Bolivia Question

[JSojourner]

Some time ago, I heard mention on NPR of a possible breakup in Bolivia.  Several provinces or states would be seceding.  I've not had time to research it.  Does anyone know off the top of their head if anything came of this?

Just curious.

[John Dibble]

Four provinces have declared autonomy, and the ratification of those declarations are to be put to public referendum:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/12/15/bolivia.unrest/

[opebo]

Haha, I wonder how many CIA men are creeping around down there right now!

Those poor indians don't have a chance.

[Cubby]

Evo Morales is cool. He's like a saner version of Hugo Chavez. All the American government cares about is the War on Drugs. They have no respect for the role of coca in Bolivian society for non-recreational use.

Those eastern provinces don't like the fact that members of the Andean Indian community are now in charge of the government. They've been used to calling the shots for the past 500 years.

Haha, I wonder how many CIA men are creeping around down there right now!

Those poor indians don't have a chance.

Are you saying that we might see a repeat of Chile 1973? I don't think the international community would stand for that. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would hope the CIA has learned from its past "nation-building" mistakes.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Are you saying that we might see a repeat of Chile 1973? I don't think the international community would stand for that. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would hope the CIA has learned from its past "nation-building" mistakes.

Which mistakes?!?

Chile is a wonderful success for CIA! Isn't it?!?

They established there the capitalism, a new constitution and all of this work very well there now.

Clearly, I really don't like what happened in Chile with Pinochet/CIA. I think it's one of the worst thing the US have done in the world. But, as much clearly, for them it's a success, all the objectives are reached and it still work now.

Concerning Bolivia:

Yeah, I would not be surprised at all that CIA is hotly there currently.

Effectively, it seems there is a hot situation between Indian and White communities. The richest (because of ground resources) area of this country is predominantly populated by white peoples who want the independence of this region, province of Sucre if my memory is good. Of course, Indian government doesn't want. Here's the fight, with racism and resentments of past in background. The last thing I heard about it, maybe one month ago, was that the situation was really hot and separation of the country could happen at every time, I don't how it is now.

[Cubby]

Are you saying that we might see a repeat of Chile 1973? I don't think the international community would stand for that. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would hope the CIA has learned from its past "nation-building" mistakes.

Which mistakes?!?

Chile is a wonderful success for CIA! Isn't it?!?

They established there the capitalism, a new constitution and all of this work very well there now.

Hopefully you're kidding. Chile is prosperous now, but they didn't need foreign intervention and thousands of deaths to accomplish that. Allende wasn't going to establish Soviet-style communism, just democratic socialism. The American government over-reacted, to put it mildly.

Clearly, I really don't like what happened in Chile with Pinochet/CIA. I think it's one of the worst thing the US have done in the world. But, as much clearly, for them it's a success, all the objectives are reached and it still work now.

I think the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran had much worse long term complications than what happened in Chile. Maybe Nixon and Kissinger thought that if the Soviets could take over Hungary ('56)and Prague ('68) by force, then our side could do the same to prevent socialism. The CIA should never be vindicated for what they did in Chile. Its something America should be ashamed of.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Top.

This is happening today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7382538.stm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Understatement of the year.

[Daniel Adams]

Are you saying that we might see a repeat of Chile 1973? I don't think the international community would stand for that. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would hope the CIA has learned from its past "nation-building" mistakes.

Which mistakes?!?

Chile is a wonderful success for CIA! Isn't it?!?

They established there the capitalism, a new constitution and all of this work very well there now.

Hopefully you're kidding. Chile is prosperous now, but they didn't need foreign intervention and thousands of deaths to accomplish that. Allende wasn't going to establish Soviet-style communism, just democratic socialism. The American government over-reacted, to put it mildly.

Au contraire. The evidence shows Allende was far more of an extremist than what is usually thought and that the idea that he would institute a communist dictatorship, although not completely proven, is not far-fetched at all.

Allende had been a paid "confidential contact" (not an official agent) of the KGB since 1961 under the codename "Leader". In 1973, the last year of his presidency, Allende requested Soviet funds for the parties of his left-wing coalition and thanks to him the Chilean Communist Party received more Soviet funding than any other such party in South America. Also that year, Allende and the Soviet Fishing Minister Aleksandr Ishkov agreed to a pact whereby Chile would lease a few islands in the south of Chile to the USSR for the construction of submarine bases plus a 20,000 square meter area in Colcura (near Concepción) to create a giant fishing port manned by Soviet personnel. Considering that there was no legitimate need to build a port in Colcura (the nearby port of Talcahuano was perfectly equipped) its purpose could only have been more sinister. Colcura is located in the so-called "carbon belt" of Chile, an extremely left-wing area populated by carbon miners.

Allende's intentions were not democratic at all. When he was a presidential candidate, he held an interview with the West German newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Apparently, Allende mistakenly thought he was being interviewed by the East German state-owned newspaper Neues Deutschland. When the reporter asked him whether there would still be elections in Chile if he were elected, Allende responded "No, comrade, don't be such a pessimist".

