coupe was completed joining the security services as thugs. Again they were CIA funded, but not that effective. You then had various military officers who were still smarting over the Christian Democrats failure to solve the issue of military pay, or really deal with the underlying issues raised by the Tacnazo insurrection and the fact that the military was by this point in time culturally and politically divorced from the main stream in Chilean politics and society. Then you have the joker in the deck, ITT Corporation, who were deeply anti communist and already had participated in the 64 coupe in brazil. Very connected in Washington, a much better sense of the reality on the ground then the CIA, and willing to spend their own money to prop up the right wing.
Basically everything was one huge mess, with the CIA throwing money and support at any yahoo they came across with a half baked notion of how to overthrow Allende, but being effective in the least. The KGB was supporting Allende personally, but the soviet union and china were declining to give economic support to the UP government that he lead. The KGB was honestly most effective post coupe, they had a dedicated smear/deification campaign in the American media which is still felt to this day. Post coupe Then you have the DSG, who were providing Allende with his intelligence reports and generally propping up his government where they could, and ITT who were the most effective against him despite not being an intelligence agency.
Please, I don't want repeat myself so read my previous post about the subject. But:
- saying that Allende was hated by Chilean people is ridiculous. Surely Chile was a polarized country as many during Cold War but Allende had the support of a large part of Chilean population, as an other large parte was opposed or not supportive of him. But it's democracy and Allende never tried to suppress it. In 1973 Parliamentary Elections Unity Popular made gains, winning 44,2% of vote, surely a sign of popularity, but not a majority, surely a sign of democracy. Do you want to know who suppress democracy in Chile? General Augusto Pinochet and his fucking hitmen.
- the Parliament of Chile was controlled by opposition that won elections in 1969 and 1973. Not a sign of a growing dictatorship, I would say. His "terrible, red" reforms were actually voted by the opposition, especially by Christian Democrats, the main opposition party. Oh yeah, and Christian Democrats elected Allende President in 1969 during the Congressional Election.
- the Army was not so reactionary. Generals René Schneider and Carlos Prats, predecessors of Pinochet as Army Commander-in-Chief, were strongly opposed any coup or use of militar force. They were both assassinated in killings orchestrated by CIA and DINA to help Pinochet.
- defining a man as Eduardo Frei Montalva, who actively supported a coup that caused one of the most violent regime in modern history, thousands of deaths and others thousands of disappearances, a "pro-democracy" politician, well, it's hardly to say. I would say that he was a reactionary politician who chose to help a dictator to kill his people instead respect the Costitution which he had sworn to defend.
In conclusion Allende was not an angel and no one wants to paint him so: he was a politician and he played politics. Some of his policies were good, others bad, and we can agree his positions or not, but he was not a sort of Chilean Maduro. Never. It's a historical mistake or a historical false saying so: he respected the Constitution, respected a Parliament led by opposition, respected the Courts, he was elected democratically and was overthrowed by a plot of traitorous Generals, copper companies, rightwing politicians and industrials and US secret services. That's a historical fact. And do you want to make me believe that Allende was eroding Chilean democracy?
In 1973 Allende, a Costitutional President elected democratically who never commit criminal acts, was the Chilean democracy, that died with him with the Pinochet's coup.
Allende had red terrorism against him (what? But he was not an aspirant communist dictator?!? Actually far left considered him too moderate as he decided to respect Costitution and democratic processes), black terrorism against him, a continued rightwing press campaign against him (almost all Chilean newspapers, mainly linked to industrial networks, were against Allende, but, of course, Allende destroyed freedom of press), United States that tried to strike him every time they can, foreign companies that intentionally sabotaged Chilean markets, at least two failed coup attempts before Pinochet, but, although that, it's Allende the threat to Chilean democracy.
