Talk:Salvador Allende/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Significance of the resolution

Eliot: Your interpretation of the significance of the resolution has not been backed up by a secondary source.

- See the first and the third External Links. (The hilarious thing about this gripe is that were I to actually quote some of the "secondary source" commentary, the have-their-cake-and-eat-it-too guys would howl "POV!" loud enough to give werewolves earaches.) --Mike18xx 09:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Those are, respectively, primary sources and a secondary source from a non-objective publication. And I should emphasize that the main reason I object to including the Resolution so prominently in the first paragraph is because it's not supported, or even referred to, by the rest of the article.

If your only secondary sources are so POV-filled that you admit they are not suitable for Wikipedia, then that should tell you something, shouldn't it? If, on the other hand, there are credible, neutral secondary sources which back up your assertion that the Resolution was important to the coup in a way that the strikes, the sanctions, and everything else were not, then you should have no problem citing them.

As to the last edits: I don't believe the word 'reform' implies a point of view, but I'd like to hear your explanation. He tried to change the way the government operated -- how is that not 'reform?' And as to 'Soviet-aligned,' I don't deny that it's supported, but I don't think the prominence is warranted. I think opening paragraphs should be concise and generic, whereas more complex issues like the circumstances leading up to the coup or alignment with the Soviet Union should go in the appropriate part of the article, where the facts can be explored thoroughly without totally spoiling the readability of the article. Eliot 01:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

(cut/paste)

"Appropriate" and "credible" are in the eye of the beholder, as Wikipedia itself observes via "...Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not however policy. Feel free to update the page as needed..." right at the top of Reliable Sources. I.e., the Appeal to 'authority logical-fallacy is not codified here (and for an immense bellylaugh, this piece further down details: "Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times... — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources, when anyone whose been seriously paying attention to the Grey Drunk Lady since it collected the lying Stalinist shitheel Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize recognizes it as arguably the least credible large media organ -- it's stubborn denial of reality over a great number of issues is legendary).

• As indicated in the summary field of the last revert, I am attempting to acertain a repository for the original Resolution. I have so far learned that the Chamber of Deputies does NOT have its output converted into electronic form at present (although it is working on it, having finished 19th century up to early 20th century archives).
• As far as I am aware, no one (particularly no one in Chile) disputes the accuracy of either the Spanish or the English renderings that are available on either of Chilean politician Jose Pinera's sites and/or mirrors.
• In any event, for simple reasons of being closer to the source, I would rather "err" toward the assumption that documentation provided by Chileans is more "reliable" than than "err" toward the assertions of North American academics and journalists.
• For that reason, until I see a dispute involving more than "technicalities", I'm going to keep the Resolution in there as relevant.--Mike18xx 01:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The accuracy of the translation of the resolution is not in dispute. The relevance is what is in dispute, and this is why primary sources are problematic. You can assert that Pinochet was motivated by the Resolution, but from the sources cited in the article, we don't even know that he read it. This is exactly what reliable secondary sources are all about, and it is not a technicality. Eliot 01:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

'One the hand you stipulate "The accuracy of the translation of the resolution is not in dispute," yet on the other you accuse me of "...assert(ing) that Pinochet was motivated by the Resolution," -- But the obvious purpose of the Resolution, in its own unambiguous terms, is the removal of Allende by non-legislative and non-judicial means. Whether Pinochet was "motivated" by the Resolution, or merely found it convenient to pre-existing schemes, is something I do not comment upon.

The Resolution belongs in the article, top-front-and-center, because it represents the majority opinion of the Chilean legislature regards the forcible removal of Allende, and it is therefore considerably more relevant to the subject than, say, "strikes", or external opinions.

/paste

And BTW, exactly how many other psuedonyms do you post under, "Rebrane|Eliot"?--Mike18xx 03:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This hostility is totally unwarranted, and is hindering the compromises which are necessary to make this a good article. I have never made any edits under another username and I seriously resent the accusation.