The behavior of Pinochet's predecessor as head of the Army, Carlos Prats, is also suspicious and points to a plot to create a communist dictatorship. Prats held secret talks with important leaders of the Communist and Socialist parties during Allende's rule. In a telegram to the East German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, communist operative Harry Spindler explains that General Prats was committed to the program of the Popular Unity (Allende's coalition) and that he was willing to "go beyond" the limits of the Constitution to help Allende's government.

In another telegram by Spindler, dated July 11, 1973, he states, "The Communist Party [of Chile] now thinks an armed confrontation is inevitable [...] against the reactionary forces of the country. This conviction is shared by Allende, the Socialist Party, all the relevant forces in the Popular Unity, as well as the Movement of the Revolutionary Left (MIR). With this in mind the Communist Party is preparing [...] for an armed clash. Fifty percent of the party is dedicated solely with these preparations and is working underground. [... General] Prats, in secret conversations with [Communist Secretary-General] Corvalán, has confided that he is ready to give away arms to the working class in defense of the government. [...] The Communist Party's tactic is to gain time and prepare to carry out the purge that is being done against the Armed Forces led by General Prats, in order to make the forces favorable to the Popular Unity. [...] In a conversation with the First Secretary of the Socialist Party, Carlos Altamirano, he explained that for the ulterior development of the revolutionary process in Chile an armed confrontation is necessary. In his opinion there must be a confrontation between the Army and the reactionaries. In such a case, General Prats will use these clashes to fulfill his pledge to give weapons to the working class. [...] The Communist and Socialist Party youths are also preparing for the decisive confrontation."

After the coup, the military junta published a set of documents that supposedly proved a secret plan to lead a self-coup and establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat". The documents, known as Plan Z, has been labeled a forgery by most people, but Gonzalo Vial, one of the most renowned contemporary Chilean historians, has stated that he believes the document is real, based on comparisons with Socialist Party documents regarding an armed struggle.

[ag]

The evidence shows Allende was far more of an extremist than what is usually thought and that the idea that he would institute a communist dictatorship, although not completely proven, is not far-fetched at all.

I should add that the evidence shows... that the idea that the previous poster is about to institute a communist dictatorship in Switzerland, although not completely proven, is not far-fetched at all.

Tratorous intentions of Prats are in no doubt: only a trator could have recommended somebody like Pinochett as his replacement

BTW, Neue Zürcher Zeitung is not a German newspaper, East or West, and has never been one, not even in 1973 . Even if you've never seen it (I used to read it quite frequently, when my German was a bit less rusty than it is today - it was the cheapest German language paper I could get in NY in the 90s), the paper's title seems to be rather clear about it

[Daniel Adams]

The evidence shows Allende was far more of an extremist than what is usually thought and that the idea that he would institute a communist dictatorship, although not completely proven, is not far-fetched at all.

The evidence clearly points to Allende's desire to establish a communist dictatorship with Soviet aid. What I meant is that it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Tratorous intentions of Prats are in no doubt: only a trator could have recommended somebody like Pinochett as his replacement

Pinochet was rather apolitical before the coup. Allende himself trusted him very much and Pinochet had not joined other military officers who had openly expressed disagreement with Allende and Prats. Even Pinochet's family was not right-wing; his father-in-law had been a member of the centrist Radical Party. The coup was actually planned by Navy Admiral José Toribio Merino and Air Force General Gustavo Leigh. Pinochet was recruited almost at last minute and he was reluctant at first to actively participate. Once the coup was completed, though, he agreed to lead the junta and became virulently anti-communist.

Going back to Bolivia, however, I have opened a discussion page on the Santa Cruz referendum results here.

[ag]

The evidence clearly points to Allende's desire to establish a communist dictatorship with Soviet aid. What I meant is that it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The evidence clearly points to Allende being a disastrous president who allowed the economy to disintegrate. The evidence also clearly points to Soviet Union being unwilling to commit any serious amount of money or other resources to supporting the Chilean government (whether because they didn't trust Allende, or because they didn't think it worth the trouble w/ the US, or because Allende actually never asked). The evidence clearly points to Allende being very bad in dealing with the oppoisition. The evidence clearly points to him being disliked by a big chunk of the population. The evidence even clearly points to some Chileans sincerely fearing that he would want to establish a communist regime. However, there is not an actual shred of credible evidence that Allende himself was planning on establishing a Communist dictatorship (or any sort of dictatorship, for that matter, considering that Allende wasn't even a Communist) - in fact, there is ample evidence to the contrary.

Hey, I am a Latin American right-winger w/ Soviet roots. I've, probably, forgotten more about commie perfidy than you ever new You don't have to teach me this history - just don't invent it

As for Gen. Pinochet: I'd stick to The Economist obituary: "no ifs or buts... the general was a bad man".

[Daniel Adams]

The evidence clearly points to Allende's desire to establish a communist dictatorship with Soviet aid. What I meant is that it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The evidence clearly points to Allende being a disastrous president who allowed the economy to disintegrate. The evidence also clearly points to Soviet Union being unwilling to commit any serious amount of money or other resources to supporting the Chilean government (whether because they didn't trust Allende, or because they didn't think it worth the trouble w/ the US, or because Allende actually never asked). The evidence clearly points to Allende being very bad in dealing with the oppoisition. The evidence clearly points to him being disliked by a big chunk of the population. The evidence even clearly points to some Chileans sincerely fearing that he would want to establish a communist regime. However, there is not an actual shred of credible evidence that Allende himself was planning on establishing a Communist dictatorship (or any sort of dictatorship, for that matter, considering that Allende wasn't even a Communist) - in fact, there is ample evidence to the contrary.

