In 1970, Salvador Allende, an avowed socialist, was elected president of Chile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende In 1973, he was overthrown in a military coup d’etat and murdered, and General Augusto Pinochet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet) rolled back all of Allende’s socialist programs and ruled Chile as a military dictator until 1990. What if the coup had failed? Would the landscape of South America today be significantly different? Or not? I read once (in Time magazine – never an unbiased source where Communism is concerned) that Allende’s policies weren’t working out too well and he probably would have been defeated in the next election in any case.
Also, was Pinochet’s coup arranged/backed by the CIA, or not?
I think the general consensus is that, while US government actions might have helped destabilize the Chilean government which encouraged a coup, and the US was glad to see Allende overthrown, the US didn’t participate in the coup itself.
I’m not sure that’s right. The degree to which Chile’s poor economic situation was due to misguided policy, pervasive Southern Cone inflation, the great decline in Chile’s terms of trade (mainly the price of copper) and sabotage caused directly or indirectly by the CIA is important to answer your question. If the destabilisation campaign preceding the coup was (say) 50% of the bad news for the Chilean economy rather than 10%, the prospects for the Allende government would have been rather better in the absence of the coup.
Salvador Allende wasn’t murdered. He committed suicide.
Allendes policies didn’t just not work very well. They were disastrously bad. Production was failing in the nationalised companies, foreign investments were annihilated, capital was fleeing the country, the country was rife with strikes, there were constant shortages, there was a hyperinflation going on and he had foolishly used up the foreign exchange reserves for short term pay rises (wiped out by the inflation). Salvador Allende is often and mistakenly portrayed as a kind of Swedish Social democrat. However his inspirations, and goals, were otherwise – they were more in line with the Soviet, DDR and Cuba. Had he not been toppled – and had his, increasingly dictatorial regime, managed to hold on to power till today, Chile would likely had been much like Cuba today. An international isolated, impoverished, totalitarian regime. It is worth noting that his democratic legitimacy was of a very doubtful nature in the last period of his reign. He had for all practical purposes circumvented the normal democratic institution, vetoed everything from the parliament and ruled the country by decree. It was the parliament (and supreme court) that called his rule unconstitutional and for the military to step in – perhaps they got more than what they bargained for.
Also, apparently, he had some little Nazi pet theories he was very fond of.
What do you mean “minor point”? It’s besides the point for this thread, and only goes to the misplaced admiration put in him by some leftwing groupies - much like that other equally undeserving communist icon Che Guevara. But I find the overall balance of the Wikipedia article to be more than a little skewered – including this paragraph, which reads as if the “allegations” by Farías have been undeniable rebutted and can now be considered untrue. Which is not the case.
I don’t much like the one-sided way cites are being trotted out on SDMB, often more for their obstruction than for any true wish for debate. However even Wikipedia at one time apparently had the information
And that exonerates the coup perpetrators? Even if that was true, it does not take away the fact that that happened because Pinochet was mercilessly killing his supporters.
And obviously then he was going to lose the next elections, the lack of patience shown by the military and right wing in Chile was typical for fascists.
The example of Nicaragua, were elections did continue and that the Sandinistas eventually lost, shows that this was ultimately a lie.
Lets see, as usual to me it counts more what they did than what they said, it is really disconcerting that **Rune ** is just saying this without taking into account what the people got after the coup: the military ruled through a junta headed by General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte. **It immediately suspended the constitution, dissolved Congress, imposed strict censorship, and banned all political parties. In addition, it embarked on a campaign of terror against leftist elements in the country. Thousands were arrested; many were executed, tortured, or exiled, while still others languished in prison or simply disappeared. **
No, the substitute was still worse.
And that lead us to an answer to BrainGlutton:
In Chile, if cooler heads had prevailed, Allende would have gone to a complete defeat in the next elections, as **elucidator ** used to say: Democracy is not for wimps.
It doesn’t make much sense to remove a head of state that will be out of power in three years anyway. Unless there are reasons to fear that this head of state is plotting to grab dictatorial powers.
Nowadays, there is a monument to Allende in front La Moneda. Perhaps if Allende wasn’t removed you would see a whole lot more monuments to him in Santiago (like in every public square).
So if CIA support of Chilean opposition parties is an indication, as GIGObuster seems to say, that the US backed and possible arranged for Allende’s fall, then surely the fact that the KGB supported Allende’s Socialist/Communist alliance (when in opposition) is an indication that the KGB backed and possible arranged for the previous government’s fall.
Where did I say that? I just addressed a small factual error made in the OP.
Maybe. Maybe not. In the election early 1973 he had just increased his percentage a fraction. In any case the country was at this point already dangerously unstable and bitterly political divided as well as in near chaos. The previous president, Frei, believed Chile was heading for a civil war and that Pinochet had save the country from such a bloody war. The crimes of destabilizing the country, undermining the democratic institutions and instigating near revolution rests solely on Allende’s shoulders. It was his policies and his incompetent rule that had brought an erstwhile fairly democratic nation to the brink of revolution.
Why should I. The crimes of Pinochet is not up for debate. Nobody disputes them. The debate was what Chile would have have turned out without the coup of 1973. The answer is most likely the same as it is now and another coup in 1974. There had already been one attempt before Pinochet. Allende knew he couldn’t trust either of the military or police. If Pinochet had failed or not made the attempt, I recon some other officer would have.
Don’t think so, Like in Nicaragua, elections were not suspended and it turned out that the Sandinistas did know that not steping down after losing was the end of them. If they had not stepped down, then all the other latin american nations the Nicaraguan people and the US would had a good reason to intervene. Same thing would have occurred in Chile, Allende would be remembered now, but no statues at all would be there.
From what I remember from my Latin American studies course (and I could be wrong, I’ll look it up), they’ve never been able to prove it either way. His estate was bombed, I believe, and he either was killed in the bombing or took his own life.