It's looking like it given the answer you just started with, I'm going to need to write this in parts.

First off, let me make my position on this clear (or as clear as possible). I dont primarily blame the US, i blame the fascists. The US was a supporting actor. But their guilt should not be diminished, or role forgotten. This coup along with Guatemala and Lumamba's death are for me the 3 most overlooked events in modern history. My point of such a thread is simply to bring a little attention on this board to the event. (I was tossing up whether to make one on Allende, Lumumba or Arbenz- it just so happened that i stumbled across this article and so went with Allende, out of laziness if nothing else)

Lets just pretend you are a Pinochet supporter so i can call you names

Right on to the serious stuff.

Everything there was pretty much all the support i meant they gave. My OP was admittedly short and vague. This may have allowed it to be construed to mean many things. I wont pretend to have as many sources as you on this. Anything i know or believe to be true is simply stored in memory from articles and TV. In my memory the role of the US was to bankroll the coup, but the primary role was to fight the propaganda war that is touched upon above. I remember seeing an interview with a CIA operative in Chile where it was said that the US dropped propaganda leaflets from the sky, propaganda that was at best misleading and worst totally false.


It would be almost baseless of me to claim they did, though the article certainly does. I do not know their sources, but i actually have quite a bit of faith in Granma, it is my favourite media outlet. Of course it could be all speculation, but i do think a lot of Granma (you may think foolishly). But i cannot say with any degree of certainty that they did or did not do as the article claims.

Cheers, i will favourite it as soon as i've completed my response.


Again, there is not too much to disagree with. But that alone paints the US involvement as wrongful and unjust. The fact they didn't request the right revolt, that it was the other way around only detracts from US guilt in the most small of ways.

In there i believe lies a key issue, the US sees no difference between socialist and communist and that has been the major downfall of their foreign policy in the past 90 years.

I'm not buying that. It is a logical inconsistency. He says you cant have a socialist government without the communists. To me that simply means is they have to be involved, there has to be solidarity as both parties ultimately represent the same people and interests.

Just because a socialist government requires the backing or involvement of the communists does not necessitate that the socialist government must be communist.

If i can use a completely hypothetical analogy. One could say that you can't have a socialist government without the feminists. But that doesn't mean that everyone in the government has to be a feminist.

I may be wrong, and you may be able to correct me here, but i'm pretty sure i'm not. Prodi's Italian coallition included the communists, but no one could seriously say that Italy has been a communist country for the past few years.
This is not totally unique. Blair's government were elected with 35.3% of the vote with the Tories on 32.3%. Okay its not quite as slim, but nevermind a run off, Blair actually got a resounding majority in parliamenton the back of it (thats the oxymoron of British democracy for you)


I not surprisingly not only find nothing wrong with this. I find it morally praiseworthy. Surely to aid a newly elected government facing the threat of imperialism and fascism should be aided. If only more had done the same when it was Franco with the Nazi empire threatening the government in Spain, WW2 could have been avoided.

Now, let me say this from my personal experience:
I think we have been here before, so i wont bombard you with stats unless you wish to see them. The so called ecomnomic miracle was closer to a niightmare. It brought boom and bust, more often bust. It brought a reduction in real wages (a huge one at that) and unemployment. It furthered the gap between rich and poor. So there are plenty of negatives to match the apparent stability.


Back to what i said earlier in my post, i do not believe this was ever my position. My position is and has always been that this was an attack by fascism on both democracy and socialism and that this was supported by the US.

__________________
Viva Fidel

"If there ever was in the history of humanity an enemy who was truly universal, an enemy whose acts and moves trouble the entire world, threaten the entire world, attack the entire world in any way or another, that real and really universal enemy is precisely Yankee imperialism"

"North Americans don't understand... that our country is not just Cuba; our country is also humanity"

I assume that this is at least partially tongue in cheek, but I, for one, was disappointed that he died without every going to trial.

Latin America is full of old criminals who just die without justice being served. It doesn't matter if the crime is fifty years old, it should still be redressed.

Of course, that doesn't mean that I miss the b*stard.

__________________
"Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
-Joseph Welch

Before then it was the battle of Stirling Bridge, where William Wallace led the scots to victory over the English, 1297 or 1298 I think. But before your one.

