[skinster]

Definitely the most tragic 9/11.

Also, this.

[Pants-of-dog]

Of course, I never made this claim in the first place. This is the second time you've asked me for evidence supporting a silly caricature of my position. If you read my posts you'll see I specifically mentioned Allende's efforts at securing Soviet support, which you initially denied ever happened.

If you are not making the claim that the US did this to oppose Soviet intervention or influence, so be it.

Even if Allende did look for support from the USSR, this cannot have influenced Nixon’s decision to intervene, since this visit to the Soviet Union came about two years after Nixon decided to intervene.

My argument is, and always has been, that the US's behaviour makes sense in thecontext of the Cold War. You apparently believe the Cold War never happened. I see no point in continuing this argument.

I think that the Cold War is useful as a pretext because it makes sense in that context. But must because it makes sense in that context does not mean that it is true.

My point is that the US decided to act, and did act, long before any Soviet involvement occurred. That by itself shows that Cold War justifications are baseless.

It is not a coincidence that ITT, Pepsi, Anaconda Copper, and other US companies either helped with the coup, or tried to.

Aside from making no sense, this is painfully dishonest. His intention was to bring about nuclear war. His action was to invite the USSR to station nuclear missiles in his country. He was not some passive bystander.

Since I did bot claim he was a passive bystander, I have no problem with this. He did invite the Soviets to put missiles in his country. He did this in order to defend his country from yet another US invasion.

If Allende had managed to secure Soviet support as he intended to, he might also have been able to defend his country from US aggression.

[Red_Army]

@Heisenberg I don't really get your Cuban Missile Crisis bit. The US/NATO put a bunch of missiles in Turkey previous to this. How was this any less an example of brinkmanship?

[Heisenberg]

My point is that the US decided to act, and did act, long before any Soviet involvement occurred. That by itself shows that Cold War justifications are baseless.

You're obviously having some trouble understanding the concepts of pre-emptive action and the Domino Theory.

Neither the USA nor the USSR waited for the other one to start a military buildup in their immediate sphere of influence before intervening when their strategic interests were threatened. If this is the criterion that you require for something to be a "legitimate" Cold War intervention, then you are a fool. I don't think you're a fool, even if you often like to pretend that you are for the purpose of boring your debate opponents to death.

@Heisenberg I don't really get your Cuban Missile Crisis bit. The US/NATO put a bunch of missiles in Turkey previous to this. How was this any less an example of brinkmanship?

I'm aware of that. It doesn't mean the US would want a country inviting the Soviets to park ballistic missiles 100 miles away from their coastline if they could help it though, does it?

[Red_Army]

Ya, but again this is something to blame on the imperial powers - not the countries they manipulate. Also the USSR won the Cuban Missile Crisis. Don't @me motherfuckers.

[Pants-of-dog]

You're obviously having some trouble understanding the concepts of pre-emptive action and the Domino Theory.

Neither the USA nor the USSR waited for the other one to start a military buildup in their immediate sphere of influence before intervening when their strategic interests were threatened. If this is the criterion that you require for something to be a "legitimate" Cold War intervention, then you are a fool. I don't think you're a fool, even if you often like to pretend that you are for the purpose of boring your debate opponents to death.

Which stategic interests would be threatened if Allende had received support from the USSR?

The trouble with the Cold War explanation is that it places the whole comflict in some vague and amorphous clash of ideologies.

In contrast, looking at the involvement of US corporations long before any Soviet involvement could reasonably have happened gives us a much more concrete and verifiable explanation: protecting US economic interests abroad.

As you said, it is a fact that the US continues to prop up similar regimes (e.g. the Gulf Monarchies) in the absence of a similar existential threat.

Since the US intervenes right now despite the lack of an existential threat, it stands to reason that the US would have done so in the past.

And this is why I am asking you what kind of a threat would Chile have posed if they had received Soviet support?

I'm aware of that. It doesn't mean the US would want a country inviting the Soviets to park ballistic missiles 100 miles away from their coastline if they could help it though, does it?

How does it justify the September 11th coup?

[fuser]

The US had been interfering in Latin American politics long before the cold war, see Roosevelt Corollary. Latin American countries must have to be right kind of political and economic interests aligned with the US long before even USSR existed let alone cold war. "Defending against Communism" was a great pretext for further interventions, that doesn't mean that there wasn't a genuine threat from US pov about Soviet influence but just that can't explain the US role in Latin America in 20th century, US had been an imperial power in Latin America before cold war and they actively worked to maintain that role.

