WI: No Coup Against Allende In Chile

On the 4th point- let's see you bankrupt every paper opposed to you and how can you have democracy?

The CIA authorized payment only to keep the papers alive. It was a response to Allende's actions not the other way around

I may disagree with a lot of the press but really do I want the government shutting down a paper that dares to criticize it?

I need citation for your assertions...
Because AFAIK, people who don't agree with Allende ideologically do agree that a coup was not the right way out to get him out of office...
Nor the fact that Pinochet was a good leader...

I mean, he tortured and "disappeared" people!
Not to mention that democracy didn't come back until over a decade later...
But then again, the idea of a coup d'etat to save democracy only worked once...
And this wasn't the case here, that's for sure!

And that sounds like something the CIA would say...I would take them with a fair grain of salt...
 
Chilean democracy was destroyed before the coup and it was destroyed by the lawless behavior of Allende

"Allende was elected" sure but so was Papa Doc, so was Marcos, so was Hitler and so were a lot of other dictators

Democracy requires a government that respects the rule of law. Arming your supporters in violation of the law, is not democratic

Refusing to enforce Supreme Court rulings is not respecting the rule of law

Subverting the Military chain of command (and Chile's military's institutional independence from the President guaranteed by the Chilean Constitution) is not democratic

Or should we argue that Chile's dictatorship was democratic because it was approved by 65% of the voters in the 1980 plebiscite?

Well, last time I've checked, Allende's election was legitimate...
It was more so than Bush in 2000, that's for sure!

And from what I've read, Allende himself wasn't responsible for arming his supporters...they did so themselves because they were anticipating that the government may end up being overthrown...

And I think Allende tried to appease the military actually...
It wasn't his fault that one of the generals who strongly supported constitutionalism (independence of the military from the President) was assassinated! By the military itself, mind you...
 

Czar Kaizer

Banned
Chilean democracy was destroyed before the coup and it was destroyed by the lawless behavior of Allende

"Allende was elected" sure but so was Papa Doc, so was Marcos, so was Hitler and so were a lot of other dictators

Democracy requires a government that respects the rule of law. Arming your supporters in violation of the law, is not democratic

Refusing to enforce Supreme Court rulings is not respecting the rule of law

Subverting the Military chain of command (and Chile's military's institutional independence from the President guaranteed by the Chilean Constitution) is not democratic

Or should we argue that Chile's dictatorship was democratic because it was approved by 65% of the voters in the 1980 plebiscite?
Demoracy requires that legitimately democratic governments are not overthrown by the military and replaced by a military dictatorship which i
 
getting away from the whole 'the coup was bad and Pinochet was bad' (is anyone really doubting that?) and sticking with the POD of 'Allende stays in power'... what next? Does he cozy up to Moscow, seek closer relations to the USA, chart a middle path between the two, establish heaven on earth, ruin the nation entirely... what's likely to happen?
 
Demoracy requires that legitimately democratic governments are not overthrown by the military and replaced by a military dictatorship which imprisons and murders it's openenth.
It also paramount that the military has no independence from civilian rule in a democracy you know or else they might have a tendency to overthrow governments they don't like like or or force the civillian government to aubserbient to it like Egypt, Japan or what was that other example? Ah yes, Chile.

Like I've said...
The one who emphasized separation of military from politics was assassinated...
And the reason why Pinochet was the head guy was because Allende thought he was willing to respect civilian control of the military, instead of overthrowing him...
Of course, that was shitty judgement...

I can't really believe that someone's willing to actually defend Pinochet! I mean, there's a reason even Chileans who don't like Allende think the coup is bad...
You might as well say that the Japanese occupation of Korea was OK because Korea was poor and feudal...
Or that the US support of Pakistan during the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war was OK, even though it entailed genocide, due to supporting an ally and allowing rapprochement with China...
Or even that the US supporting the apartheid regime was OK because the ANC was aligned with communists..(ignoring that they did so because of a common position of anti-colonialism, and that the Soviets/Cuba are willing to provide support when the US and other western countries wouldn't...).
 
getting away from the whole 'the coup was bad and Pinochet was bad' (is anyone really doubting that?) and sticking with the POD of 'Allende stays in power'... what next? Does he cozy up to Moscow, seek closer relations to the USA, chart a middle path between the two, establish heaven on earth, ruin the nation entirely... what's likely to happen?

