Talk:Salvador Allende

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Suicide or KIA?

I seem to remember something (way back in my college days) to the effect that Allende didn't commit suicide. I'll go into my history books and see if I can find it. --Dave3172 16:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

That would be helpful. This article needs lots of cited facts. Palmd001 16:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The overthrow of Allende is basically implementation of both the Truman Doctrine (or Containment) and the Monroe Doctrine at a crucial point in the Cold War. The US was on the verge of defeat in Vietnam, and a Soviet- Cuban ally in the Western hemisphere would have added to the Communist victory. The US would have been on the run after withdrawl from Vietnam. This was viewed as intollerable by Nixon & Kissinger, and something within their power to prevent. Allende has always been refered to as "first democratically elected Socialist" in the Western hemisphere; ok, so 64% voted against him, but who cares. Then we have the simple matter of checking to see if he agreed to abide by Chile's pledges within the Pan American Union and mutual defense obligations, or was he flirting with Castro and the Soviet Union.
What happened here was no big mystery. RobS 16:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

No, it certainly isn't. Within hours of taking over, Pincohet's forces herded thousands of Allende supporters into the Santiago Sports Stadium and tortured and murdered them. One of the most famous victims was musician Victor Jara, who was arrested and beaten and tortured for three days. After they crushed his hands, the guards mockingly asked him to play a song for them on his guitar. They finally dumped his bullet-riddled body somewhere where his wife could collect it. For years afterwards, Chileans were "disappeared," kidnapped, tortured, and executed for the heinous crime of criticizing Pinochet.

Nothing like that happened under Allende but then, to borrow a phrase, "who cares?" Allende embraced socialism and Pinochet the free market, so Pinochet must be perceived as preferable in spite of the piles of dead bodies he left in his wake. --PF Fox 17:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"Who cares" if the will of 64% is ignored or "who cares" about human rights violations?
The actions you speak refer to a US ally, not the US Admin & CIA. Let me restate the question: we have the simple matter of checking to see if he agreed to abide by Chile's pledges within the Pan American Union and mutual defense obligations. Now, if Allende was seaking to become allies with the Soviet block who shortly after the Santiago Sports Stadium incidents set up re-education camps in Vietnam and Laos, we can argue the moot point about who's allies are are more barbarous butchers, if you please.
Then we have another factor, Richard Nixon took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. So if your claim that Allende & the Socialist Party bolting mutual cooperation alliances to side with Soviet & Cuban butchers and set up his own Chilean Gulags for politcal dissidents is preferable to Pinochet, let's keep in mind who ultimatley did win the Cold War. RobS 17:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to see a cite about that 64%, and even if it's true, it's apalling that you apparently consider calling off all elections and engaging in the torture and mass murder of one's opponents comparable, even preferable. Yes, the "actions [I] speak of" were done by Pinochet, "a US ally." These actions, in fact, were done by a leader whose bloody and heinous crimes are apparently forgiven here because he comes from the right side of the political spectrum. No, reality is NOT "a moot point." In reality, Allende did not kidnap, imprison torture, and execute thousands of his opponents and there is no evidence that he was even plannning such a thing. In reality, Allende did not institute "Chilean gulags." In reality, Pinochet did. Does that matter to you? --PF Fox 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's restate the question for the third time: the simple matter of checking to see if he agreed to abide by Chile's pledges within the Pan American Union and mutual defense obligations --RobS 13:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

How would the answer to that question justify Pinochet's mass murders and tortures? --PF Fox 13:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

How would that answer to that question effect Allende's ability to survive the 1973 coup? RobS 13:22, 20 March 2007 (EDT)


This is the Cold War context in which the Chilean coup occured: from September to October 1970, the Yom Kippur War, Vietnam, a Soviet submarine base in Cuba, Black September terrorist group hijacking, and a few other things.[2] --RobS 17:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Are you citing this in an attempt to justify the Pinochet regime's kidnapping and murder of thousands of Chileans? How does the above justify the treatment of Victor Jara and countless others? --PF Fox 12:10, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

It's an attempt to justify nothing; it is an attempt to write a clean record of historical fact. RobS 19:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Then why include it on a talk page in which the subject of discussion has been Pinochet's brutality? And are you going to answer my question? Is torture and murder bad when leftists do it, but forgiveable when a free-market conservative like Pinochet does it? --PF Fox 13:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Pinochet's brutality should be on the Pinochet talk page. You will note at the time Allende was overthrown, or killed himself, or whatever it was, Pinochet wasn't in power yet & hadn't done anything. I am merely suggesting to you that had Allende honored the collective security agreements of his predessesors and not flirted with Soviet worldwide subversion of legitimate governments, he might not have committed suicide (or whatever it was) and nobody would have heard of Pinochet.
Pinochet, for this discussion, has little context or meaning, cause all that comes late. RobS 16:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

A discussion of Pinochet's brutality belongs both in the article here and in the body of Pinochet's article -- not tucked away in a separate paragraph under "criticism" as if his murder of several thousand Chileans were worthy only of an "oh, by the way..." aside. And Allende was overthrown by Pinochet. What you are "merely" trying to do here is lay the blame for Pinochet's actions at Allende's feet -- a pretty classic case of blaming the victim.