Well, read my previous post. Memorandums from the East German Ministry of Foreign Affairs clearly point to military preparations by the Chilean left for an armed confrontation with the "reactionary forces". The Plan Z documents have never been conclusively proven to be a forgery and there is circumstantial evidence that they are real. The USSR did invest large amounts of resources into Allende's Chile. Allende was a paid informant for the KGB since 1961, the Chilean Communist Party received the largest Soviet funding of any South American communist party, the Soviets sold weaponry directly to the treasonous General Prats, and deals were made between the Soviet and Chilean government to establish Soviet ports and submarine bases in Chilean territory.

It's true Allende wasn't a capital-C Communist, but in those days the Socialist Party was if anything even more extreme than the Communist Party. The Socialists were composed mainly of young Marxist-Leninist radicals eager to follow the "armed route" to Socialism. It was the Communists who preferred more dialogue with the centrist parties. In any case, Spindler telegrams say all the Popular Unity parties agreed that confrontation was inevitable and that both the Communists and Socialists were illegally arming themselves.

Hey, I am a Latin American right-winger w/ Soviet roots. I've, probably, forgotten more about commie perfidy than you ever new You don't have to teach me this history - just don't invent it

Nothing of what I've said is invented. I'd be glad to prove sources for all my claims, even the location of the Spindler telegrams in the German archives.

As for Gen. Pinochet: I'd stick to The Economist obituary: "no ifs or buts... the general was a bad man".

Having lived in Chile long enough to see first-hand the effect of Allende's mismanagement and Pinochet's reforms, I sincerely disagree.

[Bono]

Hey, I am a Latin American right-winger

A Keynesian right-winger?

[ag]

Hey, I am a Latin American right-winger

A Keynesian right-winger?

If you wish, you could also call me Weismanist-Morganist-Mendelist (if you know what that is . Or an Islamofascist. It carries about as much meaning Most people, though, call me a Neo-liberal comprador apologist for the burgeoise and the yanki imperialism:).

BTW: two questions. a) what is it that you call "Keynesian" and b) why do you think I am one.

[ag]

Well, read my previous post. Memorandums from the East German Ministry of Foreign Affairs clearly point to military preparations by the Chilean left for an armed confrontation with the "reactionary forces". The Plan Z documents have never been conclusively proven to be a forgery and there is circumstantial evidence that they are real. The USSR did invest large amounts of resources into Allende's Chile. Allende was a paid informant for the KGB since 1961, the Chilean Communist Party received the largest Soviet funding of any South American communist party, the Soviets sold weaponry directly to the treasonous General Prats, and deals were made between the Soviet and Chilean government to establish Soviet ports and submarine bases in Chilean territory.

It's true Allende wasn't a capital-C Communist, but in those days the Socialist Party was if anything even more extreme than the Communist Party. The Socialists were composed mainly of young Marxist-Leninist radicals eager to follow the "armed route" to Socialism. It was the Communists who preferred more dialogue with the centrist parties. In any case, Spindler telegrams say all the Popular Unity parties agreed that confrontation was inevitable and that both the Communists and Socialists were illegally arming themselves.

Hey, I am a Latin American right-winger w/ Soviet roots. I've, probably, forgotten more about commie perfidy than you ever new You don't have to teach me this history - just don't invent it

Nothing of what I've said is invented. I'd be glad to prove sources for all my claims, even the location of the Spindler telegrams in the German archives.

As for Gen. Pinochet: I'd stick to The Economist obituary: "no ifs or buts... the general was a bad man".

Having lived in Chile long enough to see first-hand the effect of Allende's mismanagement and Pinochet's reforms, I sincerely disagree.

I actually took trouble to look up, what was the size of the Soviet investment in Chile - pityfull, if you compare it with most countries were USSR believed itself to have interests.  It never came close to replacing US aid, that was being withdrawn in the same years. Yes, the Chilean Communist Party received the largest funding of all the parties in South America - it, mostly, shows, how little the other parties received. They never got anything close to what was spent in Cuba or the Old World countries where the Soviets cared.  In any case, the Commies were not Allende's party - no evidence his party ever received anything. They did not sell arms to Prats - they had negotiation with Prats, who acted above ground in his capacity as the commander. The negotiations never came to an actual sale (no contract was signed, no money exchanged hands, no weaponry was delivered). Allende was not a "paid KGB informer" - he was - unknown to him - asigned a code-name, so that whoever was talking to him would report back to the headquarters. There is no evidence he was ever paid, nor there is any evidence he knew that he was "an informer" (nor it is obvious, what were the "state secrets" that a Valparaiso senator Allende could report on). All we can say, he was open to talking to talking to the Soviets - that was always public knowledge.  I am not going to even respond to "something never being proved to be a forgery" - the burden of proof is on whoever claims it to be original.