I wish you had read the "primary sources" tag before removing it. It clearly says that web pages affiliated with the subject of the article, such as the ones you are relying on, are NOT present and are being requested. I've replaced it, and I expect you not to remove it again. Eliot 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Compromise may aid in making a good article or a bad one, depending upon whether it is revelation or obfuscation which is doing the compromising. Certainly you would not expect Holocaust deniers and Jews to create a usable Wiki entry concerning German concentration camps as the product of "compromise". As far as usernames go, I see "Rebrane" and I see "Eliot", and it wasn't immediately apparent that they're the same person (even if one is just a redirect). Regards the "primary sources" tag, economiaysociedad is manifestly a web page affiliated with the subject of the article.--Mike18xx 23:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how I can say this any more plainly, but the fact that you are only citing web pages affiliated with the subject of the article is the reason for the tag. Please do not remove it again, it is pretty clear-cut abuse. Eliot 00:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I confess to misreading the banner previously; however, upon re-examining it, I find that it does not help your case -- there is significant difference between "affiliated with the subject" (e.g., a paid lobbyist or lawyer is "affiliated with" the entity paying him, and is therefore obviously POV'd) and "has covered the subject" (e.g., josepinera.com retaining a copy of the Resolution, a newspaper, a website, etc). IOW, while I misread the banner, you misinterpreted what the word "affiliated" meant.--Mike18xx 07:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It does. Josepinera's site fetures a clear pro-capitalist, anti-socialist ideology (at the time of this writting, the first paragraph of the site sports a rather random comparison between Lenin's policies in the revolutionary russia and the policies of Augusto Pinochet in Chile, and miscites Lenin as the source for the motto Workers of the World, Unite!). Sites such as these, although they may contain factual information, are too biased to be acceptable for a neutral reader. Suppose that we quoted the Marxists Internet Archive to refute your claim. Would it be acceptable?

Furthermore -- and going beyond the mere fact of the biased sources you present -- we could as well argue that the resolution in debate was a pre-emptive moevement of the pro-coupists to back themselves and institute some sort of legality in their actions. That resolution is questionable because of the irregular state of democracy at that point. With the same degree of credibility, the fact that Salvador Allende is currently, in Chile, vindicated as a democratic president, and that his staute stands in front of the Casa de la Moneda with the quote I have faith in Chile and its destiny, could be used to argument the opposite.

You use that sole resolution to claim that the coup against Salvador Allende was legitimate. However, the sixteen years of democracy since the dictatorship finished have been seen, both in Chile and abroad, as a restoration of democracy.

All the above paragraphs would not belong to the article, but they do in this talk page. I merely expose them as an example on how other people may disagree with you, with similarily solid arguments. Eliot's demand, which I will make mine as well, is not that you remove your facts from the article, but that these facts be arranged in a more neutral manner. A correct and neutral opening paragraph for Salvador Allende should merely state that he was deposed after a period of social and political turmoil that led some to question his legitimacy.

I am thus reverting the first paragraph to its proper form, and encourage you to write the facts about that resolution (including context, the affiliation of the people signing it, and its legality -- which is an objective term, unlike legitimacy) in the Legacy and debate section within the body of the article.--Gatonegro 11:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• The attitudes of Pinera do not constitute proof of "affiliation" in the Wiki sense of the term as pertains to the flag.
• Again, I'm not seeing any attempt by a respondant to distinguish the military removal of Allende (implored by the Resolution) with the refusal of Pinochet to return power to civilian authority after-the-fact. The distinction is extremely important.
• Claiming that "affiliations" of Resolution signatories are inadequately explored is insufficient (and illogical) rationale to justify non-inclusion (suffice to say that those who voted Yay wanted Allende out by any means necessary -- that much is obvious from the text of Resolution, and no further elaboration is necessary).--Mike18xx 00:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we blame the failing of the Chilean economy on Allende?

It is clearly stated at several points in the article that extensive sanctions were placed on Chile by the majority of Western countries. Due to the excessive economic damage that would undertandably be caused by this, is it factually correct to lay the blame at Allende's feet? No doubt even a free market system would collapse when there are such high sanctions against it. Therefore it is unfair to accuse Allende's 'marxist' policies as resulting in this economic failure.

But Allende's mismanagement was the major cause of the economic failure. Only die-hard Allende supporters would dispute this. 200.119.237.115 16:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

actually, any student of history could dispute this. For starters, rich people never suported Allende, after he won (they werent specting that, in fact most of them spected the US to make a harsher intervention rather than just track 1) most of them took all of their savings from the bank after he won, and by the time it was 1972, most of them fully suported the oposition and/or were on it. Most of Allende's meassures were actual rather brilliant at the time, such as the nationalization of the copper (none of it went to Chile, and today is the main source of our economy), then the agricultural reform, as Chile was spending millions in exportations that could had been grown here (many landowners just wouldnt plant anything in their vast lands), then theres the nationalization of many corporations that were also in the hands of outside capitals, of wich none went to Chile. Truly, back then, Chile was a banana country. Some of them, most of them were actually really great, in a simple way, they took what it belonged to the country, what it was being stolen, in the case of copper for example. To say that the mismanagement was the mayor cause of the economic failure is a huge mistake, for starters thats a completely polarized view, not seeing first that Chile had a huge oposition, all of them suported by the US (i believe it was 10 million dollars to support the oposition). The embargo was just the tip of a huge economical attack directed at chile, as economy has proved very efficient in disrupting any country (america wouldnt have gotten their independence so soon if it wasnt because of the raise of tax by england, wich all in all, was what triggered the war).