Do you want to know an other historical fact? Allende appointed a General, General Carlos Prats, as his Interior Minister. Yeah, the terrible Allende, the red monster, the communist menace, the democracy killing, nominated one of the most respect Generals of Chile, the head of (so much reactionary) Army as head of public order. That's not sound as a radical enemy ready to start a revolution, it's sound as a good choice of President willing to show national unity in a delicat moment for the country.
You can say many things about Allende but not he was a dangerous dictator. Pinochet was a dangerous dictator, not Allende. That's justifying Pinochet's coup and his mass murders and that is simply shameful.
- saying that Allende was hated by Chilean people is ridiculous. Surely Chile was a polarized country as many during Cold War but Allende had the support of a large part of Chilean population, as an other large parte was opposed or not supportive of him. But it's democracy and Allende never tried to suppress it. In 1973 Parliamentary Elections Unity Popular made gains, winning 44,2% of vote, surely a sign of popularity, but not a majority, surely a sign of democracy. Do you want to know who suppress democracy in Chile? General Augusto Pinochet and his fucking hitmen.
- the Parliament of Chile was controlled by opposition that won elections in 1969 and 1973. Not a sign of a growing dictatorship, I would say. His "terrible, red" reforms were actually voted by the opposition, especially by Christian Democrats, the main opposition party. Oh yeah, and Christian Democrats elected Allende President in 1969 during the Congressional Election.
- the Army was not so reactionary. Generals René Schneider and Carlos Prats, predecessors of Pinochet as Army Commander-in-Chief, were strongly opposed any coup or use of militar force. They were both assassinated in killings orchestrated by CIA and DINA to help Pinochet.
- defining a man as Eduardo Frei Montalva, who actively supported a coup that caused one of the most violent regime in modern history, thousands of deaths and others thousands of disappearances, a "pro-democracy" politician, well, it's hardly to say. I would say that he was a reactionary politician who chose to help a dictator to kill his people instead respect the Costitution which he had sworn to defend.
In conclusion Allende was not an angel and no one wants to paint him so: he was a politician and he played politics. Some of his policies were good, others bad, and we can agree his positions or not, but he was not a sort of Chilean Maduro. Never. It's a historical mistake or a historical false saying so: he respected the Constitution, respected a Parliament led by opposition, respected the Courts, he was elected democratically and was overthrowed by a plot of traitorous Generals, copper companies, rightwing politicians and industrials and US secret services. That's a historical fact. And do you want to make me believe that Allende was eroding Chilean democracy?
In 1973 Allende, a Costitutional President elected democratically who never commit criminal acts, was the Chilean democracy, that died with him with the Pinochet's coup.
Allende had red terrorism against him (what? But he was not an aspirant communist dictator?!? Actually far left considered him too moderate as he decided to respect Costitution and democratic processes), black terrorism against him, a continued rightwing press campaign against him (almost all Chilean newspapers, mainly linked to industrial networks, were against Allende, but, of course, Allende destroyed freedom of press), United States that tried to strike him every time they can, foreign companies that intentionally sabotaged Chilean markets, at least two failed coup attempts before Pinochet, but, although that, it's Allende the threat to Chilean democracy.
Do you want to know an other historical fact? Allende appointed a General, General Carlos Prats, as his Interior Minister. Yeah, the terrible Allende, the red monster, the communist menace, the democracy killing, nominated one of the most respect Generals of Chile, the head of (so much reactionary) Army as head of public order. That's not sound as a radical enemy ready to start a revolution, it's sound as a good choice of President willing to show national unity in a delicat moment for the country.
You can say many things about Allende but not he was a dangerous dictator. Pinochet was a dangerous dictator, not Allende. That's justifying Pinochet's coup and his mass murders and that is simply shameful.
Oh, I see now - everything bad is just a smear, those newspapers are a US plot, yada ya. Just take the L. Allende was an authoritarian. You're ignoring that Allende LITERALLY THREATENED TO DISSOLVE PARLIAMENT, and that Allende is on the record as saying that newspapers should serve the revolution rather than report the facts. He wasn't as bad as Pinochet, not by a long shot, but to claim that he was a moderate who believed in democracy is laughable.