Now please -- answer my question. Is torture and murder bad when leftists do it, but forgiveable when a free-market conservative like Pinochet does it? --PF Fox 12:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Discussing what Pinochet did after Allende's death is naked propagandizing in this article.
Wasn't it LBJ's advisors who said of Papa Doc, "He may be an SOB, but he's out SOB." RobS 15:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I've heard it ascribed to LBJ, to his advisors, and to John Kennedy, and yes, it's quite possible one of them said this. Do you agree with that approach to human rights? --PF Fox 15:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Good question, and your not gonna get a yes or no answer. We are experiencing once again the same problem. You see the arguements here, how 650,000 Iraqis have died by violence since 2003. Ok, so Saddam "kept order" thirty years by randomly sticking a person in a wood chipper every few months, or wiping out somebody's whole family. This kept the population terrorized and there wasn't the civil strife we see now. So which is preferable? 30 years of Saddam, or an opportunity to build a free & democratic society? RobS 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
You've already answered "yes." And given that you plainly think the mass killing of dissidents is okay when the victims are leftists, what do you mean by a "democratic and free society?" Was Chile "democratic and free" while Pinochet was disappearing people? --PF Fox 11:08, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
(A) No I haven't plainly answered "yes"; (B) I patently, and unobtrusively reject the Left/Right Spectrum Theory as having any value in characteriazing persons, groups, or a coalitions political views and/or objectives. Not all political views are ideologically based. Indeed, the currrent situation in Iraq is evidenciary of the fallacy of the Left/Right Spectrum theory, unless you can bring evidence forward to identiify which of the competing insurgent group in Iraq are "leftist", and which is "right-wing" and/or "conservative". And which insurgent group is "liberal"? Perhaps the current Iraqi govt., domocratically elected by universal sufferage including women, is the "liberal' element. Now please explain why "liberal" elements in the United States and Western societies are intent upon destroying a "liberal" regime? Or explain how a the right-wing neo-fascist Bush Adminisrtation deposed the right-wing fascist Ba'athist regime and replacesd it with a liberal democartically elected government? RobS 15:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Any answer other than a prompt and direct "no," to such a question pretty much qualifies as a "yes." And if you "reject the left/right spectrum" why the double standard about political murder?

I've never claimed any Iraqi insurgents qualify as "liberal" to your question to me about them is meaningless. And what "liberal" regime do you feel "liberal" elements are seeking to destroy? And how does the current Iraqi government qualify as "liberal?" --PF Fox 16:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Frankly I'm not sure what you're talking about. This is the Salvador Allende page. Somehow you've inserted a psychic notion that in 1973 when Allende was overthrown, it was common knowledge that his succesor would engage in the activities that he did over the next couple decades. How you make a rational debate out this, I haven't the vaguest idea. RobS 16:41, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm responding directly to what you've posted here. What's unclear about it? And I'm sorry but I don't recalling inserting "a psychic notion thta in 1973 when Allende was overthrown, it was common knowledge that his successor would engage in the activities that he did over the next couple of decades." Can you point out where I did this?

The way you make a "rational debate" out of this is by responding to what I've posted rather than just ascribing things to me that I haven't said or written. --PF Fox 13:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Here's one example:
Now please answer my earlier question. Does the fact that Pinochet tortured, maimed, and killed thousands of men, women and children for opposing him while Allende did not torture, maim and kill those who opposed him matter to you?
Now, those activities you reference occurred after the 1973 coup. The premise & conlcusion you've restated numerous times on this page, and elsewhere, is that US policy makers prior to giving consent to the removal of Allende is that they somehow (a) knew ahead of time Pinochet would engage in such activities; (b) gave consent to Pinochet to engage in such activities; (c) are complicit in such activites.
At the Ayatollah Khomeini page we have an identical problem: Mr. James Earl Carter is directly responsible for the accession of Khomeini to power. Shortly after Khomeini took power, (1) Khomeini engaged in utterly reprehensible human rights violations that Pinochet's can hardly be compared to; (2) after US withdrawl from Iran under Mr. Carter the USSR invaded neighboring Afghanistan, which resulted in the genocide of between 1 million and 1.4 million Afghanis, 10% of the population. [3][4] Now, based upon your reasoning, are we to hold Mr. Carter responsible for the genocide of 1 million plus Afghani's because of his wreckless irresponsibiltity? RobS 14:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
The Liberal view would probably not want a single standard applied to these cases. The Conservative view most likely would insist on it, lest there be a Double standard. --Ed Poor 14:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, the uh..."activities I've referenced" -- i.e., the wholesale rounding up, torture, and slaughter of dissidents -- happened AFTER the 1973 coup. Not before, under the leftist government of Allende. And the articles I am criticizing for attempting to soft-pedal Pinochet's brutality were written long, LONG after the 1973 coup, in the present when Pinochet's brutality is a known quantity rather than a "most likely" or even a "maybe." Saying something like "Gee, we didn't know," is not a valid excuse when you're writing about something extensively documented and recorded that happened well within living memory.

The issue of whether or not the US assisted in the overthrow of Allende knowing about Pinochet's murderous propensities is not the point here, though it would probably make for an interesting discussion in itself. My own opinion, based on what I've read about the history of American intervention in Latin America, is that it's quite possible that the US government did help in the overthrow knowing but not really caring much that Pinochet would inaugurate a slaughter of leftists and liberals.

As for the overthrow of Iran, Jimmy Carter did not finance or offer material and moral support for Khomeni's takeover -- as Eisenhower did with the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1953 and the installation of the Shah's brutal regime -- so your attempt to cram my reasoning into that situation just doesn't work. Nor has the late Ayatollah Khomeni morphed into a hero for many liberals, as Pinochet has for many right-wingers. --PF Fox 15:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm willing to stipulate that anyone who helps a dictator come to power shares the moral responsibility for the brutal repression perpetrated by the dictatorship thereafter. Does that help? --Ed Poor 15:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

If that "help" takes the form of financial and moral support for that dictator in his power grab, sure, I'd agree. --PF Fox 15:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Jimmy Carter did not finance or offer material and moral support for Khomeni's takeover
Looks like we have another disputed fact; and before you overcommit on this one, better get some sources, at least for deniability so you can say "they said it, not me". RobS 15:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's see your cite. --PF Fox 16:17, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Michael A. Ledeen and William H. Lewis, Carter and the Fall of the Shah: The Inside Story, Washington Quarterly, Spring 1980. RobS 16:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Since like many people, I don't have access to 1980s back-issues of the Washington Quarterly, can you quote a relevant passage so we can get an idea of what Michael Ledeen is alleging? --PF Fox 20:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)