Well, I would say that he'll be a one-termer, because the economy is in the crapper...
Personally, I think without the coup, he would be seen as just a fairly crappy president of the 1970s, like a Chilean equivalent of Jimmy Carter...
I think he would try to balance the Soviets and the US, and closer relations with Cuba (which just goes to show some of the hypocrisy here...Pierre Trudeau was friends with Castro too, but the US didn't do a coup against him!).
I think he was aware that he couldn't alienate the US too much, which is why Letelier was his ambassador...
That's the main basis for the conniptions from the US OTL...they really didn't want a 2nd Cuba, and the copper nationalization (which was a strongly supported thing BTW...).
Of course, how they went with preventing that was plain bullshit...
 
Coup attempts would be inevitable as long as Allende continue his shenanigans, the US didn't really need to exercise much, he created a lot of enemies himself.

That is, if Allende isn't ousted in the upcoming election, Chilean democracy isn't going to be "safe", Allende pretty much used the Constitution as toilet paper and antagonized a lot with the legislative and the judiciary. In short words, Chile could easy become what Venezuela is today, but with the government a lot shaky.

Seriously, the only reason Allende is seem as a hero today is because he died and his successor was a complete monster.
 
The part where you implied it was okay to overthrow Allende?

And where did you get THAT part? :mad:

Coup attempts would be inevitable as long as Allende continue his shenanigans, the US didn't really need to exercise much, he created a lot of enemies himself.

That is, if Allende isn't ousted in the upcoming election, Chilean democracy isn't going to be "safe", Allende pretty much used the Constitution as toilet paper and antagonized a lot with the legislative and the judiciary. In short words, Chile could easy become what Venezuela is today, but with the government a lot shaky.

Seriously, the only reason Allende is seem as a hero today is because he died and his successor was a complete monster.

That's a capitalist lie! There's no middle ground whatsoever between saying Allende was a hero and saying that Pinochet was a hero for overthrowing him! None! NONE! NONE!:mad::rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

LordKalvert

Banned
A good read on the actual events that lead up to the coup

https://books.google.com/books?id=S...#v=onepage&q=the overthrow of allende&f=false

As for "Pinochet was bad for Chile" a large number of Chileans obviously disagree

We can look at the 1988 plebiscite where 45% voted to continue the dictatorship (and a majority of those who were voters when Allende was overthrown voted to keep the dictatorship)

In any event, the point was that the Chilean coup is brought about by criminal activity that Allende clearly admitted to the Navy he knew about rather than the activity of the CIA

Chile had a very elaborate Constitution that insulated the military from Presidential and Congressional authority. The reason was that an elected President was seen as the greatest threat to democracy- Unfortunately, Allende proved the framers of the Chilean constitution right on that point
 
getting away from the whole 'the coup was bad and Pinochet was bad' (is anyone really doubting that?) and sticking with the POD of 'Allende stays in power'... what next? Does he cozy up to Moscow, seek closer relations to the USA, chart a middle path between the two, establish heaven on earth, ruin the nation entirely... what's likely to happen?

Considering Allende was more of a left-wing Chilean nationalist than some kind of international socialist I think he'd chart a similar course to Nasser of seeking to play the superpowers off one another to his greatest gain. He wasn't actively flirting with Moscow prior to the coup and the Nixon Administration's active economic pressure and work to support the coup plotters would definitely sour any surviving Allende government to working with Washington.

This all, of course, depends on how the coup is averted. If it is via Allende receiving sufficient advance warning to arrest Pinochet et al that's a very different situation from, say, armed factory workers and Allende supporters having it out in the streets with the army and Allende's people coming out on top.