[Heisenberg]

@Pants-of-dog

It's almost as if things can happen for more than one reason.For example, foreign policy can have both commercial and strategic implications. Shocking, I know.

Of course the US intervened in Latin America before the Cold War. Russia also intervened in Eastern Europe before it became communist. That doesn't mean the Warsaw Pact had nothing to do with communism or the Cold War.

I also love the suggestion that there was only a "vague and amorphous" ideological clash between the USA and the USSR. Literally no one on earth saw it that way at the time, but OK. Whatever makes you feel better.

How does it justify the September 11th coup?

Where did I say it did? I was responding to a separate question.

[Potemkin]

I also love the suggestion that there was only a "vague and amorphous" ideological clash between the USA and the USSR. Literally no one on earth saw it that way at the time, but OK. Whatever makes you feel better.

I think his point was that nothing happens for purely ideological reasons. At the base of everything sits the economy, the profit motive. After all, why did the West start the Cold War in the first place? It certainly wasn't because they felt sorry for the political prisoners in Stalin's prison camps. After all, they had just got through carpet bombing German cities and nuking Japanese civilians. They didn't give a fuck. No, they just didn't want to lose their money and their class status in any putative future socialist state. They were going to mobilise all the resources of the American state apparatus to prevent that from happening. It took more than 40 years, but it worked.

[Heisenberg]

I accept that ideology wasn't the only motivation, but I think the idea that the Chile coup happened in total isolation from the broader Cold War is ridiculous.

The fact that i'm getting such dogged pushback on such a simple position just highlights my point about the tedious, hypocritical moralising of the far left. There is no conceivable world for them in which the USA acts for anything other than straightforwardly base or evil reasons. Worries about Chile turning towards the USSR can't possibly have played a role in 1973, because we need to maintain the image of Allende as a benevolent saint.

[SolarCross]

As you said, it is a fact that the US continues to prop up similar regimes (e.g. the Gulf Monarchies) in the absence of a similar existential threat.

How does the US "prop up" the gulf monarchies? By "prop up" do you mean:

Has mostly non-hostile diplomatic relations?
Has some trade relations?
All work for the lizardmen illuminati puppet masters?
All of the above?

[Potemkin]

How does the US "prop up" the gulf monarchies? By "prop up" do you mean:

Has mostly non-hostile diplomatic relations?
Has some trade relations?
All work for the lizardmen illuminati puppet masters?
All of the above?

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia (who would have been unable to repel him), the USA cobbled together an international alliance in record time and pushed him back into Iraq, crippling his military machine in the process. That's what "propping up" means.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog

It's almost as if things can happen for more than one reason.For example, foreign policy can have both commercial and strategic implications. Shocking, I know.

Of course the US intervened in Latin America before the Cold War. Russia also intervened in Eastern Europe before it became communist. That doesn't mean the Warsaw Pact had nothing to do with communism or the Cold War.

I also love the suggestion that there was only a "vague and amorphous" ideological clash between the USA and the USSR. Literally no one on earth saw it that way at the time, but OK. Whatever makes you feel better.


Where did I say it did? I was responding to a separate question.

In one of your first posts, you mentioned how the October Crisis was part of the reason why the US deposed Allende. It was the same post where you brought up my personal life.

Now, Allende’s nationalisation program directly threatened the economic interests of US companies. Anaconda copper, for example, never really recovered from it.

If Allende also threatened US strategic interests in the area, these threats were much less immediate and much less specific. Other than obvious but non-specific things like “more socialism in Latin America”, Allende and his government did not pose a threat to the US in a strategic level. At least, not in any way comparable to the economic threat targeting US commercial interests.

Please note that this is not moralising. This is an analysis of the actual threats posed by Allende, and the reactions of the US.

From a strategic point of view, Chile was simply not a threat. Even if the USSR had wanted to put nuclear missiles in Chile aimed at the US, it would not have been a strategic advantage for the USSR. Santiago is farther from Washington than Moscow is.

At most, it could be argued that Chile would become a supporter of revolutionary leftist groups in Latin America as Cuba did, but since Allende wanted to remain in the OAS (to maintian Chile’s economy), this was unlikely.

—————————

@SolarCross

Please note that I was using the exact phrasing that Hesisenberg used, so it may be best to ask them.

But I assume that H was referring to things like US military support for the current Saudi attack on Yemen. Or the CIA interventions that put Saddam Hussein into power.

[Heisenberg]

In one of your first posts, you mentioned how the October Crisis was part of the reason why the US deposed Allende.