I never said that: I never said that everything bad during Allende Presidency was a smear, I never said that US controlled Chilean newspapers, actually I never said neither that Allende was a moderate. If you scream about it maybe you have weak arguments.
I said that Allende was a politician and played politics: some policies were good, others not. For example in my opinion his economic approach, although probably motivated by some good principles, was going to be a failure in long term. It was in line with the others "left populist" economic policies very common in South America and those have always led towards high inflation and economic problems. In fact in my previous message I pointed that, underlining as economic problems cause Unity Popular's defeats.
Others policies, as Agrarian Reform and Mining Nationalization, were widely popular and necessary to assure an economic development founded on equality and equity.
The majority of Chilean newspapers attacked Allende and the most of them were conservative leading. In my opinion some of their attacks were very partisan and unjust, considering the situation, but I never said the the US controlled the press. To make an example, I could say that in US Fox News is a conservative media generally unfavorable to Democrats and all the people could agree with that, but I could never say that Fox News is run by Russia.
What's the meaning of authoritarian? Unfortunately right now we had many modern examples: Duterte ordered mass killings, Erdogan declared martial law, Putin commited war crimes, Xi Jinping abolished the term-limit, Maduro tried to overthrow the Parliament, Viktor Orban turned the Costitutional Court in a puppet, Trump, Le Pen and Salvini used hate speech and racism to advance their political careers. Or again Macron's France is under a perennial state of emergency since 2015 and Theresa May trying to prevent the Commons to vote about Brexit could be considered a little authoritarian. But Allende never did something similar: he removed some of his ministries when the Parliament asked so, nominated many bipartisan ministries and he had to accept when the Parliament voted against some his proposals.
There were some fiery discussions between Allende and some members of the Congress, but they were after the same members (oh yeah, led by "pro-democracy" Frei Montalva) encouraged publicly the militaries to take over the goverment, kill its members and start a militar dictatorship, an Unconstitutional, Illegal an Immoral act. Try to figure if a opposition's faction in your country begins openly to ask a coup and a massacre of its political adversaries. And you are surprised that Allende verbally fight with these men?!?
The same politicians were threatening Allende to impeach him: well, this is a legal act and the Congress had the power to do so. In my previous post I explained why I think it would failed and backfired but they had the right and the power, as elected representatives of Chilean people, to do this. What they had not the right was commit treason plotting with subversive elements in the Army and foreign powers to overthrow the Chilean democracy.
Allende was not a moderate and I never said that: I said that he was respectful of democratic procedures. You don't need to be "moderate" to be democratic. He was not a centrist, he was a leftwing socialist and the Chilean people elected him for this. He did an Agrarian Reform and a Mining Nationalization, widely popular things, but he was under the average of the South American left leaders: for example, Lazaro Cardenas del Rio, father of the modern Mexican democracy and one of the most popular Presidents in Mexican history, made mandatory studying Socialism at school, a move that Allende never did.
Allende was more the Jacobo Arbenz of Chile: a popular leftwing leader that was shamefully overthrown when the US felt their economic interests threatened.
I said that Allende was a politician and played politics: some policies were good, others not. For example in my opinion his economic approach, although probably motivated by some good principles, was going to be a failure in long term. It was in line with the others "left populist" economic policies very common in South America and those have always led towards high inflation and economic problems. In fact in my previous message I pointed that, underlining as economic problems cause Unity Popular's defeats.
Others policies, as Agrarian Reform and Mining Nationalization, were widely popular and necessary to assure an economic development founded on equality and equity.
The majority of Chilean newspapers attacked Allende and the most of them were conservative leading. In my opinion some of their attacks were very partisan and unjust, considering the situation, but I never said the the US controlled the press. To make an example, I could say that in US Fox News is a conservative media generally unfavorable to Democrats and all the people could agree with that, but I could never say that Fox News is run by Russia.