There is ample evidence that Soviets thought Cuba to be overexpensive as it was, and that Chile, being so far away from the US, was not viewed as being worth a fight or money. This is confirmed by the consistently cautious position of the Communist Party in Chile: if anybody knew Soviet intentions, they were the ones, and they clearly never acted as if the Soviets where ready to support a takeover (in fact, they always seemed to imply the contrary when talking to the hotheads).  The most credible evidence of Allende own intentions that we have is that he was planning a confidence referendum, which he was likely to loose.  And, as I said, the only evidence we have of Prats "treason" is his recommendation of Pinochet to Allende (I am joking about the last part).

As I said before, there is even evidence that a lot of people at the time really thought he was readying a takeover - just no evidence he really did. There've been mounds of credible historical studies since 1973. None of the independent researchers were convinced that Allende had any nasty intentions - though a lot of them are convinced that he was an awful president.   Incompetence is not grounds for murder - not in Latin America, for sure, or else there wouldn't have been that many living presidents left in the region.

To sum up: we all agree Allende was a bad president and that he was friendly w/ the Soviets and that the Soviets were friendly w/ him. None of this was ever a secret, and there is no argument about any of that. But no matter how many times you repeat the name of the Soviet Fisheries Minister, there is no evidence any crimes were ever comitted (or even planned) by anyone, other than the Chilean military under the Pinochet command. Whether Allende would ever commit treason we can argue about. That Pinochet did commit treason is beyond any doubt.

As for your experience: do you really remember well Chile in the 1970s? I didn't realise you were that old.

[Daniel Adams]

I actually took trouble to look up, what was the size of the Soviet investment in Chile - pityfull, if you compare it with most countries were USSR believed itself to have interests.  It never came close to replacing US aid, that was being withdrawn in the same years. Yes, the Chilean Communist Party received the largest funding of all the parties in South America - it, mostly, shows, how little the other parties received. They never got anything close to what was spent in Cuba or the Old World countries where the Soviets cared.  In any case, the Commies were not Allende's party - no evidence his party ever received anything.

The differences between the Popular Unity parties, except the Radicals, was negligible by 1973. They all harbored the same ideals and objectives and it's perfectly reasonable that Allende asked the Soviets to fund the Communist Party, given the latter supported him. In 1970 alone the Chilean Communists were assigned $400,000 in Soviet funds and the KGB requested the funds by increased even further

They did not sell arms to Prats - they had negotiation with Prats, who acted above ground in his capacity as the commander. The negotiations never came to an actual sale (no contract was signed, no money exchanged hands, no weaponry was delivered).

Prats' trip to the USSR is far from well-researched. It was a mysterious trip whose purposes have not been fully revealed. In his own Memoirs, Prats limits himself to saying, "In consideration of the confidential nature of that trip and its relationship with the national security of my homeland, I can share little of interest without violating the statutes of the Code of Military Justice." This does not sound like an innocent trip where nothing was archieved.

Allende was not a "paid KGB informer" - he was - unknown to him - asigned a code-name, so that whoever was talking to him would report back to the headquarters. There is no evidence he was ever paid, nor there is any evidence he knew that he was "an informer" (nor it is obvious, what were the "state secrets" that a Valparaiso senator Allende could report on).

Per Christopher Andrew's The Mitrokhin Archives: "The KGB had systematic contact with Allende beginning in 1961 and he voluntarily shared political information and was a 'confidential contact', without being an agent proper [...] Allende received $100,000 directly from [the KGB's] own funds." The Soviets wanted Allende not because he possessed important state secrets, but because they wanted to increase their control over the Chilean government. Allende wasn't just another senator, he was of the most influential and respected senators and led that body for many years. He had participated in previous presidential elections and, before 1970, had been only a few votes short of gaining power. In October 1971 "under instructions from the Politburo, Allende was given 30,000 dollars to solidify" the relationship with this newly-elected president. The KGB proposed another $60,000 for "his work his political party leaders, military officers, and congressmen" plus $70,000 for a "monthly periodical already subsidized by the KGB". Both sums were approved by the Politburo.

All we can say, he was open to talking to talking to the Soviets - that was always public knowledge.  I am not going to even respond to "something never being proved to be a forgery" - the burden of proof is on whoever claims it to be original.

Not necessarily. The Plan Z controversy began with the postulate that the documents are real because they were discovered in the archives of the Popular Unity parties by the junta. You are making the opposite case, therefore the burden of proof must actually lie on you. What evidence do you have that the documents are in fact forgeries?

There is ample evidence that Soviets thought Cuba to be overexpensive as it was, and that Chile, being so far away from the US, was not viewed as being worth a fight or money. This is confirmed by the consistently cautious position of the Communist Party in Chile: if anybody knew Soviet intentions, they were the ones, and they clearly never acted as if the Soviets where ready to support a takeover (in fact, they always seemed to imply the contrary when talking to the hotheads).  The most credible evidence of Allende own intentions that we have is that he was planning a confidence referendum, which he was likely to loose. 

Then explain the extensive military preparations by the Popular Unity parties for a confrontation with the "reactionaries". If Allende's intentions were honorable, explain why the Spindler telegram says that the "conviction" that "an armed confrontation [was] inevitable" was "shared by Allende [and] the Socialist Party".

And, as I said, the only evidence we have of Prats "treason" is his recommendation of Pinochet to Allende (I am joking about the last part).