More Project: CYBERSYN computerized economic planning which might get picked up by the Eastern Bloc

CYBERSYN was showing quite a bit of promise before Pinochet pulled the plug on it. I'm betting the system would be picked up by the Eastern Bloc and the corporate sector alike. Japan being heavily influenced in economic policy by the MITI-zaibatsu partnership and France under dirigisme policies would have been all over something like CYBERSYN in the 70s as would other social democracies looking to streamline operations.

We can look at the 1988 plebiscite where 45% voted to continue the dictatorship (and a majority of those who were voters when Allende was overthrown voted to keep the dictatorship)

Which took place after fifteen years of repression, atrocities, active purges and execution of all political opposition, and under massive international scrutiny as the Cold War was winding down, apartheid in South Africa was coming under intense fire, the Reagan Administration was catching flak over Nicaragua and several other pointless brushfire wars, and it was not in the moment feasible for the US to give blanket support to someone like Pinochet who turned soccer stadiums into execution fields.

Context is everything in history. If not for the international situation at work Pinochet could have easily disregarded the plebiscite, issued rigged results, and shot anyone who said otherwise.
 
Let's say the US decides not execute a coup in Chile. Allende is put into power and Pinochet doesn't. What then?

All things considered, Chile probably would have been better off in the latter '70s and '80s than in OTL; the country, despite some outward appearances, really did not do all that well under Pinochet when it comes to the country as a whole. Sure, perhaps the upper classes and some businesses did well, but there was also lots of poverty(worse than when Allende came in), and I don't need to mention the shady elections, the disappearances, etc.-it really wasn't until Patricio Aylwin came in that the country began to turn itself around.

Now, that's not to say that Allende's Chile would have been "heaven on earth", necessarily, but his administration was at least put into place under a fair election, and it honestly doesn't seem likely he would've become another Castro or a '70s Hugo Chavez.
 
That's a capitalist lie! There's no middle ground whatsoever between saying Allende was a hero and saying that Pinochet was a hero for overthrowing him! None! NONE! NONE!:mad::rolleyes:

There is a middle ground...
Say that I think he was a sucky leader, but that doesn't justify Pinochet destroying democracy by overthrowing him...
I mean, that's like saying that the military should have overthrown Bush over the Iraq War...
 
There is a middle ground...
Say that I think he was a sucky leader, but that doesn't justify Pinochet destroying democracy by overthrowing him...
I mean, that's like saying that the military should have overthrown Bush over the Iraq War...

That's what I was saying in the first place.:rolleyes::mad:
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Which took place after fifteen years of repression, atrocities, active purges and execution of all political opposition, and under massive international scrutiny as the Cold War was winding down, apartheid in South Africa was coming under intense fire, the Reagan Administration was catching flak over Nicaragua and several other pointless brushfire wars, and it was not in the moment feasible for the US to give blanket support to someone like Pinochet who turned soccer stadiums into execution fields.

Context is everything in history. If not for the international situation at work Pinochet could have easily disregarded the plebiscite, issued rigged results, and shot anyone who said otherwise.

Yes and even with all that 45% of the Chilean people preferred to remain under the Pinochet dictatorship than return to democracy. Even more amazing is that the military respected the vote and peacefully left power. Something we know Allende had no intention of doing
 
Yes and even with all that 45% of the Chilean people preferred to remain under the Pinochet dictatorship than return to democracy. Even more amazing is that the military respected the vote and peacefully left power. Something we know Allende had no intention of doing

I don't know about that IRRC a lot of that 45% were afraid that the vote was trick and would be used against them.
 
Yes and even with all that 45% of the Chilean people preferred to remain under the Pinochet dictatorship than return to democracy. Even more amazing is that the military respected the vote and peacefully left power. Something we know Allende had no intention of doing

How are you so sure that's the case?
I need some sort of citation...
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
Personally, I think without the coup, he would be seen as just a fairly crappy president of the 1970s, like a Chilean equivalent of Jimmy Carter...
I'd say that's the most likely. And when the economy is bad, it doesn't really matter the reason why. At least in the eyes of most voters.
 
5000 people or so would be alive.

Children would not have been doused with gasoline.

Women would not have been raped by dogs.

Prisoners would not have been thrown from helicopters.

A quote million people would of have been tortured.

Simple really.
 
Top