The Khomeini article has some links; Grinter, Dr. Lawrence E. Avoiding the Burden: The Carter Doctrine in Perspective, Vol. XXXIV, No. 2, (January-February 1983): 73-82. Here's just some of the conclusion:

first and foremost, every administration must have a clear, consistent policy toward the Soviet Union
Perhaps the single most telling flaw in the Carter administration’s foreign policy was its lack of a clear, consistent policy toward the Soviet Union....Mr. Carter’s revelation after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan that the action had done more to educate him about real Soviet motives than anything else was an extraordinary statement for an incumbent American President to make....
the American government did not have adequate intelligence on Iran, its leadership, and the opposition
No other government but ours is to blame for our confusion about the situation in Iran. Executive and congressional branch confusion on Iran was, in part, a result of the hobbling of American intelligence services that began in 1974 during the Watergate affair. The dropping of area specialists from government service also played a role. The lesson: The intelligence curbs and the decline in area specialists during the 1970s went too far. Moreover, it is doubtful that the Iranian intelligence failure is an isolated case.
if a President repudiates his policies, there will be costs
Mr. Carter’s about-face on the Persian Gulf situation and the Soviet threat was forced on him by events. ...many of the officials that the President and his deputies appointed did not change their views. This seemed particularly true among the human rights advocates at State, CIA, and in the White House. ...
revolutions are nasty, unpredictable affairs; attempting to control or fine-tune them from the outside is risky
Once a revolution reaches a critical point, temporizing in support for a beleaguered government—or oscillating between supporting the government and dumping it—is probably a fatal practice. Trying to force a Third World government to reform when it is being gutted from within by a revolutionary totalitarian movement is a recipe for disaster. This, in essence, and after much uncertainty, is what the Carter administration’s approach toward Iran finally came down to. The lesson is applicable to a variety of Third World countries where the United States has critical interests.

Elsewhere this report says this,

But the other side of the question involves why the attempt at regional containment embodied in the Carter Doctrine had to come after the collapse of Iran and after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; and whether, if it had been announced in 1977, it would have prevented the fall of the Shah and Soviet aggression.

But the elephant in the living room is this: (1) the democide of 1.8 million Aghanis after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; and (2) the crisis today of Iran pursueing nuclear weapons is a result of the loss of Iran as an ally in 1979. 20:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

So in fact, while Ledeen is blaming Carter for the Khomeni regime, he is NOT alleging that Carter financed or offered material and moral support for Khomeni's takeover. Sorry, but that's very different from what we are believed to have done in Chile in the 70s -- or what we did in Iran in 1953. --PF Fox 13:13, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Parse all you want. Jimmy Carter installed the current Iranian regime in power--the one building nukes, a threat to peace & Israel, and a terrorist state. And he did this in the name of human rights. RobS 13:38, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not "parsing" to understand the difference between accusing someone of an incompetent foreign policy that resulted in the rise of a dictator, and accusing someone of deliberately offering moral and financial aid to that dictator. No, Carter did not "intall the current Iranian regime." That is, to put it bluntly, a lie. And if you are going to equate foriegn policy errors with the deliberate installation of a repressive regime, then the person to blame is Eisenhower -- whose administration in 1953 quite deliberately and knowingly overthrew a Democratically elected government in Iran and installed the Shah. --PF Fox 13:44, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Rob, PF makes a good point. It's a subtle distinction, but there's no point alienating liberals by using languge like a blunt instrument. How about blames Carter for allowing Khomeni to come to power?
Most critics attribute incompetence to Carter, rather than malice. --Ed Poor 13:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
No. This illustration is extremely relevent. PF Fox has a habit of discussing personalities, and weighing decisions by policy makers according to some goodguy/badguy standard based upon favorable media coverage, or some such standard. PF Fox refuses to look at the underlying policy choices.
In the illustration of Chile, we are discussiong a regime that bolted the cooperative defence alliance with the US during the Cold War. US policy makers brought it back within the alliance. With Iran, the regime was already within the cooperative defence alliance, and US policy makers actively deposed a friendly regime in favor of a hostile one which today is building nuclear weapons.
The crisis's we read about daily, today, about how Iran is a threat to world peace and stability, we can trace to these events. [5] The personalities involved, Pinochet-Khomeini-Allende-the Shah-Breshnev-Nixon-Carter, while interesting, tell us very little about what we need to learn from these events on the policy making level. RobS 17:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

In what manner have I "discussed personalities?" My comments have been mostly restricted to the policies pursued by the individuals being discussed. And looking at the "underlying policy choices" Carter made does not indicate that he was deliberately financing or training, or offering moral support to Khomeni as we did with Pinochet and the Shah. --PF Fox 22:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

You're still missing the point; the Shah already was an ally. Why would Carter "finance, train, etc" somebody to overthrow an exisitng ally? jeeez...... RobS 11:39, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

No, I'm not "missing the point." I'm reading your comments and responding to them. When I stated, "Jimmy Carter did not finance or offer material and moral support for Khomeni's takeover" you described that as "another disputed fact." Now you're suddenly reversing course and asking "Why would Carter "finance, train, etc" somebody to overthrow an exisitng ally?" Indeed, that was my point. Why did you earlier strongly imply that Carter had indeed financed, trained, etc. Khomeni's revolution? --PF Fox 14:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

