Bolivia Question

[Daniel Adams]

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.

And you have not refuted a single one of the points I have raised. If what you say is true, I ask you to explain the Spindler telegram and the Teitelboim report in the German Federal Archives and the fact that the Soviets wanted to build a port in an area that clearly didn't need one. Will you attempt to challenge the evidence I've presented or will you mindlessly cling to your position, ignoring any evidence to the contrary?

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.

You have changed the subject of the debate. I have NEVER stated here that the United States has the right to depose foreign "democracally elected" governments. What I have done is pointed out that Allende, while perhaps democratically elected, did not rule democratically and in fact intended to destroy the democratic system. It was Chileans, by the way, who ultimately carried out the coup against Allende.

[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.

And you have not refuted a single one of the points I have raised. If what you say is true, I ask you to explain the Spindler telegram and the Teitelboim report in the German Federal Archives and the fact that the Soviets wanted to build a port in an area that clearly didn't need one. Will you attempt to challenge the evidence I've presented or will you mindlessly cling to your position, ignoring any evidence to the contrary?

Who the hell cares about that port. Even if the Soviets had already put 10000 nuclear-armed subs there, it was not, in any sense, "legitimate grounds" for the coup (could have been legit grounds for a US intervention though ). Suppose they really built the military port (again, highly unproven, but let's suppose). How does that provide a shred of evidence Allende was planning a domestic coup? Are you suggesting the Soviets were planning to put in the troups on the ground? Don't get ridiculous.

[Daniel Adams]

Who the hell cares about that port. Even if the Soviets had already put 10000 nuclear-armed subs there, it was not, in any sense, "legitimate grounds" for the coup (could have been legit grounds for a US intervention though ). Suppose they really built the military port (again, highly unproven, but let's suppose). How does that provide a shred of evidence Allende was planning a domestic coup? Are you suggesting the Soviets were planning to put in the troups on the ground? Don't get ridiculous.

You're (probably intentionally) confusing two different arguments that I have posed. One of them is that Allende and his followers were planning to establish a communist dictatorship, as evidenced by the Plan Z documents, the Spindler telegrams, and the Teitelboim report. That constitutes treason and is certainly a point in favor of the coup.

A completely different argument is that by leasing territory to the Soviets so that they could build ports and submarine bases without the Senate's consent, Allende exceeded his powers and violated the Constitution, besides putting the nation's sovereignty at risk. By violating the Constitution, Allende was already acting dictatorially and thus the coup was justified.

But you still ignore my above question. How do you explain the East German documents?