What's the meaning of authoritarian? Unfortunately right now we had many modern examples: Duterte ordered mass killings, Erdogan declared martial law, Putin commited war crimes, Xi Jinping abolished the term-limit, Maduro tried to overthrow the Parliament, Viktor Orban turned the Costitutional Court in a puppet, Trump, Le Pen and Salvini used hate speech and racism to advance their political careers. Or again Macron's France is under a perennial state of emergency since 2015 and Theresa May trying to prevent the Commons to vote about Brexit could be considered a little authoritarian. But Allende never did something similar: he removed some of his ministries when the Parliament asked so, nominated many bipartisan ministries and he had to accept when the Parliament voted against some his proposals.
There were some fiery discussions between Allende and some members of the Congress, but they were after the same members (oh yeah, led by "pro-democracy" Frei Montalva) encouraged publicly the militaries to take over the goverment, kill its members and start a militar dictatorship, an Unconstitutional, Illegal an Immoral act. Try to figure if a opposition's faction in your country begins openly to ask a coup and a massacre of its political adversaries. And you are surprised that Allende verbally fight with these men?!?
The same politicians were threatening Allende to impeach him: well, this is a legal act and the Congress had the power to do so. In my previous post I explained why I think it would failed and backfired but they had the right and the power, as elected representatives of Chilean people, to do this. What they had not the right was commit treason plotting with subversive elements in the Army and foreign powers to overthrow the Chilean democracy.
Allende was not a moderate and I never said that: I said that he was respectful of democratic procedures. You don't need to be "moderate" to be democratic. He was not a centrist, he was a leftwing socialist and the Chilean people elected him for this. He did an Agrarian Reform and a Mining Nationalization, widely popular things, but he was under the average of the South American left leaders: for example, Lazaro Cardenas del Rio, father of the modern Mexican democracy and one of the most popular Presidents in Mexican history, made mandatory studying Socialism at school, a move that Allende never did.
Allende was more the Jacobo Arbenz of Chile: a popular leftwing leader that was shamefully overthrown when the US felt their economic interests threatened.
kernals12
Banned
Arbenz never identified as a Marxist during his presidency.
And it's completely untrue that the US carried out the coup, that's been confirmed by several congressional investigations and troves of internal CIA documents. The Chilean military carried out the coup on its own accord.
An identifying you as a Marxist (or a Socialist or a Liberal or a Catholic or a Simple Good Man who wants do something of legal and-you believe-good for your people) is enough to deserve a coup and a twenty-years long dictatorship?!? That's incredible.
Overall, your party was irrelevant: you can proclaimed you a member of Mormon Party, if you want, but if you try to make something with the US economic interests you are going to disappear in a hole. That was as worked Cold War South America.
For example in Dominican Republic, the US helped to overthrow the long-term dictatorship of Rafael Trujilo (that they installed in power some decades before), helping pro-democracy famous writer Juan Bosch to be the first democratic President of the country. But, as Bosch tried to reform the state and expand social welfare, the US supported a coup against him just some months after.
All the world know who give Pinochet the gun, a fundamental assistance that started before of 1969 election and was active in many fields: for example the assassination of Schneider and forcing resignation of Prats, that opened the door to Pinoched's appointment as Commander of the Army. But I'm not high enough to speak I about it so:
"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves" Henry Kissinger, US Secretary of State
"Like Caesar peering into the colonies from distant Rome, Nixon said the choice of government by the Chileans was unacceptable to the president of the United States. The attitude in the White House seemed to be, "If in the wake of Vietnam I can no longer send in the Marines, then I will send in the CIA."
Senator Frank Church, as Chair of Senate Committee about CIA Affairs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_FUBELT
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Mercurio
"In 1970, ITT owned 70% of CTC (the Chilean Telephone Company, now Movistar Chile) and funded El Mercurio, a Chilean right-wingnewspaper. Declassified documents released by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency in 2000 reveal that the company financially helped opponents of Salvador Allende's government prepare a military coup"
The ITT collaborated also in 1964 Brazilian Coup against President Joao Goulart, an other popular leftwing leader.