I said it happened 10 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was, again, an attempt at providing context.

All of your arguments in this thread have relied on caricatures and straw-men, so it's not surprising that you've stretched for this one as well. If I had said "the US deposed Allende because of the Cuban Missile Crisis", you might have a leg to stand on. I didn't, and you don't. Give it a rest.

[SolarCross]

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia (who would have been unable to repel him), the USA cobbled together an international alliance in record time and pushed him back into Iraq, crippling his military machine in the process. That's what "propping up" means.

So "defending from aggression" would have been a better term then, lol.

[Pants-of-dog]

I said it happened 10 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was, again, an attempt at providing context.

All of your arguments in this thread have relied on caricatures and straw-men, so it's not surprising that you've stretched for this one as well. If I had said "the US deposed Allende because of the Cuban Missile Crisis", you might have a leg to stand on. I didn't, and you don't. Give it a rest.

You seem to be getting offended.

If you did not mean that the October Crisis was part of the justification for supporting the Pinochet dictatorship, then how are the two related?

You seem to be saying that the US felt that an Allende victory would lead to strategic threats similar to the threats posed by the October crisis. I addressed that.

So, if you have an argument, please state it clearly. Thanks.

[Heisenberg]

You seem to be getting offended.

Offended is a strong word. Exasperated at talking to someone pretending to be as thick a brick wall might be a better way to put it.

If you did not mean that the October Crisis was part of the justification for supporting the Pinochet dictatorship, then how are the two related?

I did not say it was part of the justification. I said that given the Cuban Missile Crisis happened just 10 years prior, US jitters over countries in their sphere of influence potentially going communist are understandable. The fact that you have decided to get so hung up on this point (and are misrepresenting it deliberately) simply reveals that you don't have much of an argument.

As I'm sure you know, US foreign policy in the Cold War was largely driven by the "domino theory" as set out by Eisenhower. In this context, a country electing a socialist leader like Allende was a problem for the US. So of course they would move to counter that. The document you shared showed that they were considering the possibility of Allende attempting to align with the USSR, given the copious references to it throughout the memo. The fact that they acknowledged in 1970 that it hadn't happened *yet* does not mean that it had nothing to do with it. As it happened, Allende went on to make several efforts to secure both economic and military aid from the USSR prior to the actual coup.

You seem to be saying

Whenever you write this, it actually means "you are not saying this, but I would like you to be saying it". Please address what I say, not what I "seem" to say. It'll clear up a lot of confusion in future.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Excellent points @Heisenberg

There also seems to be confusion on the part of some that the U.S. viewed the cold war merely as a conflict with another super power (USSR), but that isn't true. The U.S. always viewed the cold war in terms of good v. evil, democracy and capitalism v. tyranny and socialism, etc.

Whether this is propoganda is irrelevant, this how Americans understood the matter and this also explains phenomena from this era like McCarthyism and the Pinochet coup.

The United States understood well the internationalist and populist aspects of socialist revolutions, and to say that some policy on the part of American government during the cold war did not take this into account is baffling in its ignorance. The enemy of Americans in the cold war was socialism, the USSR merely embodied the largest manifestation of it, the biggest tumor that had emerged from an underlying and universal disease. America was not merely attempting to cut this tumor away, but to prevent new ones from popping up while trying to cure the disease.

The Allende case is illustrious to this point, and understanding the cold war as an ideological battle for the hearts of former subjects to colonial empires is important. The British Empire's receding (along with other colonial powers) created a battle ground for the two emergent ideological power-houses who arose victorious from WWII over which worldview would replace the old imperialists of days long past. Both sides were in favor usurption, coups, instigation, infiltration, and proxy wars. BOTH sides. The clock was ticking in a winner-take-all game of international chess fought mainly in the Far East, Latin America, and Africa.

That the correct side won this war is evidenced by the fact that we are able to take varying political positions on an online forum instead of getting a knock on the door and being shoved into the first train heading towards Siberia for not conforming to the state's official position.

[Pants-of-dog]

I did not say it was part of the justification. I said that given the Cuban Missile Crisis happened just 10 years prior, US jitters over countries in their sphere of influence potentially going communist are understandable. The fact that you have decided to get so hung up on this point (and are misrepresenting it deliberately) simply reveals that you don't have much of an argument.

Why are they understandable?

How did Chile represent a threat that would be comparable to the October Crisis?

Again, it is not as if Chile was a good place to put nuclear missiles or even support revolutionary groups in Latin America.