"actually, any student of history could dispute this."

No, they wouldnt

"For starters, rich people never suported Allende"

Neither did the middle class

"after he won (they werent specting that, in fact most of them spected the US to make a harsher intervention rather than just track 1)"

He didnt won, he was apointed by the congress, because he didn have the votes to win.

"Most of Allende's meassures were actual rather brilliant at the time, such as the nationalization of the copper (none of it went to Chile, and today is the main source of our economy), then the agricultural reform, as Chile was spending millions in exportations that could had been grown here (many landowners just wouldnt plant anything in their vast lands), then theres the nationalization of many corporations that were also in the hands of outside capitals, of wich none went to Chile."

IS THE FIRTST TIME I HAVE EVER READ SOMEONE CALL ALLENDE`S FAILED SOCIALIST POLICIES "BRILLIANT". 1ºTHE COPPER NATIONALIZATION HAD BEGUN BY EDUARDO FREI MONTALVA, ALLENDE ONLY ACCELERATED TO SHOW SOMETHING DONE IN HIS GOVERNMENT. 2ºTHE "AGRICULTURAL REFORM" WAS NOTHING MORE THAN THE ILLEGAL NATIONALIZATION BY FORCE OF THE PROPERT OF LARGE, MEDIUM AND SMALL FARMERS WHO WERE COERCED TO GIVE UP THEIR PROPERTY TO STATE AGENTS. 3ºTHE NATIONALIZATION OF CORPORATION PROPERTY BY DECREE AND WITHOUT COMPENSATION TO THE ORIGINAL OWNERS WAS THE MOST STUPID MOVE OF ALLENDE, IT ONLY PROVED THAT ALLENDE WAS MARXIST FANATIC WITH NO RESPECT FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND BY THE WAY ALLENDE ALSO NATIONALIZED THE BUSSINESES, SHOPS, LANDS AND PROPERTY OF THE REST OF THE CHILEAN PEOPLE, BUSSINESMEN, MERCHANTS, INGENIERS, TRUCK DRIVERS, TEACHERS, DOCTORS, THE MIDDLE CLASS, ALL OF THEM WERE FORCED TO SEE THEIR PROPERTY AND RIGHTS USURPED BY SOCIALIST HANDS.

GO BACK TO STUDY ECONOMY, PLEASE.190.45.75.14 (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't the tax which caused the war, it was the tax without representation in the British parliament. Anyway, usually "nationalisation" of industry is another word for theft really - if a country has not got the resources and expertise to set up an industry and sells the rights to exploiting the resource to a multinational who then spends 10s of millions setting it up, you don't just say "oh sorry you don't own that any more". If you want a cut of their action you tax their profits.

http://www.latin-focus.com/latinfocus/factsheets/chile/chlfact_sectors_coppermining.htm

As of 1999 70% of copper reserves were owned by Codelco the state owned copper company, but 63% of production was from the private companies owning 30% of the reserves. Usual state run efficiency. As for investment in the mining sector, Canadian companies are the largest single investors. Does it really require nationalisation for an industry to benefit a country greatly - absolutely not and in many cases quite the opposite.

Chile's economic collapse during the Allende administration was the direct cause of U.S. imposed sactions. The U.S. goverment interpreted Allende's socialist leanings as a communist tactic. President Nixon told CIA Director Richard Helms to "make the [Chilean] economy scream" immediately after Allende's Septemeber electoral victory in 1970. U.S. economic aid to Chile was reduced during all three years of Allende term in office.

(See, Beneath the United States: A History of U.S. Policy Toward Latin Americ by Lars Schoultz).

—This unsigned comment was added by 137.165.209.92 (talk • contribs) 5 March 2006.

Surely you mean to say "the direct effect" rather than the "direct cause"? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

On the trucker strike

"A CIA report released in 2000 admitted that the CIA financed the trucker's strike." This is incorrect. See

"the Church Report explains that while no CIA money was sent directly to fund an economically devastating truckers strike, 'It is clear that anti-government strikers were actively supported by several of the private sector groups which received CIA funds.'"