OK. So in your logical arguement you are presenting here, you are claiming that Jimmy Carter did not organize, finance, or train an opposition force to overthrow an American ally. Wow. Thanks for claifying that. RobS 14:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Why are you now pretending that you had not strongly implied that Carter had deliberately financed, trained, and installed Khomeni's regime? --PF Fox 15:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Why are pretending that (a) the Cold War did not exist; (b) that Chile & Iran were not allies of the Western alliance during most of the Cold War; (c) that Chile tried to bolt the Western alliance and join the Soviet bloc; (d) that Iran, which was a Western ally, bolted the alliance under Mr. Carter's alleged "human rights" scheme.
Reductio ad absurdum: what would give Jimmy Carter the legal authority necessary to finance, train & arm a force with the specific objective to overthrow a government that the United States had binding co-operative security treaty obligations with? RobS 15:55, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I have not pretended that the Cold War didn't exist. Nor have I pretended that Chile and Iran were not allies of the western alliance during that time, or that Chile and Iran had tried to withdraw from the Western alliance. You, on the other hand, are now apparently attempting to rewrite the history of this discussion. You made an untenable claim, and are now trying to backpedal without admitting you were wrong. --PF Fox 11:56, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

untenable claim? pray tell where? RobS 12:20, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

When you referred to the statement "Carter did not for Khomeni's takeover" as "another disputed fact" and tried to pass off Michael Ledeen's 1980 piece as evidence for Carter financing and offering material and moral support for Khomeni's takeover. --PF Fox 12:25, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

You're losing me again. So can we agree (a) Chile and Iran were allies of the western alliance. (b) "offerring material and moral support" to overthrow an existing ally is a moot and meaningless arguement. RobS 14:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Did you or did you not respond to my statement, "Jimmy Carter did not finance or offer material and moral support for Khomeni's takeover" with the words "Looks like we have another disputed fact; and before you overcommit on this one, better get some sources, at least for deniability so you can say 'they said it, not me'." It's your signature line I see following that statement when scroll up and look at the history of this discussion. Is the above quote something that someone posted falsely under your name?

The truth is never moot or meaningless. You made a profoundly nasty implication that you have since admitted was ridiculously untrue. Doesn't that bother you? --PF Fox 14:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, so you raise a totally bogus arguement, that Carter did not violate United States treaty obligations that bind the United States to collective security against a threat to the Shah of Iran. Yet you fail to recognize Carter did not fulfil American treaty obligations to assist the Shah when he was threatened. RobS 14:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

What I've stated is simply the truth, that Carter did not finance, train, or offer moral support to Khomeni's revolution as the Nixon administration did with Pinochet's and the Eisenhower administration did with the Shah. The"bogus argument" was your claim that there was some dispute about that fact. --PF Fox 14:26, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

The Shah was a US ally whom the US had treaty obligations to. You raised a moot arguement that Carter did not finance, train, or offer moral support to overthrow a US ally. It is a complete nonsense arguement you've persisted in for about a week now. RobS 15:35, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

You introduced the rise of Khomeni into a discussion about the US assisting Pinochet in the overthrow of Allende, and tried to use that as a parallel. I merely pointed out why the two situations are not comparable. The only "nonsense" here is your attempt at making that comparison, your subsequent attempt to back it up by implying that Carter had deliberately financed and offered moral support to Khomeni, and then most recently your attempt to pretend that I'd stated "Carter did not finance, train or offer moral support to Khomeni's revolution" as a complete nonseqitur. It was not, and I think you know it was not.

Sorry, Rob, but all this is still in black and white here on this page for anyone to access. I'm not sure what you imagine your attempt to rewrite this history is going to accomplish. --PF Fox 15:55, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Here's the black & white: (1) in the 1973 Chilean coup, the US fulfilled treaty obligations to (a) the people of Chile, and (b) other members of collective security agreements when it removed a threat to the stability of the region; (2) in the 1979 Iranian revolution, the US failed to comply with treaty obligations which had disasterous consequences for stability in the region, i.e. two major wars, (a) Iran-Iraq War with circa 700,000 casualties; (b) the Soviet-Afghan War with circa 1,400,000 casualties. RobS 16:13, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Overthrowing Chile's legally elected leader and plunging that country into years of political repression was not fulfilling an obligation to any treaty with Chile or its people. I'd be interested in seeing you explaining this nonsense to a Chilean who is still wondering what happened to his or her son or daughter the night Pinochet took over, what mass grave their child's maimed body was finally interred in, or to someone still coping with the nightmares and the physical scars of her torture, rape and incarceration in one of Pinochet's prisons for committing the heinous crime of being a liberal. Your definition of fuflilling treaty obligations is right out of Lewis Carroll. --PF Fox 18:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

  1. Actually I did speak (online) to a Chilean about the coup. He was glad we helped Pinochet save his country from the fate of Cuba.
  2. Your lurid images pale in comparisons to the stacks of skulls in Cambodia's killing fields. Do the math: 3,000 vs. 2,000,000. Why are you trying to magnify a few cases of human rights violations in Chile?
Bottom line: please write some articles and stop debating so much.

And I've spoken in person with more than one Chilean who considered Pinochet's mass murder much worse than anything Allende did.

3,000 deaths is not a FEW, whether the human beings are murdered in Santiago Stadium or in the World Trade Center on 9/11. --PF Fox 19:15, 31 March 2007 (EDT)


This page is now protected from trolling. [6] RobS 15:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Relative merits of Allende and Pinochet

I'm not talking here about Allende's ability to survive the coup and to that effect, I've moved this to a separate section.

