-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Im chilean and i do have a positive view of his government.
Explaining it would end in a ban for me, but do know that many people share my views and others are changing their minds about 1973 with the catastrophe thats currently venezuela.
you do realize that you can be against what's going on in Venezuela and against any type of dictatorship that ever happened, including in Chile, right?
man, what the fuck, i thought this kind of shit was only getting traction in Brazil
Just a note so people not from chile get a whole picture: In 1988 Pinochet's government called for free elections to decide if he could continue as president. He got 44% of the popular vote, lost, recognized his defeat and later gave up power to a democratically elected president.
Two quick things -
1. Allende was already flailing in government for a variety of reasons, some his fault and some not, and likely would've lost the next election, so the coup was a bad idea in the first place, but fascists tend to not want to leave things to chance.
2. There's no evidence the CIA was directly involved - yes, Kissenger et al likely gave the OK to Pinochet doing what he did, but it's not like American spys were on the ground helping with the coup. Obviously, still terrible, but sometimes people overstate the amount American foreign policy was involved in things, when in reality, most of the time it's American power not stopping things, as opposed to directly get involved, with obvious exceptions.
1. Allende was already flailing in government for a variety of reasons, some his fault and some not, and likely would've lost the next election, so the coup was a bad idea in the first place, but fascists tend to not want to leave things to chance.
2. There's no evidence the CIA was directly involved - yes, Kissenger et al likely gave the OK to Pinochet doing what he did, but it's not like American spys were on the ground helping with the coup. Obviously, still terrible, but sometimes people overstate the amount American foreign policy was involved in things, when in reality, most of the time it's American power not stopping things, as opposed to directly get involved, with obvious exceptions.
Kissinger said they helped create the conditions for a coup. But that's so much better.
According to who? The CIA?
There is a metric ton of evidence that the CIA was involved, it's not even controversial at all, it's all in declassified CIA documents.
America had specific plans to orchestrate a coup in Chile, and it spend a lot of money to achieve that goal - the CIA specifically provided weapons, money and political support for it. It also ran false flag operations in Chile.
Now it is possible that there could have been a right wing military coup in Chile without American support, but I am struggling to think of a latin american right wing coup that was done without the help of the US.
The CIA doesn't deny any of it, it's all recorded in their official history and most of project FUBELT is declassified.
Allende's government was not simply failing, was in a catastrophic state: We had an hyperinflation of 600%, the economy was collapsing, real wages were down more than 50% compared to 1970.
But it was not only the economy. What some people tend to omit or simply forget is that Allende's government continually and systematically broke the law and the constitution.
This is the complete text of the resolution that Chile's Chamber of Deputies approved by 81 votes against 47, on August 22 1973. The resolution includes a list of the legal and constitutional violations committed by the government of President Salvador Allende:
I doubt the CIA had no involvement and I wouldn't be surprised if they had lots of direct involvement but the evidence is scant and ironically Kissingers openness is probably the best clue that it wasn't a CIA operation in the normal sense or Kissinger, ego aside would have been more circumspect.
I'm basing that on what I knew growing up watching the news so it's possible more evidence has surfaced recently. Again it's extremely unlikely they weren't involved at some level. Including ground level.
What's definitely true is that the US tacitly and strategically supported the coup and had tried to enable a prior coup in 1970. So they can't have the benefit of the doubt and certainly created many of the conditions in 1973.
And of course "no evidence" would be the correct and desirable outcome of a successful coup attempt so even that is a point of art rather than proof.
As paranoid as that sounds in a vacuum the US has lost any right of assumption of innocence or benefit of the doubt through decades of its own adventurism abroad. But the onus is on the accuser to provide said evidence. It is certainly possible the CIA wasn't directly involved on the ground in 1973's events - but Nixon openly supported and enabled it and my own premier Margaret Thatcher broke the embargo to not only supply Pinochet with arms but literally and politically embraced him as a friend. A friend who tortured and murdered thousands of his own citizens even after they had seized all the reins of power - and killed enemies abroad including a terrorist bombing in Washington DC that killed an American citizen as well as a domestic dissenter exiled in the US.
He probably poisoned Pablo Neruda rather than have him off reservation in Mexico where he could use his voice for dissent
Thatcher made Nixon look like Allende by comparison.
Normally I don't respond to this kind of reactions, but since you're from Venezuela I kinda get where your emotional response is coming from.