Prats' involvement with the Popular Unity parties was clearly unconstitutional. As General of the Army, Prats should not have been involved in party affars. Several documents reveal that Prats was helping the Popular Unity parties get weapons to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. Spindler's telegram clearly documents Prats' illegal involvement with the Popular Unity:
* "It has been confirmed that General Prats, respecting the Constitution, and, we can affirm, going even beyond it, not only is committed to the Popular Unity program, but has collaborated decisively to help the Popular Unity government and put it in the offensive."
* "Prats, in secret conversations with Corvalán, has confided that he is ready to give away arms to the working class in defense of the government."
* "The Communist Party's tactic is to gain time and prepare to carry out the purge that is being done against the Armed Forces led by General Prats, in order to make the forces favorable to the Popular Unity."
* "In such a case [confrontation with the reactionaries], General Prats will [...] fulfill his pledge to give weapons to the working class. "

In a report directed to Hermann Axen, Secretary of the Central Committee of the East German Socialist Unity Party, Chilean Communist Party official Volodia Teitelboim refers to General Prats as "Genosse" (comrade), an official title used only for Communist Party members. Additionally, Teitelboim reveals that "it was known that General Prats had expressed his disposition to help the government's ulterior measures to further the revolutionary process and form a government of the workers with the participation of progressive elements in the Armed Forces."

Allende even requested a teacher of Marxism-Leninism for General Prats and Prats was touted as a possible candidate for the 1976 presidential elections by Communist Secretary-General Luis Corvalán. The Spindler and Teitelboim documents not only reveal that the Popular Unity parties were clearly set in fighting for a communist dictatorship, but also that General Prats was deeply involved in aiding them to do so. That is treachery, plain and simple.

[Daniel Adams]

As I said before, there is even evidence that a lot of people at the time really thought he was readying a takeover - just no evidence he really did. There've been mounds of credible historical studies since 1973. None of the independent researchers were convinced that Allende had any nasty intentions - though a lot of them are convinced that he was an awful president.   Incompetence is not grounds for murder - not in Latin America, for sure, or else there wouldn't have been that many living presidents left in the region.

There simply haven't been many independent researchers interested in digging though the files of the Eastern Bloc governments to find information on Allende. However, Professor Victor Farías has taken the time to do so and has discovered several documents, including the Spindler telegrams and the Teitelboim report, that show that a communist takeover was certainly within the plans of the Popular Unity government.

To sum up: we all agree Allende was a bad president and that he was friendly w/ the Soviets and that the Soviets were friendly w/ him. None of this was ever a secret, and there is no argument about any of that. But no matter how many times you repeat the name of the Soviet Fisheries Minister, there is no evidence any crimes were ever comitted (or even planned) by anyone, other than the Chilean military under the Pinochet command. Whether Allende would ever commit treason we can argue about. That Pinochet did commit treason is beyond any doubt.

You're apparently unconvinced of the illegality or seriousness of Allende's pact with the Soviets to build submarine bases in the south and a port in Colcura. Isn't it extremely suspicious that the Soviets want to build a port where none is really needed and located right in the middle of an area where left-wing extremism thrived? I find any attempt to establish a Soviet exclave in America during the height of the Cold War suspicious.

Allende announced the project without the approval of the Chilean Senate, an act that was illegal and unconstitutional even if the aims of the project were completely innocent.

As for your experience: do you really remember well Chile in the 1970s? I didn't realise you were that old.

Yes I remember the economic chaos and civil war into which Chile succumbed in the 1970s. The economic disaster that Allende caused is, I find, enough reason to support the coup. However, Allende and the Popular Unity were far more dangerous than that.

Whew! Sorry for the long reply, but I had a lot to say.

[ag]

I understand. Prats was ready to help the Communist takeover, so Allende replaced him w/ Pinochet. Instead, not being able to rely on the top military commander, who, ostensibly, was in their pocket - and whom they replaced - the leftists were active in military preparations, all traces of which they hid so well, that when they really needed the military force, they couldn't muster any. Makes all the sense to me.

Listen, don't hold me for an idiot: if the commies were really actively preparing for smthg military, after the coup it wouldn't be enough for Pinochet to execute a few people - we'd be talking about the history of the Chilean Civil War of the 1970s-1990s now. They were screwed in a day and eaten up live, with barely any resistance (and a whole bunch of moderate non-leftist  - and even anti-Allende - politicians were served up for the desert). Let me tell you: when people have guns, those guns shoot. Theirs' didn't - which made most independent observers since believe their guns were the junta's invention.

And, of course, there wasn't any diference between the Sociallists and the Communists and the rest of them - we all know, that all leftists are the same (and they don't have rivalries, and they don't merge only to confuse the upstanding citizens and the CIA). Like, for instance, the US Democratic Party and the Bulgarian Communist Party of Todor Zhivkov's days are one and the same (I've actually seen somebody - not you - making that argument once )

Now, you may be right that there is one source that claims that during his presidency (not in the 1960s) Allende received pay from the local KGP operative. However, that same source (Mitrokhin) directly contradicts the rest of your argument: it explicitly says that long before the coup they were assessing Allende as unwilling to use force, weak, unwilling to reorganize the security services as they suggested, incapable of doing a proper revolution, disregarding their warnings of the coup, etc., etc. In other words, it's hard to find a more explicity exhoneration of Allende, as far as the intention to impose a dictatorship is concerned (though, perhaps, not innocent of outright corruption).