Now please answer my earlier question. Does the fact that Pinochet tortured, maimed, and killed thousands of men, women and children for opposing him while Allende did not torture, maim and kill those who opposed him matter to you? Do you really consider human rights beside the point? Is torture and murder bad when leftists do it, but forgiveable when a free-market conservative like Pinochet does it? --PF Fox 13:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

You still haven't answered the question. Did Allende agree to abide by co-operative security agreements within the alliance, or was Allende, like Castro, courting Soviet military co-operation? RobS 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't know. How is whether Allende agreed to this or not relevant to the fact that Allende did not torture, maim and murder his opponents and Pinochet did? And please answer my question. Does the fact that Pinochet tortured, maimed, and killed thousands of men, women and children for opposing him while Allende did not torture, maim and kill those who opposed him matter to you? --PF Fox 13:46, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

We need a standard of human rights. I'll start that article, giving it a balanced treatment which includes Chomsky's "US must be perfect, all others can do whatever" viewpoint. Some of the comparisons of the relative merits of Pinochet and Allende are reminiscent of Chomsky's POV. --Ed Poor 09:37, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
So mass murderers have their merits? Interesting.... --PF Fox 11:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

This is tortured reasoning. This is the Salvadore Allende article. It terminates September 12 1970. It may be extended a few days thereafter regarding the mass killings in the soccer stadium because that is part of the story. Pinochet's role in the coup has not even been clearly defined or articulated. Yes, Pinochet was a subordinate, whether we can say he "led the coup" or not I am not certain at this point. Pinochet did emerge later as a successor. But discussing events 17 years after Allende's death in this article, to borrow a phrase from PF Fox, is revisionism. And not just revisionist thinking, it is revisionist methodology. RobS 12:17, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Uh, no, Rob. Allende's term ended on September 11 1973 -- not 1970. And if we are going to include "a few days thereafter," then Jara's murder is definitely "part of the story", since it was within those few days that this prominent supporter of Allende was tortured in the stadium and murdered. --PF Fox 12:50, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I stand corrected. Some mention of Jara and other's killing is entirely appropriate here, however the point remains, I am not certain it was clear on Sept 11 1973 that Pinochet would be Allende's successor, and/or Pinochet being cited as "leading the coup". We need more primary research on this matter. RobS 13:21, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Then kindly unprotect this page so that I can return the original text about Jara to it. --PF Fox 13:34, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Done. RobS 13:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. --PF Fox 13:38, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I have suspended your editing privileges for 24 hours over this. You are not supposed to add your personal opinion to an article, and edit warring over it is not helping. Perhaps tomorrow you can add some information to the Augusto Pinochet about the 3,000 people who "disappeared" subsequent to the 1973 Chile coup. I understand that [some sources] blame Pinochet for this and have accused him of mass murder.
These are strong allegations and should be properly sourced. It's one thing to write light-heartedly about Lucy in Narnia, where a misquotation is inconsequential. It's another thing to endorse a murder charge without even a citation to a court verdict. There is also the matter of double standards regarding human rights. --Ed Poor 13:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Reverted citations

This citation has been removed for two reasons given below,

lead by Augusto Pinochet. [1] He followed Eduardo Frei Montalva.
  1. [1]

Reasons for reversion: (1) no where in the cited CNN link does the name "Pinochet" appear to support the statement "lead by Augusto Pinochet"; (2) a citation to CNN is highly suspect, in that CNN did not exist in 1973. Yes, I recognize this does not come from CNN Archives. Nevertheless, CNN Archives has extensive material on Watergate, and CNN did not exist at the time of Watergate. Hence this organization has gambled away some of its own credibility on historical reporting and all citations to it are suspect. RobS 13:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Further, the reference to Eduardo Frei Montalva makes no sense. Who is "he", Allende or Pinochet? And the reference to Jara was written as such,

The CIA's involvement in the coup was vigorously were the appalling human rights violations committed ....among them the murder of ... Victor Jara.

What is this refering to? The murder of Jara by those conducting the coup, or leftist protesting CIA's involvement in the murder of Jara? So if CIA was not invovled in the murder of Jara, it appears the murder of Jara was ok with 'leftists". This is just ridiculous naked propagandizng and not a very sincere effort to write an historical narrative. This page may have to be locked one more time. RobS 14:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

It's referring to the murder of Jara by those conducting the coup.

"The CIA's involvement in the coup was vigorously protested by US leftists, as were the appalling human rights violations committed during and after by the Pinochet regime, among them the murder of one of Allende's most ardent supporters, popular songwriter and musician Victor Jara. Cites: In September 11 of 1973 the Chilean armed forces attacked La Moneda, the presidential palace in the center of Santiago. Within hours Chile's elected president, Salvador Allende, lay dead (this report concludes that he committed suicide), and a military junta presided by General Augusto Pinochet took power." [1]

"Victor Lidio JARA MARTINEZ, 40, a popular singer and theater director who was a member of the Central Committee of Communist Youth. A statement by the Foreign Ministry dated March 27, 1974, in response to a note from the OAS (Organization of American States) Interamerican Human Rights Commission, said, "Victor Jara: Dead. He was killed by snipers who, I repeat, were firing indiscriminately on the armed forces and on the civilian population." This Commission received many credible reports refuting this official story and leading to the conclusion that what actually happened was quite different. Vicctor Jara was arrested on September 12 on the grounds of the State Technical University were he was working as a theater director. He was taken to the Chile Stadium, where he was separated from the other people with whom he had been arrested, and detained high up in the stands together with other people considered to be dangerous. Between September 12-15, he was interrogated by army personnel. The the last day Victor Jara was seen alive was September 15. During the afternoon he was taken out of a line of prisoners who were being transferred to the National Stadium. In the early morning of the next day, September 16, shantytown dwellers found his body, along with five others, including that of Litti Quiroga Carvajal, near the Metropolitan Cemetery. As the autopsy report states, Victor Jara died as a result of multiple bullet wounds (44 entry wounds and 32 exit wounds).â€The Commission came to the conviction that he was executed without due process of law by government agents, and hence in violation of his fundamental human rights. The grounds for that conviction are that he is known to have been arrested and to have been in the Chile Stadium, that it is attested that he died as a result of many bullet wounds, thus indicating that he was executed together with the other prisoners whose bodies appeared alongside his. The overview to this period provides an account of the various kinds of torture to which Và ctor Jara was subjected while under arrest." [2] --PF Fox 10:47, 15 April 2007 (EDT)


