Jimmy Carter and Chile under Allende

yofie

Banned
If Jimmy Carter and not Richard Nixon had been the US president at the
time of Salvador Allende's government between 1970 and 1973, how would
the nature of the US intervention in Chile have been different? Would
the CIA at any point have been afraid to see Chile under Allende
become a "second Cuba" and would Pinochet and his armed forces have
ultimately come into power?
 
If Jimmy Carter and not Richard Nixon had been the US president at the
time of Salvador Allende's government between 1970 and 1973, how would
the nature of the US intervention in Chile have been different? Would
the CIA at any point have been afraid to see Chile under Allende
become a "second Cuba" and would Pinochet and his armed forces have
ultimately come into power?

Likely Carter's initial response to Allende's victory would have been more subdued and would have been without serious sanctions or economic warfare of the type Nixon waged against Chile. With this, Allende would have likely moderated economically, if given the right incentives, and most definitely would not have aligned himself so strongly with Cuba or the USSR, for fear of American sanctions and reprisals. By beginning with sanctions, Nixon forced Allende strongly into the Soviet camp. Without this pressure, Chile would likely have moved away from the United States, but would have also not become as close with the USSR, and would probably have aligned with the Non-Aligned Movement's nations. Allende's policies, as a democratic socialist, fit in more with Yugoslavia and India than the USSR anyway.
 
How does 44 year old State Senator Carter manage to shut out Humphrey and McCarthy for the Democratic nomination?
 
It would have been somewhat like with Chavez, much words but little or no damage. allende would likely be let to proceed with his term of rule, to be later replaced by someone else. The military whining of "Commie takeover" would be reined in by the very Americans.
I don't think Allende really intended to sell out to Moscow, or that he was an "agent of International Communism". he was a wellmeaning socialist, though, and he knew very well who and where was the sworn enemy of each and every leftism of sorts.
 
It would have been somewhat like with Chavez, much words but little or no damage. allende would likely be let to proceed with his term of rule, to be later replaced by someone else. The military whining of "Commie takeover" would be reined in by the very Americans.
I don't think Allende really intended to sell out to Moscow, or that he was an "agent of International Communism". he was a wellmeaning socialist, though, and he knew very well who and where was the sworn enemy of each and every leftism of sorts.


Without trying to being disrespectful to Mr Chavez, Allende´s democratic credentials and manners were completely blameless ...
 
Jimmy Carter will not win the American Presidency in 1968. I'm not sure how a Democratic President would have responded to events in Chile though.
 
Both Humphrey and RFK would support a coup against Allende.

You think so? It may just be history's distortion over time, but wasn't RFK quite strongly liberal? Also, his brother's legacy (Bay of Pigs anyone?) might have prevented him from taking such strong action.
 

yofie

Banned
Likely Carter's initial response to Allende's victory would have been more subdued and would have been without serious sanctions or economic warfare of the type Nixon waged against Chile. With this, Allende would have likely moderated economically, if given the right incentives, and most definitely would not have aligned himself so strongly with Cuba or the USSR, for fear of American sanctions and reprisals. By beginning with sanctions, Nixon forced Allende strongly into the Soviet camp. Without this pressure, Chile would likely have moved away from the United States, but would have also not become as close with the USSR, and would probably have aligned with the Non-Aligned Movement's nations. Allende's policies, as a democratic socialist, fit in more with Yugoslavia and India than the USSR anyway.

Would that have been so even with as hawkish a National Security Advisor as Zbigniew Brzezinski? And I suppose Pinochet would not have had a chance as a Chilean dictator in that case, right?
 
Would that have been so even with as hawkish a National Security Advisor as Zbigniew Brzezinski? And I suppose Pinochet would not have had a chance as a Chilean dictator in that case, right?

I'm guessing that even Brzezinski would have been unable to influence Carter that much to the right. If you look at Carter's response to the Iranian Revolution, it was, in many ways, more subdued than Nixon's response to Allende. It was more subdued even though it was significantly worse for American interests and was much easier to justify a harsh response to the somewhat violent and quickly extremist Iranian revolution than to Allende's democratic socialism.

As for Pinochet, he probably would have "retired" from the army if his political views became known to the government. One institution Allende would not have been soft on was the army, what with South America's history of military coups.
 

Doc Clark

Banned
If Allende's regime had survived would Chile be an economic basketcase today rather than Latin America's most prosperous country (along with maybe Argentina and Uruguay)?
 
If Allende's regime had survived would Chile be an economic basketcase today rather than Latin America's most prosperous country (along with maybe Argentina and Uruguay)?

Most likely it would be even more prosperous than today, having not been set back 20-odd years by Pinochet's corrupt regime and Milton Freidman's economic policies. Chile under the governments prior to Allende had been a rapidly industrializing and prosperous nation, only the economic warfare waged against it by the United States after Allende's election reversed these gains. Read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine, you'll find it interesting.
 
How does 44 year old State Senator Carter manage to shut out Humphrey and McCarthy for the Democratic nomination?

Carter wins the '66 Georgia Gubernatorial race against all odds and runs in '68 as a first-term Governor?

OR

Carter decides to forgo the '66 Gubernatorial and instead runs in his original plan for US House? In 1968, one-term Congresman Carter runs as an unlikely (really unlikely) dark horse candidate. The upheavals that year might help somewhat, but Humphrey had it pretty much locked and this is before the modern primary system that helped him win in '76.
 
I'm guessing that even Brzezinski would have been unable to influence Carter that much to the right. If you look at Carter's response to the Iranian Revolution, it was, in many ways, more subdued than Nixon's response to Allende. It was more subdued even though it was significantly worse for American interests and was much easier to justify a harsh response to the somewhat violent and quickly extremist Iranian revolution than to Allende's democratic socialism.

As for Pinochet, he probably would have "retired" from the army if his political views became known to the government. One institution Allende would not have been soft on was the army, what with South America's history of military coups.
There was less that Carter could do to stop the Iranian Revolution though. In Chile the army, the political right, big business and white collar unions were all willing and able to work towards Allende's overthrow - there wasn't any similar basis for a counter-revolution in Iran once the Army folded.
 

yofie

Banned
I assume its much simpler, if Allende just lose the election in 1970 and get elected in 1976.

This is exactly what I was thinking of, actually. In that scenario, I've thought of the following changes to who would be the Chilean president:

1970-76: Jorge Alessandri (OTL, he narrowly lost to Allende)
1976-82: Salvador Allende
1982-88: Andres Zaldivar (or perhaps Jorge Godoy Matte or Sergio Onofre Jarpa)
1988-94: Patricio Aylwin (after 1994, as OTL)

Does that sound fair?
 
There was less that Carter could do to stop the Iranian Revolution though. In Chile the army, the political right, big business and white collar unions were all willing and able to work towards Allende's overthrow - there wasn't any similar basis for a counter-revolution in Iran once the Army folded.

That's true, to a certain extent. One of the reasons the unions and big business got behind the coup against Allende was his increasing radicalism, caused by the clear opposition to his rule by the USA. The other major reason was the economic collapse caused by American sanctions and economic warfare. The business community lost a lot of their wealth then, and were willing to support even a military coup if it ended those sanctions.
 
Top