The fact that you go on with the "plan Z" stuff is simply puzzling. Of course, the junta had to justify what it was doing - they had to justify their treason and they had the resources of the government in their disposal (and their oponents, conveniently, couldn't respond). The best evidence against the authenticity of the plan is, that despite being due for imminent implementation, no traces of preparation for actually implementing it were ever found (I don't even think they tried to simulate those).  So, we have the motive for falsification, we have the capacity to do it and, except for a few pieces of paper, we have no evidence relating the ostensible plan to anything on the ground. And you wonder why nobody takes it seriously? I would think Hitler w/ his reaction to the Reichstag fire was better grounded in reality than this.

[ag]

Soviet Union built a lot more than a fishing station in many parts of Africa and Asia - Africa is still studded w/ all sorts of white elephant projects. What strikes me in Soviet involvement in Chile is its low level - Fisheries ministry, small change financially, no obvious commitment to anything serious. Sure: Soviets wanted some influence in South America, and, most importantly, they wanted it cheap. Allende was, obviously a friendly ruler - if anything, I'd expect much larger degree of involvement. All evidence that I see shows the Soviets were not at all serious (and/or didn't trust Allende).

I doubt that there was a constitutional requirement to consult the Senate before concluding an agreement on a fisheries port (perhaps, it would have to be ratified eventually - I'd have to check the Chilean consitution, though by 1973 it was a remarkably self-contradictory document, if I recall). There is still no evidence that we are talking about subs, but these were, this might be grounds for the US to try to apply pressure to the Chilean government, but this is emphatically not a reason for the Chilean government to lunch a coup. It wouldn't even be a mitigating circumstance at a treason trial (if anything, an aggravating one - the military should follow civillian orders on these matters).

Once again: being an ally of the Soviet Union was gross stupidity. But, on its own, it wasn't a crime.

As for the rest of the 1970s in Chile - if we applied the same standard to Pinochet's economic accomplishments as to Allende's, Pinochet should have been shot by 1976. He spent those three years digging Chile deeper into the hole that Allende had started digging - it was only later that he realised his incompetence.

Even if all Pinochet wanted was to remove a "present threat", there was nothing that would prevent him from stepping down within a few months. There wasn't an obvious sign of resistance. Hey, he didn't even have to disolve the Congress - the lefties had lost the majority there by 1973, the congress would have authorized a civilian provisional presidency to prepare for the polls.  Instead he destroyed the entire political system, including non-leftist forces. Mind it: by 1975 at the latest Allende would have been history, having lost an election. Instead, Chile got 17 years of a bloody dishonorable SOB rule (whatever he, eventually, allowed to be done for the economy).

[Daniel Adams]

I understand. Prats was ready to help the Communist takeover, so Allende replaced him w/ Pinochet. Instead, not being able to rely on the top military commander, who, ostensibly, was in their pocket - and whom they replaced - the leftists were active in military preparations, all traces of which they hid so well, that when they really needed the military force, they couldn't muster any. Makes all the sense to me.

You have created a strawman argument. General Prats was forced to resigned because of political pressure. The left and Prats believed Pinochet would not interfere with their plans or join an anti-Allende insurrection. You must remember Pinochet had shown no signs of political activity before the coup. What's more, his only political link, though his father-in-law, was to the Radical Party, a member of the Popular Unity coalition! The reason that the Army didn't break apart during the coup was that the coup's planners effectively neutalized the pro-Allende officers. For example, the house of the de facto head of the Navy, Allende supporter Raúl Montero, was barricaded, his car was sabotaged, and his phone lines were cut the night before the coup. Similar action was taken against high ranking Allende supporting officers in all the Armed Forces.

You still have failed to explain the Spindler telegrams and Teitelboim report. Were they faked by the junta too? You'll have to forgive my incredulity at the thought that Pinochet was able to plant to many fake documents in the East German archives.

Listen, don't hold me for an idiot: if the commies were really actively preparing for smthg military, after the coup it wouldn't be enough for Pinochet to execute a few people - we'd be talking about the history of the Chilean Civil War of the 1970s-1990s now. They were screwed in a day and eaten up live, with barely any resistance (and a whole bunch of moderate non-leftist  - and even anti-Allende - politicians were served up for the desert). Let me tell you: when people have guns, those guns shoot. Theirs' didn't - which made most independent observers since believe their guns were the junta's invention.

The guns at Allende's residence in Tomás Moro Street are no forgery: their existence has been extensively documented (there are even photographs if you'd like some visual proof). Could you point to a reliable source that denies the existence of this arms cache? And yet again, how do you explain the documents in the East German archives that talk about the Popular Unity party's efforts to arm themselves to prepare for war against the reactionaries?

And, of course, there wasn't any diference between the Sociallists and the Communists and the rest of them - we all know, that all leftists are the same (and they don't have rivalries, and they don't merge only to confuse the upstanding citizens and the CIA). Like, for instance, the US Democratic Party and the Bulgarian Communist Party of Todor Zhivkov's days are one and the same (I've actually seen somebody - not you - making that argument once )

Once again you have misrepresented my argument. I did not say there was never any difference between the Socialist and Communists or that all leftists are the same. What I stated was that in 1973 there were no significant differences. Both were supporters of Allende and both were allied to fight the reactionaries and establish a "government of the workers". Before 1973 of course there were great differences between the two parties, in fact they hated each other back in the 1950s, but in the months before the coup the circumstances had made them almost indistinguishable in terms of aims and goals.