The page is unprotercted now. So, we got a cite that says Pinochet headed a junta after Allende's death. The reference must be restricted to this, i.e. there still is no citation that say's Allende participated in, led, or planned the coup. As to the Jara reference, as stated above, please make concise what alleged "leftists" are protesting, is at (a) Jara's murder, or by (b) alleged CIA's involvement in the events that led to Jara's murder. These are entirely two different things. Fromm a purely editing standpoint, decrying the murder IMHO is a stronger statement, as anything else really lacks solid evidence. And further, it can be read to say that alleged "leftists" don't give a rat's tail if Jara was murdered without CIA involvement. Please consider these things. RobS 12:44, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

PF Fox, Please read your cites before inserting them. Your citation does not say that Pinochet headed the junta that overthrew Allende. RobS 13:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
It is quite possible to object to two entirely different things, Rob. If you really believe there are questions about the CIA involvement with Allende's overthrow (in spite of the fact that our own government practically bragged about their hand in it) I will insert the word "alleged" before the word involvement. And while your concern is touching, I very much doubt any reasonable person would read my statement as you are claiming they would.
As you know, I did not say that "Pinochet led the Junta that overthrew Allende." I stated, quite clearly, that the coup "RESULTED IN GENERAL AUGUSTO PINOCHET HEADING A JUNTA AFTER ALLENDE'S DEATH," which is exactly what the Chilean National Commision on Truth and Reconcilation that I cite states: "Within hours Chile's elected president, Salvador Allende, lay dead (this report concludes that he committed suicide), and a military junta presided by General Augusto Pinochet took power." I will be sure to include that direct quote in the article so there will be no further confusion. --PF Fox 13:51, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you. It looks much better. Now, as to this claim, Many in the US vigorously protested both the CIA's alleged involvement, we need a timeframe attached to it. It was not apparant immediately that the CIA was involved, which this implies. Can this be fixed? RobS 13:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

If what you're asking is when people began to suspect and therefore protest the presumed CIA involvement, those suspicions began pretty much immediately, since the CIA had supported the unsuccessful attempt at a coup in 1970. The CIA World Fact Book thoughtfully provides an overview. --PF Fox 15:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

That links broken. RobS 15:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Try this one (for some reason it frequently takes a couple of tries): --PF Fox 18:32, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
OK. It's agood link and has some good information. It says of the Church Report,
  • a report that still stands as a comprehensive analysis of CIA actions
so we have no reason to question or second guess the Church Reoprt, unless a qualified source can be produced to do otherwise. This docucment says,
  • We find no information—nor did the Church Committee—that CIA or the Intelligence Community was involved in the death of Chilean President Salvador Allende.
which I beleive has now been handled properly in the article. This source further states,
  • CIA actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow of Allende but did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency;
hence, we have now two problems with this statement from the mainspace,
  • Within hours Chile's elected president, Salvador Allende, lay dead (this report concludes that he committed suicide), and a military junta presided by General Augusto Pinochet took power."[2] Many in the US vigorously protested both the CIA's alleged involvement in the coup, and the appalling human rights violations that followed, including the murder of Victor Jara, a popular songwriter and musician and ardent supporter of Allende. Jara was one of several thousand Chileans who were taken into custody by Pinochet's forces the day after the coup. He was tortured for several days, then shot to death.[3]
Problem 1: There has been no source document presented to make the claim Pinochet (a) took part in planning, (b) took part in the execution of the coup. Thus, Pinochet's name can not be used in any regard discussing this subject.
Problem 2: For the same reason, the Report says "CIA actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow of Allende but did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency, you must separate the claims made in this statement, "Many in the US vigorously protested both the CIA's alleged involvement ... and the appalling human rights violations ...including ....thousands ....taken into custody by Pinochet's forces.
These statements are directly contradictory. I would suggest removing Pinochet's name from both references, or constructing a better timeline, or making a more specific identification as to who "Many in the US" is, or a combination of all three. But what exists now simply is not acceptable. In the meantime, I will do a reversion and leave the page unlocked so you can work on it. Thank you. RobS 20:41, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
You're straining at gnats, Rob. Nowhere either in my wording or the wording of the Rettig Committee is the claim made that Pinochet "took part in the planning or took part in the execution of the coup." The statement that is made is quite simple and factual. On the very day of the coup, Pinochet was installed as the leader of the Junta. Whether or not Pinochet took actually engineered the coup, or took part in it, his presence as the leader of the Junta on SEPTEMBER 11 is a matter of history, and a matter of fact, and anyone who takes the trouble of actually reading contemporary accounts of the coup in newspapers or magazines can easily determine this. Removing Pinochet's name from this article is absolutely senseless -- unless you plan to remove any reference to HOW he ended up leading Chile from the article on Pinochet.
Equally factual is the statement that the CIA was alleged to have participated in the coup. "Allege" you see, means "to assert without proof or before proving." (Merriam Webster's Ninth New Collegiate dictionary) The allegation, true or not, was made from the first day of the coup on. Like the point at which Pinochet took over the helm of Chile, the fact that this allegation was voiced is a matter of historical record. There is nothing at all contradictory about saying "it was alleged that the CIA had assisted in the the coup" and observing later that the allegation was untrue.
But of course, you know that. --PF Fox 21:47, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
So you are connecting the dots with the evidence, or making leaps of judgement and conclusions. Sorry, but I'm pretty meticulous about historical methodology, and it's just become a habit of second nature of mine. We are discussing three issues, (1) Pinochet's relationship to the Chilean government before and after the coup; (2) CIA involvement prior and after the coup; (3) "Many in the US protested" after the coup, although you still have not made clear what they protested, what is (a) CIA invovlement, or (b) human rights abuses. All three issues deserve treatment, however all three issues must be treated separately and cannot be used to confuse the known historical facts supported by three investigations and their publiched results. A further suggestion to clarify things, eleiniate this bogus, unsourcedm, without reference to a timeframe claim of anonymous "many in the US" and produce a specific cite, attributable to specific, reputable person of group with a specific date of thier "protest'. RobS 22:22, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Are you, in all seriousness, denying that Pinochet took over hours after the coup? That he was not in charge when Victor Jara was murdered? Whose forces arrested Jara then? Who tortured him? Who shot him? --PF Fox 22:18, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Discussion moved from User talk:RobS [7]

The article on Augusto Pinochet reads;

"He came to power as a member of a council of military leaders after the overthrew the government of President Salvador Allende on 11 September 1973."