The thing is, this isn't a zero sum game. Chile didn't have to choose between a fascist military dictatorship and an evil marxist regime like Venezuela. Yes, Allende did a shitty job in almost every part possible, but he mostly respected the democratic institutions. He would have lost the election and accept his defeat. He isn't comparable with Maduro.
Last edited:
Sorry, but that's not true:
- This is the complete text of the resolution that Chile's Chamber of Deputies approved by 81 votes against 47, on August 22 1973. The resolution includes a list of the legal and constitutional violations committed by the government of President Salvador Allende:
- Or maybe the Supreme Court declaration of june 1973 declaring the government in constant violation of the law (in spanish):
Hmmm. I knew about his subjection and repression of unions, but I've never heard about his attacks and jailings of journalists f.e.
Still, that's a big difference from the current conditions in Venezuela. What makes you think Allende would have ignored his defeat?
So you're saying the CIA coup was to protect democracy?
Man, that's some spicy ass hot take.
It was what it always was in Latin America, right wingers couldn't win an election so they went and whined for the US to overthrow the left wing government and put them in power.
The US did it in Chile, Brazil, Argentina, you name it.
If you want to defend it, go ahead and do so, but let's not pretend that the US was just really concerned about Chilean democracy so they orchestrated a military coup that murdered dissidents for years.
Sure you can, but thats not my point.
My point was that Chile in 1973 was in a similar situation that Venezuela was in the early stages of its economic collapse.
Unless I'm wrong, one of the reasons Chile was in a bad shape back then was because the conservatives and the US were doing their best to sabotage Allende's government. Any Chilean, is that right?
Both Nixon and Kissinger directly and specifically instructed the US government to try and hurt the Chilean economy.
It's hard to measure the exact effects of such things, the CIA was not the only actor influencing Chilean economy after all, but there is zero doubt that US was working toward that goal.
Much like there is zero doubt that the US was working very hard to try and help the Chilean economy under Pinochet.
Some it's not that they don't give a fuck. It's that they actually think it was a good thing, and should happen more often.
Well, the alt is banned, but I'm here to help.
ERA, this is what I meant by fake news.
1.- The Chambers of Deputy's don't, or didn't, have the power to declare if a government is or is not constitutional. That's what the Contraloría does in this country. Want to know what happened with this?
There was a law passed by Congress that left open the possibility of big companies to be expropiated. Allende passed the law parcially until that problem was solved. Contraloria said that act was against the Constitution. Congress take that, and says "SEE? The Government is against the Constitution, we need a coup!". The congress was elected as opposition that very same year.
In our legislation, basically every government has had some act, or in some form, declared against the constitution. It's normal, that's what Contraloria or the Tribunal Constitucional is for. To avoid situations of legal contradictions.
Allende was accused, by the same newspapers that recieved funds by the CIA, of using what was called "resquicios legales" or legal loopholes. Which is false. He used actual legislation that was completely legal since decades ago, even from 1925 itself. He never "broke" the constitution.
This chamber wanted to accuse the President, but did not have enough electoral power to do it. So, they asked the military to act.
In my years studying laws and institutional history, had a whole class regarding this topic. Right Wing always try to hide their justification of the coup in "butbut the constitution!" when it's entirely false.
2.- I'll say it again in this new page. CHILEAN ECONOMY GOT WORSE UNDER PINOCHET. Two MAJOR economic crisis in 78 and 82. The economy only recovered in the 1990s with the center-left governments.
Last edited:
Yes, it is. The main export of Chile was embargoed when it was nationalized by unanimity by Congress. It triggered the economic crisis.
I was banned so I couldn't answer, but, boy, good riddance, you dictator lover. The world doesn't need people like you.
I mean, could the intervention of America have played into these countries being a clusterfuck? I mean that might have just a little bit to do with it, right?
Being European I'm not very familiar with this event, my first encounter being this video from Rare Earth
From what I understand it's reasonably accurate? I'd like someone more informed to confirm.
The same channel also has a video on Colonia Dignidad which... well... the title alone is quite something.
From what I understand it's reasonably accurate? I'd like someone more informed to confirm.
The same channel also has a video on Colonia Dignidad which... well... the title alone is quite something.
Peruvian here, we are doing fine without having a Pinochet in our lives(god bless the Chino) and America was always nice to us so don't group us with the other Latin American countries lol