Now we have evidences US financed the coup, we have evidences US encouraged the coup, we have evidences US helped organizing the coup, we have evidences US sold weapons to the plotters, we had the evidences US financed rightwing media to discredit Allende Presidency and help the coup, we had evidences US pushed for economic measures that caused a recession in Chile in order to destabilize the country and help the coup, we had evidences US planned terror strategies to help the plotters and finally we have strong evidences that US goverment (alias Nixon and Kissinger) hated Allende and wanted him removed.
Do you want to see the video where Nixon ordered to Pinochet, spelling slowly every words, clearly and without doubts, to kill Allende? Well, you live in a dream world. But Nixon seems to me a pretty smart person and I don't think he though that financial aids to Pinochet were going in some Chilean orphanage. And if it looks like a CIA coup, swims like a CIA coup, and quacks like a CIA coup, then it probably is a CIA coup.
In a normal criminal case Tricky Dicky would be convicted in twenty minutes as accomplice and mandator for a so long list of crimes that the only way for him to avoid prison would be dying before they finish to read them.
Overall, your party was irrelevant: you can proclaimed you a member of Mormon Party, if you want, but if you try to make something with the US economic interests you are going to disappear in a hole. That was as worked Cold War South America.
For example in Dominican Republic, the US helped to overthrow the long-term dictatorship of Rafael Trujilo (that they installed in power some decades before), helping pro-democracy famous writer Juan Bosch to be the first democratic President of the country. But, as Bosch tried to reform the state and expand social welfare, the US supported a coup against him just some months after.
All the world know who give Pinochet the gun, a fundamental assistance that started before of 1969 election and was active in many fields: for example the assassination of Schneider and forcing resignation of Prats, that opened the door to Pinoched's appointment as Commander of the Army. But I'm not high enough to speak I about it so:
"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves" Henry Kissinger, US Secretary of State
"Like Caesar peering into the colonies from distant Rome, Nixon said the choice of government by the Chileans was unacceptable to the president of the United States. The attitude in the White House seemed to be, "If in the wake of Vietnam I can no longer send in the Marines, then I will send in the CIA."
Senator Frank Church, as Chair of Senate Committee about CIA Affairs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_FUBELT
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Mercurio
"In 1970, ITT owned 70% of CTC (the Chilean Telephone Company, now Movistar Chile) and funded El Mercurio, a Chilean right-wingnewspaper. Declassified documents released by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency in 2000 reveal that the company financially helped opponents of Salvador Allende's government prepare a military coup"
The ITT collaborated also in 1964 Brazilian Coup against President Joao Goulart, an other popular leftwing leader.
Now we have evidences US financed the coup, we have evidences US encouraged the coup, we have evidences US helped organizing the coup, we have evidences US sold weapons to the plotters, we had the evidences US financed rightwing media to discredit Allende Presidency and help the coup, we had evidences US pushed for economic measures that caused a recession in Chile in order to destabilize the country and help the coup, we had evidences US planned terror strategies to help the plotters and finally we have strong evidences that US goverment (alias Nixon and Kissinger) hated Allende and wanted him removed.
Do you want to see the video where Nixon ordered to Pinochet, spelling slowly every words, clearly and without doubts, to kill Allende? Well, you live in a dream world. But Nixon seems to me a pretty smart person and I don't think he though that financial aids to Pinochet were going in some Chilean orphanage. And if it looks like a CIA coup, swims like a CIA coup, and quacks like a CIA coup, then it probably is a CIA coup.
In a normal criminal case Tricky Dicky would be convicted in twenty minutes as accomplice and mandator for a so long list of crimes that the only way for him to avoid prison would be dying before they finish to read them.