Now, you may be right that there is one source that claims that during his presidency (not in the 1960s) Allende received pay from the local KGP operative. However, that same source (Mitrokhin) directly contradicts the rest of your argument: it explicitly says that long before the coup they were assessing Allende as unwilling to use force, weak, unwilling to reorganize the security services as they suggested, incapable of doing a proper revolution, disregarding their warnings of the coup, etc., etc. In other words, it's hard to find a more explicity exhoneration of Allende, as far as the intention to impose a dictatorship is concerned (though, perhaps, not innocent of outright corruption).

The documents in the East German archives make it clear that by 1973, after the failed coup attempt in June, Allende had accepted the view of the Popular Unity parties that armed confrontation was inevitable and that a dictatorship of the proletariat would have to be established with violence. This is entirely consistent with what the Mitrokhin papers say. When Allende became president, the Soviets feared he was weak. After the several crises that occurred during his government, Allende had come to terms with the revolutionary aims of his followers.

Even if we accept, only for the sake of argument, that Allende was in fact unwilling to do a "proper revolution", it is clear that his followers were ready to establish a communist dictatorship and that Allende, incapable of controlling his followers, would simply have been brushed aside. A communist dictatorship would have been established either way.

The fact that you go on with the "plan Z" stuff is simply puzzling. Of course, the junta had to justify what it was doing - they had to justify their treason and they had the resources of the government in their disposal (and their oponents, conveniently, couldn't respond). The best evidence against the authenticity of the plan is, that despite being due for imminent implementation, no traces of preparation for actually implementing it were ever found (I don't even think they tried to simulate those).  So, we have the motive for falsification, we have the capacity to do it and, except for a few pieces of paper, we have no evidence relating the ostensible plan to anything on the ground. And you wonder why nobody takes it seriously? I would think Hitler w/ his reaction to the Reichstag fire was better grounded in reality than this.

Your argument seems to be that since the junta would obviously try to justify what they were doing, any evidence proposed by the junta to justify themselves must be fake. I can easily apply this flawed argument to the Holocaust and claim that since the Allies would obviously try to justify what they had done, any documents proposed by the Allies at Nuremberg to justify their actions against Germany must be fake, thereby making me part of an unsavory host of characters who deny the Holocaust. But this argument is erred because 1) there is no proof that the documents released by the Allies regarding the Holocaust are fake and 2) other documents not used by the Allies at Nuremberg support the idea that the Holocaust happened with Hitler's knowledge. Same thing with the Plan Z documents: 1) there is no proof - or at least you have shown me no proof - that those documents are fake and 2) other documents, namely the Spindler telegrams and Teitelboim reports, which were not known to the junta at the time back up what the Plan Z documents say.

[Daniel Adams]

Soviet Union built a lot more than a fishing station in many parts of Africa and Asia - Africa is still studded w/ all sorts of white elephant projects. What strikes me in Soviet involvement in Chile is its low level - Fisheries ministry, small change financially, no obvious commitment to anything serious. Sure: Soviets wanted some influence in South America, and, most importantly, they wanted it cheap. Allende was, obviously a friendly ruler - if anything, I'd expect much larger degree of involvement. All evidence that I see shows the Soviets were not at all serious (and/or didn't trust Allende).

This was not just a fishing station built because of Soviet generosity. It was a port built in a very left-wing area with no discernible purpose whatsoever. The port at Talcahuano was completely sufficient and a new port at Colcura would have been superfluous. I'm surprised this doesn't make you at least a tad suspicious of the Soviet's underlying motives. Also, the agreement between Allende and Ishkov was not only about the Colcura port, but also allowed the Soviets to build submarine bases in the southern islands of Chile.

I doubt that there was a constitutional requirement to consult the Senate before concluding an agreement on a fisheries port (perhaps, it would have to be ratified eventually - I'd have to check the Chilean consitution, though by 1973 it was a remarkably self-contradictory document, if I recall).

Because the building of the port was part of an international agreement, the Senate had to approve it. In fact, Senator Pedro Ibáñez raised this very point in the Senate session of May 9, 1973, and heavily criticized Allende's decision to lease Chilean land to the Soviets.

There is still no evidence that we are talking about subs, but these were, this might be grounds for the US to try to apply pressure to the Chilean government, but this is emphatically not a reason for the Chilean government to lunch a coup. It wouldn't even be a mitigating circumstance at a treason trial (if anything, an aggravating one - the military should follow civillian orders on these matters).

The agreement between Allende and the Soviets referred to "naval bases for submarines" (Victor Farías, Salvador Allende: El fin de un mito, p. 153). Giving away Chilean territory to a foreign nation without the consent of the Senate was completely unconstitutional. This, coupled with several other unconstitutional acts condemned by the Chamber of Deputies on August 22, 1973, and with Allende and his followers' treasonous plans to establish a communist dictatorship, certainly constitute enough reason for the Chilean Armed Forces to launch a coup in defense of the institutional order and the nation's sovereignty.