Please note that this is the third or fourth time I have asked you this.

As I'm sure you know, US foreign policy in the Cold War was largely driven by the "domino theory" as set out by Eisenhower. In this context, a country electing a socialist leader like Allende was a problem for the US. So of course they would move to counter that. The document you shared showed that they were considering the possibility of Allende attempting to align with the USSR, given the copious references to it throughout the memo. The fact that they acknowledged in 1970 that it hadn't happened *yet* does not mean that it had nothing to do with it. As it happened, Allende went on to make several efforts to secure both economic and military aid from the USSR prior to the actual coup.

Yes, you said all this before and I already addressed it.

It should also be noted that Nixon never mentioned the Domino theory in regards to Chile until 1977, which seems more like a rationalisation after the fact than an actual reason.

But let us assume that the domino theory is true, and Allende inspired most of Latin America to become socialist through democratic means. Would this be a threat to the US?

I think it would be an ideological threat (i.e. a threat to capitalism itself), and a threat to US economic interests. But it would not necessarily be a strategic threat.

Allende obviously wanted money and support from the USSR. He also wanted it from the OAS, and the USA. He was the head of state for a developing nation going through an economic crisis. He needed all the support he could get. Interestingly, Allende’s search for economic support was actually a reaction to US intervention in the Chilean economy. The CIA and others had been trying to destabilize the Chilean economy for several years by this point.

This thing where the US drives developing nations into the arms of “the enemy” is a pattern. The US did it with Cuba, which lay the groundwork for the October crisis, and it is mentioned time and again in the declassified CIA documents concerning the Chilean coup.

Whenever you write this, it actually means "you are not saying this, but I would like you to be saying it". Please address what I say, not what I "seem" to say. It'll clear up a lot of confusion in future.

It means that I am telling you my interpretation of your words, but I am not certain if the interpretation is correct.

If I am incorrect about your argument, it wuld be helpful if you would clarify it. That would also help avoid future confusion.

——————————

@Victoribus Spolia

Yes, I am aware of how people in the US mythologized the whole thing as a simplistic binary of good vs. evil.

That does not mean that this is useful for ananlysing the actual reasons behind the coup.

At best, it helps us understand why the supposed defenders of democracy chose to hypocritically support the dictatorship, just like it helps us understand why “an-caps” still do that.

But frankly, that is the least interesting part of the analysis.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Yes, I am aware of how people in the US mythologized the whole thing as a simplistic binary of good vs. evil.

That does not mean that this is useful for ananlysing the actual reasons behind the coup.

At best, it helps us understand why the supposed defenders of democracy chose to hypocritically support the dictatorship, just like it helps us understand why “an-caps” still do that.

But frankly, that is the least interesting part of the analysis.

You may not like it Pants, but its salient.

The U.S. could not let communism spring up anywhere in the world, especially in South America where it many vested interests stemming to its victory in the Spanish-American War (a point that seems lost on those discussing the Cuba situation).

Don't forget that the Panama Canal was essential to the U.S. Navy's dominance, any nations going Red in the region that could threaten this vital point and potentially cutoff the Pacific fleet from being quickly relocated to the Caribbean in the event of issues there and so on.

The U.S. backing a coup in Chile was largely based on cold war considerations, @Heisenberg is right on this, and you are missing the point because you fail to see anything besides a direct threat against the US from the USSR directly as being relevant to that cold war conflict, which is preposterous.

Allende being a socialist was justification enough according to U.S. policy for whatever action it would need to take. Pinochet was convenient because of his popularity in the armed forces, his favor towards Americans, and his hatred for communists.

That American economic interests were likewise served in this was merely the cherry on top of the chocolate sundae, but Heisenberg was also correct to point this out as well. Economic interests are political interests, especially when combating an ideology like socialism which makes EVERYTHING about economics.

There is duplicity in this too btw; most leftists blame the U.S. for Pearl Harbor because of its economic approach to Japan and act as if Japan were justified in its bombing attack on the grounds that it was a retaliation; however, if this is the case, then the U.S. was justified in preemptively taking out Allende even if economic considerations alone were the basis and for the same reasons. After all, it was largely economic measures that led to the USSR's ultimate collapse in the end anyway. Economic considerations are valid considerations in an ideological total war over the third world.

NOTE: I am not defending the U.S.'s approach in the cold war, I am not even explicitly endorsing Pinochet, sanctions, etc.,

Thats not the point, I am only saying that the U.S. position is coherent and it was applied consistently, not hypocritically, in the case of Chile.