From: http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/view/746?PHPSESSID=35c465f696916fe6510b4d257acaf59f

Actually I found the Church report online, the specific page is here: http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol7/pages/ChurchV7_0077a.gif

Relevant quotation: "Eight million dollars was spent in the three years between the 1970 election and the military coup in September 1973. Money was furnished to media organizations, to opposition political parties and, in limited anounts, to private secotr organisations. ... Did the U.S. provide covert support to striking truck-owners or other strikers during 1971-73? The 40 Committee did not approve any such support. However, the U.S. passed money to private sector groups which supported the strikers by a private sector organization, contrary to CIA group rules."

To say that "A CIA report released in 2000 admitted that the CIA financed the trucker's strike" is therefore completely misleading. It implies that the strike was a result of CIA manipulations when in actual fact the strength of the "financing" was that some CIA backed groups may have made some smallish donations to the strikers (how much "financing" is necessary to support a 3-week strike anyway ?).

I think the text in the article should either be removed or heavily qualified, it's overtly political and very misleading as it stands.

Plan Z

Plan Z is still under question. Only left wing moonbats that believe Allende was no Commie say its false with such conviction. The CIA only speculated it could've been disinformation from the junta.The left wing courts surely believed everything in Pinochet's White Paper document except the last page containing info on Plan Z. Even the Retting Commision Report on Human Rights abuses by Pinochet call Plan Z a "fascimile".

I am not appologizing for Pinochet at all but I certainly am sick of reading about how much of a golden boy Allende was and that he was not planning a Marxist coup. - Jude84

Well, until we have more definite data we will have to leave that information as it currently is.--FVZA_Colonel 13:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Smells way too Pro-Allende

On a smaller note. Where are the sources for the "CIA backed" strikes? Apparently Allendes economic policy was such a success that it drove entire sections of the working class to the streets. If fact it was so popular it even drove thousandsstay at home moms to march while banging on pots and pans; considered one the biggest protests in Chilean history.

So I guess the CIA has big pockets to pay for all of these strikes, block aid (while other left wing governments showered Allende), and round up the working middle class against Allende. Give me a break. The left wing conspiracy tales are too much. Just admit that Allende did HIMSELF in and was a commited Marxist.

Chile's economic collapse during the Allende administration was the direct cause of U.S. imposed sactions. The U.S. goverment interpreted Allende's socialist leanings as a communist tactic. President Nixon told CIA Director Richard Helms to "make the [Chilean] economy scream" immediately after Allende's Septemeber electoral victory in 1970. U.S. economic aid to Chile was reduced during all three years of Allende term in office. (See, Beneath the United States: A History of U.S. Policy Toward Latin Americ by Lars Schoultz).

—This unsigned comment was added by 137.165.209.92 (talk • contribs) 5 March 2006.

Again, surely you mean to say "the direct effect" rather than the "direct cause"? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Even Paul Sigmund, a marxist historian, doesnt believe that the CIA had any big role in the toppling of Allende. While money from the US diminished, other nations doubled their aid to Chile. Nixon could've said all he wanted he still couldnt do much. Four other Marxist Historians like Ian Roxbourough also attributed Allendes economic collapse as his own doing and negating the Chilean constitution. He collectivized dozens of farms against the will of many campesinos.

You kool-aid Marxists are seriously ahistorical and conspiracy ridden if you believe the CIA had everything do with Allendes downfall. The Chilean people wanted him out. There were dozens of protests (not funded by the CIA) against Allende. Instead you guys like reading second hand sources from kool aid drinking historians or hack progressive authors with a bent that narrowly depict quotes from Nixon or a CIA document as the "real" reason for Allendes demise. You cannot accept the fact that Allende was not who he was so it had to have been the USA's fault.

I am not a right winger. I can accept that Pinochet was bad and needs to be tried for war crimes but I am not at former Allendes heel totally demolishing a Wikipedia site with pro-allende, pro-marxist garbage. - Jude84

I don't know how much of you live in Chile or are related to, but there's a lot ofinformation deficit from your comments.

http://foia.state.gov/documents/PCIA3/00009242.pdf Read the first sentence of it.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20001113/700917.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch05-01.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB110/index.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch26-01.htm (Some parts: worth spending; not concerned; no involvement of embassy; $10,000,000 -{CIA has big pockets}- available, more if necessary; full-time job--best men we have; game plan; make the economy scream; 48 hours for plan of action.)