Once again: being an ally of the Soviet Union was gross stupidity. But, on its own, it wasn't a crime.

As for the rest of the 1970s in Chile - if we applied the same standard to Pinochet's economic accomplishments as to Allende's, Pinochet should have been shot by 1976. He spent those three years digging Chile deeper into the hole that Allende had started digging - it was only later that he realised his incompetence.

Umm, no. Chile's free market economic reforms began in 1974. The Chicago Boys operated in the 1970s and in fact Milton Friedman came to Chile and met with Pinochet in 1975.

Even if all Pinochet wanted was to remove a "present threat", there was nothing that would prevent him from stepping down within a few months. There wasn't an obvious sign of resistance. Hey, he didn't even have to disolve the Congress - the lefties had lost the majority there by 1973, the congress would have authorized a civilian provisional presidency to prepare for the polls. 

I tend to think the damange Allende did was so great Congress would have hampered the immense reforms needed to alleviate it. Certainly if Congress had been kept functioning the free market reforms would never have been carried out to the extent that they were. Keynesian economics was the norm at the time and most were skeptical of the Chicago Boys' ideas.

But we're digressing into another topic. I'd be happy to discuss the merits of Pinochet's presidency, but before that I'd like to settle our debate on whether Allende and the Popular Unity were a real threat.

Instead he destroyed the entire political system, including non-leftist forces. Mind it: by 1975 at the latest Allende would have been history, having lost an election. Instead, Chile got 17 years of a bloody dishonorable SOB rule (whatever he, eventually, allowed to be done for the economy).

Allende would not have been history by 1975 if the left-wing's plans to establish a communist dictatorship had been executed.

[ag]

Ok, let's sum up: Allende would not have been history by 1975 if he would have had plans for an establishment of the Communist dictatorship. However, had he had those plans, he would have not removed a friendly general (Prats) in favor of an untested one (Pinochet), nor would he have been so woefully unprepared for the coup, nor would the armed conspirators be so easy to subdue. Frankly, from everything I know about it, it would seem that the main reason Pinochet started the coup was that he actually knew that Allende wasn't planning to do anything - otherwise,  Pinochet's behavior would seem to be too reckless, as, unless Allende was innocent of any plot plans, a coup attempt could have only resulted in a long and bloody civil war. If you wish, it was a medeival witchcraft trial by drowning: had Allende lived, we would have known he was a plotter, since he died, we know he wasn't

Furthermore, Pinochet's early actions are entirely inconsistent with wanting to restore a democratic polity. Nor, unfortunately, are they consistent with wanting to restore economic sanity (no meaningful reforms were conducted in the first years, and the ones that were, were no better than Allende's). As far as I am concerned, I find a lot more in common between Pinochet and the Soviets, than between Allende and the Soviets: both Pinochet and the Soviets were intrinsically against the western democratic ideal; Allende, though incompetent and disastrous in power, was not.

[jeron]

Yes I remember the economic chaos and civil war into which Chile succumbed in the 1970s. The economic disaster that Allende caused is, I find, enough reason to support the coup. However, Allende and the Popular Unity were far more dangerous than that.

This is exactly what is wrong with conservatives warmongers in the US. They think they have the right to overthrow democratically chosen governments in other parts of the world, where they have in fact no business whatsoever.

There was an article in the Times a few years ago: How weak Allende was left in the cold by the KGB.(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article568154.ece?token=null&offset=12). Here's a quote from it:
"In the KGB’s view, Allende's fundamental error was his unwillingness to use force against his opponents. Without establishing complete control over all the machinery of the State, his hold on power could not be secure."

Unfortunately the KGB was right.

[ag]

Yes I remember the economic chaos and civil war into which Chile succumbed in the 1970s. The economic disaster that Allende caused is, I find, enough reason to support the coup. However, Allende and the Popular Unity were far more dangerous than that.

This is exactly what is wrong with conservatives warmongers in the US.

Mind it, the lefties and ultra-righties are usually equally wrong. I don't mind certain types of foreign intervention. In any case, this particular case was, first and foremost a domestic coup, conducted for domestic reasons (and only indirectly a US-supported action).  Which does not change the fact that it was an unjustifyable and unexcusable action by some of the more dishonorable SOBs in history. In fact, frankly, I would have preferred a US intervention to what happened

[jeron]

Yes I remember the economic chaos and civil war into which Chile succumbed in the 1970s. The economic disaster that Allende caused is, I find, enough reason to support the coup. However, Allende and the Popular Unity were far more dangerous than that.

This is exactly what is wrong with conservatives warmongers in the US.

Mind it, the lefties and ultra-righties are usually equally wrong. I don't mind certain types of foreign intervention. In any case, this particular case was, first and foremost a domestic coup, conducted for domestic reasons (and only indirectly a US-supported action). 

It is a matter up for debate how much the US was actually involved in the coup. What we do know is that Kissinger and Nixon didn't want Allende to become president and that they tried in vain to influence the outcome of the presidential election. There were plans by the CIA to overthrow him and the US administration tried to weaken his governement which eventually facilitated the coup. Even after the CIA knew of human rights abuses under the Pinochet regime, it still cooperated with the Chilean secret service.