__________________
Trust me, I'm a socialist!

There's power in a factory,power in the land, power in the hand of the worker. But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand, there is power in a union.
The union forever defending our rights, down with the blackleg, workers unite. To our brothers and our sisters in many far off lands, there is power in a union.
Money speaks for money, the devil for his own. - Billy Bragg

Was that a 9/11 too ? Shows how much i know about Scottish/British history

__________________
Viva Fidel

"If there ever was in the history of humanity an enemy who was truly universal, an enemy whose acts and moves trouble the entire world, threaten the entire world, attack the entire world in any way or another, that real and really universal enemy is precisely Yankee imperialism"

"North Americans don't understand... that our country is not just Cuba; our country is also humanity"

I commend you for your interest in the history of one of my favorite places on Earth. Viva Chile, mierda! For the record, our role in Guatemala is FAR more egregeous in my opinion.

this is me sticking my tongue out at you...


I appreciate your views but Granma is a VERY biased source, especially on an issue like this one. Does that mean they're wrong? No. But it does mean that everything they say should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt, just like anything you read from the US State Dept.

I don't want this to sound pretentious, but if you're interested I'll be happy to recommend other sources and books, plenty of books.


I never have nor will claim that the US doesn't have blood on it's hands over this. In that I think we are in agreement.

You're right about the US perception. Communism does not equal Socialism. Or vise versa. But Allende NEVER would have been as successful as he was without the support of the Communists and it was the Communists and Radicals in his government who favored the most radical and reactionary actions that caused the greatest problems for Allende once in office. They did not help him once he was in 'la Moneda'.

And that's 'democratic? I wouldn't say so. In my view, especially in a national election, one must win AT LEAST 50% plus one in order to claim a win. The recent French elections are a good case in point. Let's say that Sarkozy won 36% and Royale won 35% and all the other contenders split the rest. If there was no second round and Sarkozy was declared the winner, do you not think ALL the other parties would have cried foul? Granted this is a problem in the Constitutional make up of Chilean government.

Let me get this straight. Soviet interventionism is OK but US interventionism is bad? Do you not see that as mildly hypocritical?

In my view ALL intervention, unless it is for genuinely humanitarian reasons is wrong. Regardless of the source. Besides, the Soviet aid came not once Allende was in power but was sent to support the campaign. They were not supporting an elected government, nor was the CIA. And now we all have blood on our hands.

Trust me, I've seen the stats. They're unconvincing. If you look at it only from the early 70s through the 80s, then yes, things went from bad to worse. But take it in its full context, to the present day.

Chileans are a very pragmatic people who have suffered and learned a lot in the last 35 years. As a direct result of their experience with Allende and then Pinochet they have learned how to make a government that actually works for a majority of Chileans. The economy, for the last dozen years has been growing at a good clip, poverty is being reduced, wages are rising, prices and inflation are stable, trade is up, the economy is more diverse than ever before, etc. I'm not saying the Pinochet years were good, but without that experience as a backdrop, the current state of Chile's economy and society would be very different and I would say worse.

I agree with you. I would only add that Communists were also undermining democracy.

As I think you can see, we agree on a lot of these issues. But like the Ukrainian thing, this is an issue that cuts a little close to the heart for me so I feel the need to add my perspective. Not that I'm an expert, but I guess that within the context of this forum, I am.

Again though, I admire your willingness to think and talk about this stuff.

So few people even know what or where Chile is that even if we totally disagree on every conceivable issue, you get big props in my book just for knowing about it.

__________________
"Yes. That's correct. Making a statement that's 100% true can't be bigoted."

It's in my soup!

__________________
"Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
-Joseph Welch

It's not at all tongue in cheek. I've never celebrated a death, until his.

You're right though, he should have stood trial. But, as you probably know, there were criminal proceedings under way in Chile ever since his arrest in Britain. The problem was that he was repeatedly found 'unfit' to stand trial.

Besides, truth be told, regardless of the potential outcome of a court trial, there probably would have been a civil war in Chile if he were found guilty OR not guilty. The country is THAT divided. Still.

__________________
"Yes. That's correct. Making a statement that's 100% true can't be bigoted."

Now this is me sticking my tongue out at YOU!!!

__________________
"Yes. That's correct. Making a statement that's 100% true can't be bigoted."

Really!

I knew he still had his supporters, but I didn't know that the country was that potentially volatile.

(actually, Chile is one of the countries in Latin America that I know less about).
This is me sticking my tongue out




Because it's on fire from all the chile!

__________________
"Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
-Joseph Welch

NICE!

__________________
"Yes. That's correct. Making a statement that's 100% true can't be bigoted."