Talk:Salvador Allende

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)

Fact: Allende was not brutal. Pinochet was.

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)

Background

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.[1] --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. [2][3] 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)