My Goodness, Rob, why are you allowing that to stand? Shouldn't it be removed immediately? --PF Fox 21:51, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

That is supported by the cites. Now, once you begin adding all the extra stuff, like CIA was complicit in bring Pinochet to power (unsupported), CIA was complicit in activities after Pinochet came to power (unsupported), "Many in the US protested" CIA complicity in bringing Pinochet to power (unsupported), "Many in US protested" CIA complicity in human rights abuses (unsupported), etc. there is absolutely no sourcing to support any claim of that nature. RobS 21:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
As you know, nowhere in my entry does it say "the CIA was complicit in bringing Pinochet to power." I simply say the allegation was made. You are editing out the word "alleged" from my comments. --PF Fox 22:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes the allegation was made, however we have three cites now that say its unsupported. Hence, we cannot repeat an unsupported allegation that two official US investigations, and one Chilean, have refuted. RobS 22:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, THE ALLEGATION WAS MADE. Thank you for admitting that fact. Acknowledging that the allegation was made does not qualify as "repeating an unsupported allegation" when it's identified as an allegation.
Are you in all seriousness, denying that Pinochet took over hours after the coup? That he was not in charge when Victor Jara was murdered? Whose forces arrested Jara then? Who tortured him? Who shot him? --PF Fox 22:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes the allegation was made Don Rumsfeld blew up the World Trade Center by remote control, and G.W.H. Bush flew to Madrid on an SR-1, and a one arm-man was seen running from the grassy knoll, and Jimmy Hoffa was abducted by space aliens. Doesn't mean we should reference any of it. RobS 22:14, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Are you in all seriousness, denying that Pinochet took over hours after the coup? That he was not in charge when Victor Jara was murdered? Whose forces arrested Jara then? Who tortured him? Who shot him? --PF Fox 22:18, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Please explain what this statement means:
  • CIA actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow of Allende but did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency. RobS 22:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

It means the CIA did not give material support to the coup. Now please answer my question.

Are you in all seriousness, denying that Pinochet took over hours after the coup? That he was not in charge when Victor Jara was murdered? Whose forces arrested Jara then? Who tortured him? Who shot him? --PF Fox 22:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

We are back to the issue of timeframes; what document can you produce prove that Pinochet ordered human rights abuses in the immediate wake of the coup? The CIA document above makes a clear separation between "the military Junta", and Pinochet's accession to the Presidency. In otherwords, in the chaos of a regime change like this, none of the three investigations can make the claim Pinochet ordered these executions, hence we cannot preclude the possibility these human rights violations were the independent actions of participants in the coup acting on thier own. Further, there is clear evidence from these documents of a potential coup within a coup, that Pinochet was not fully in command, and that he lacked the support from even the CIA whom, according to the documents, had assisted coup plotters for three years prior to these events. RobS 22:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Please show where in these documents it is indicated that anyone other than Pinochet was in charge after the coup, i.e., as of September 11, 1973. --PF Fox 22:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
  • (1) [8] "According to the Church Committee report, in their meeting with CIA Director Richard Helms and Attorney General John Mitchell on 15 September 1970 President Nixon and his National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, directed the CIA to prevent Allende from taking power." years prior.
  • (2) [9] "Although CIA did not instigate the coup that ended Allende’s government on 11 September 1973, it was aware of coup-plotting by the military, had ongoing intelligence collection relationships with some plotters, and—because CIA did not discourage the takeover and had sought to instigate a coup in 1970—probably appeared to condone it."
  • (3) [10] "CIA actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow of Allende but did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency

So, the CIA had ongoing relationships with some plotters, it did not however assist Pinochet. So we can conclude that the plotters, and later the junta in the early hours or days, was not an entirely organized affair, there were differences of opinion as to who should lead the coup and who should succeed Pinochet, and these activities were ongoing for three years prior to events, and did have some foreign (i.e. US CIA) influence. RobS 23:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Can you cite anything that indicates this other than your highly questionable "guess?" I have yet to hear or read a single account of what Time Magazine described as a "carefully planned and meticulously executed" coup that casts any doubt about who was in charge. --PF Fox 23:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Have you read the Clinton era CIA Report? Here's two more references, which must be read in the context of the foregoing,
  • (4) Early Allende Presidency "General Augusto Pinochet (not a coup plotter..."
  • (5) Violations of Human Rights Committed by Officers or Covert Agents and Employees of the CIA This heading is interesting in what it does not say, it does not say "Violations of Human Rights Committed by Subordinates of Pinochet
  • (6) Accession of General Augusto Pinochet to the Presidency, "Chile‘s new military Junta—Army General Augusto Pinochet, Air Force General Gustavo Leigh, Navy Admiral Jose Merino, and Carabinero Chief General Caesar Mendoza—was sworn in on the evening of 11 September 1973. The next day, the four drafted an official document constituting the Junta as Chile’s supreme power. Pinochet was designated as its first President, and the four verbally agreed to rotate the office. Shortly after, the Junta established an advisory committee, which Pinochet was successful in staffing with Army officers loyal to himself. One of their first recommendations was to discard the idea of a rotating Presidency, arguing it would create too many administrative problems and lead to confusion.