If you want to keep reading those documents just search. It's so obvious that US was involved all the time.--200.111.34.164 00:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

U.S. could supported groups against Allende (CODE, Christian Democrats,etc.) like URRRS and Cuba supported his government but neither were really decisive. U.P. governemt hasn't a 50%+1 population support. Allende's administration made bad decissions and tried to impose a socialist regime ("la vía chilena al socialismo") with borderly legal measures (resquicios constitucionales): he statized industries and banks, the agrarian reform became more violent and tried a huge educational reform (Escuela Unificada). Allende also had little leadership on his own coalition: despite he was an democratically elected President, his own party (Socialist Party) supported the armed way and there were other groups with the same agenda (MAPU,MIR).

On the other side, there were no records about U.S. officials during the coup itself. The coup was planned and executed by Chilean. In fact there were many groups that finally converged to make the coup of September 11th (there was a previois attempt). Some sources said that it was first planned by Navy officials that lately contacted their counterparts on the Army, Air Force and Carabineros.

Allende's government had a strong opposition, including the spontaneous "cacerolazos" in many Chilean cities (houseviwes making noise with their casseroles every evening).

In conclusion, both Cold War powers supported their interests but the UP didn't need help to make their own mistakes and neither did the opposition to depose the first ones. baloo_rch 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not negating the fact that the CIA didnt do anything but that thier covert ops actually managed to bring about the fall of Allende. This is far from true. Allende violated the Chilean constitution at almost every level and was hounded by the center-left coalitions and the Supreme Court of Chile. The CIA had no role in that. That was all Allende. The US did thier part to push thier interests away from Chile. But that did not stop nations like Sweden, Cuba, USSR and other social democracies from pumping aid to Allende's administration. The US withdrawl of aid and embargo was a blip on the radar. The Coup was all Chilean. - Jude84

The coup was not all Chilean. In fact, the CIA admitted to having funded the coup about three years ago. Just because it's true doesn't mean it's pro-Communist. Don't be so shallow.

And thank you Baloo for clarifying what the other poster did not understand. - Jude84

The CIA "admitted" no such thing. Documents released show that some individuals/groups which received funding from the CIA backed the truckers strike financially (despite rules to the contrary) - see the section above regarding the truckers strike. Other documents released show that in fact the Chilean coup was a complete surprise to US intelligence agencies although they had previously provided some clean weapons to a group which they thought at one stage may attempt a coup. —This unsigned comment was added by 83.88.98.11 (talk • contribs) 28 March 28 2006.

Wich part of the constitution was violated by Allende?. The "center-left" coalitions was simply the Christian Democratic Party, that is better called a center party at the time. As a matter of fact they call themselves "the way between the left and the right". The URSS never provided considerable help because they considerated that the "chilean way" was unreachable. Cuba give his best, but they couldn't do much with US's noses in their shoulders. And Sweden and the others social democracies never do much more than a speak in favor. So, you are gonna put that in front of economic aid to political parties of oposition, economic embargos, technical support for any chance of a coup... man.

If you understand spanish, please read es:Salvador_Allende. baloo_rch 23:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank You Balloo. These people are ahistorical getting into things they know barely anything about. The entire point of the rumble in Santiago was because Allende was violating the constitution. The turmoil in Chile was not due because of America or the CIA. Stop believing in those hyped marxist conspiracies. - Jude84

baloo, wich part of the constitution was violated by Allende?. I read the article in spanish, and I sure understand it as i'm chilean, so for that kind of squire of Jude84 don't told me that I don't know what happen in my country.

The Cola Wars: The story of the global battle between the Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo, Inc. by J.C. Louis and Harvey Z. Yazijian (Everest House, 1980, ISBN 0896960528) had some remarkable material Pepsi's Chilean bottling company participating in the coup by putting all of its vehicles at the service of the plotters. I read this about 25 years ago, so I don't remember details; someone might want to track down a copy and look it up, -- Jmabel | Talk 06:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the statement that the coup came about because Allende violated the constitution. The fundamental problem with his administration was that he was trying for revolution while keeping within the bounds of legality (something you'll find many historians say). I don't think that the United States or CIA caused the coup, they played a minor role in 1973. I'd attribute what happened more to the absolute failure that was Allende's economic policy and the structural inconsistencies within Chile itself (class conflict, political stratification, export-economy system, etc). -Srilina

Name

surely "Dr. Salvador Allende Gossens" is quite enough. Is there even any use of "Salvador Isabelino del Sagrado Corazón de Jesús Allende Gossens" outside of this article? --Oburo 01:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It's his full name, so it "quite" doesn't matter whether it is widely used. —Sesel 00:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

so.... is there any use of it outside of this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.230.139.143 (talk • contribs) 14 November 2006.

NPOV Tag

Anibody think that this article is not neutral? It seems like the discussion about the pro-allende POV was settled.—This unsigned comment was added by Bauta (talk • contribs) 28 March 2006.