So, the evidence suggests (a) US was aware of, but did not give direct support to coup plotters; (b) Pinochet was not a coup plotter; (c) there was immediate confusion in the first days of the coup as to the basic strucure of the new junta; (d) some human rights abuses that did occur in the "early months after the coup" can be attributed to Pinochet, however because of the foregoing evidence regarding Pinochet's lack of involvement in the coup itself, and the fundamental change in the structure of the junta, there is ample evidence to suggest Pinochet did not have full control of the regime in the first few days; (e) finally a question arises about the difference between a "covert agent and employee of CIA" vs a member of the Chilean junta? Can a man serve two masters? RobS 23:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

How does the fact that they quickly discarded the idea of the rotating four man junta indicate so much confusion that there was question about who was actually in charge? Which of them are you claiming was in charge when Jara was murdered? --PF Fox 23:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
The four who agreed to the structure of the junta did not agree to discarding it, as the source doucments states. Source document does not give a timeframe either, only states, "shortly thereafter". How shortly is shortly thereafter? Well, it would have to include how long it takes for Pinochet to make appointments, the appointments to be accepted, and the appointees to meet and make decisions. In the absence of testimony, how long could this possibly take? Could it be done in two or three days? Perhaps. And at least one other day is lost between Allende's suicide & Pinochet working out the original deal with the other Generals. Most importantly is two factors, (1) obvious confusion and renigned deals at the outset, and (2) how did the Generals who made the original deal react? Source document doesn't tell us, but presumably it may have been problematic. RobS 00:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

According to the Rettig Report, the idea of a rotating junta was just that -- an idea -- and one that was dropped after a few weeks. It was never really implemented, and the man who had been sworn in as leader from the beginning, Augusto Pinochet, remained in charge. And there is no sign of any "obvious confusion" about who was calling the shots beyond your unfounded extrapolations in either historical or contemporary accounts. --PF Fox 11:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


This is probably the only site in the world other than a few fringe spanish language sites that actually defends Pinochet.PalMDtalk 23:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

It is almost certainly about the only one that claims there's some question about who was in charge immediately after the coup. --PF Fox 23:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Not at all. The CIA review ordered by the Clinton Administration published in 2000 says exactly that. RobS 23:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
And yet so far you've offered no cites to support this claim. --PF Fox 23:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Duh, what does the English language phrase, cited above, "CIA review ordered by the Clinton Administration published in 2000" mean? Duh, do I have to link spam the cite? Here: CIA Activities in Chile, September 18, 2000. RobS 23:47, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Go easy, Rob. Perhaps their online activities precluded them watching the news back then, or even doing a 20 second Google now. Don't you yet understand you are here as a Sysop to satisfy their demands? :p And goodness, yesterday the Doctor couldn't find anything else to interest him outside of medicine. Today he has become a student of history and politics! I'd say Conservapedia has been a positive force for many! --~ TK MyTalk 07:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
LOL! Rob, your CIA quote is about as convincing a cite for Pinochet not being in charge as your Speer quote was for your bizarre claim that the Weimar Republic ended in 1939.
TK, I watched the news back then and remember quite clearly that from the beginning, Pinochet was named as the man in charge. Not only a Google search, but a visit to a library confirms this. (Someone who thinks the average person could waste time "online" in 1973 may find this hard to grasp, but a traditional library is this big building filled with the fascinating things called "books" and bound periodicals, some of them actually written BEFORE 1990! You do research there by using an online or offline card catalogue, finding the books or bound periodicals on the shelves, and opening them, and consulting their index. The writing in these "books" and "magazines" can't be edited or seamlessly altered once they're published, which I'm sure would be frustrating to you and RobS, but is a rather nice feature for those of us who are actually interested in what was being said at the time historical events were unfolding.) --PF Fox 11:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
PF, you have found some excellent primary sources; problem is (a) the sources say something completely different from what you cite them as saying; (b) you cite them as as saying things they do not say. RobS 12:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Books confirm what I've said, whether it's the actual date the Weimar Republic ended, or the question of whether or not Pinochet was in charge in the days after 9/11/73. I've not seen anyone -- other than you -- question whether or not Pinochet was in charge of Chile after the coup, or offering any names in lieu of Pinochet's as the Man In Charge even in those first few weeks, and there is nothing to indicate the bloodbath that took place then was uncharacteristic of Pinochet. He continued ordering the torture and murder of dissidents for years afterwards. --PF Fox 12:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's assume for the time being that Pinochet was in charge and hold him responsible for whatever he and his supporters do. Please go ahead and edit the Augusto Pinochet article on that basis. --Ed Poor 12:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That can not be assumed because all three investigations, the Church Report, the CIA internal report released in the Clinton era, and post-Pinochet Chilean investigation by the Chilean democracy all say it is not so. RobS 12:55, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
There is nothing in any of these reports that absolves Pinochet of responsibility. --PF Fox 12:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Responsibility for what? RobS 13:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
For the murders that took place immediately after the coup. --PF Fox 13:02, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you Ed. I Will. --PF Fox 13:02, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
The source documents do not say that, neither can they be made to say that. RobS 13:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

The Rettig Report specifically names Augusto Pinochet as presiding over the Junta who were in power as of 9/11/73. --PF Fox 13:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Very good. The original reversion was made because of the following sentence, "Many in the US vigorously protested both the CIA's involvement in the coup" which all source documents contradict and refute. So, the claim as stated now can stand alone. RobS 13:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Category:Conspiracy Theorists

Why is Salvador Allende an conspiracy theorist?--JoeyJ 06:22, 6 December 2014 (EST)

Ahistorical nonsense removed

Removed the association that an editor is attempting to make between Allende and Hitler it is completely ahistorical and offensive to victims of the nazi regime. I also attempted to present both expropriation and nationalisation, especially the latter which often involves the state compensating or paying for the company that is nationalised. Nationalisation has not been an exclusive tool of socialist revolutions; it was carried out in a far more larger scale after WWII in the United Kingdom by people such as Clement Attlee. Oldspice