[Victoribus Spolia]

The US is actively evil, nothing excuses its support of Pinochet.

Depends on how evil you regard communism, how important you regard stopping soviet influence, and whether you knew in advanced just how repressive pinochet would be.

If you score high on "communism is evil" and "stopping the soviets is important" and score low on "Seeing into the future regarding how pinochet would conduct himself"

I think you could make a reasonable excuse for such individuals supporting the CIA's operation in Chile to back Pinochet.

Just Sayin.

[SolarCross]

Considering the conduct of all communist regimes there is simply no excuse for any soft handling. It is necessary to exterminate communists with extreme prejudice. If anything Pinochet was too gentle. Only 2000 dead marxists! Completely inadequate.

[Pants-of-dog]

Perhaps that had something to do with a communist Latin American government bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war in 1963.

I do not think JFK was communist or Latin American.

...not for a lack of trying by Allende's government, of course.

Are you claiming that Allende and his government were actively trying to be a Soviet satellite state?

That seems far-fetched.

I think the problem here - and I'm not accusing you of this - is that morality magically seems to matter when it's the USA or the West doing something questionable. We have plenty of people on this forum who are only too happy to make excuses for Lenin's Cheka or Stalin's NKVD by pointing to western intervention in the Russian Civil War (which was actually far more complicated than the anti-communist crusade it is presented as being). And they often happen to be the same people who present the 1973 "9/11" as though it were a simple case of the USA actively being as evil as possible.

The personal motives or hypocrisy of certain posters is not relevant.

Personally, I have never supported the extreme authoritarianism of many European socialist experiments.

————————-

Depends on how evil you regard communism, how important you regard stopping soviet influence, and whether you knew in advanced just how repressive pinochet would be.

Again, this meme of stopping Societ influence was a rationalisation and not an actual problem when it came to Chile. I know many US people believe this meme, but that does not make it true.

If you score high on "communism is evil" and "stopping the soviets is important" and score low on "Seeing into the future regarding how pinochet would conduct himself"

I think you could make a reasonable excuse for such individuals supporting the CIA's operation in Chile to back Pinochet.

Just Sayin.

People can make up excuses for anything. Many an-caps make excuses for Pinochet, despite the fact that he was a statist dictator.

In the real world, the main impetus for Us intervention had nothing to do with Pinochet’s predicted morality, or Sovit intervention, or how “evil” the communists are. It had to do with protecting the economic interests of US copper companies, US pulp and paper mills, and US telephone and telegraph companies.

Plain old fashioned profit.

[Sivad]

Depends on how evil you regard communism, how important you regard stopping soviet influence, and whether you knew in advanced just how repressive pinochet would be.

The US could have easily forced Pinochet to restore democracy and rule of law. It could have kept the Soviets out of Latin America simply by supporting social democratic reforms. The combating communism excuse doesn't fly.

[Sivad]

The U.S. provided material support to the military regime after the coup, although criticizing it in public. A document released by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 2000, titled "CIA Activities in Chile", revealed that the CIA actively supported the military junta after the overthrow of Allende and that it made many of Pinochet's officers into paid contacts of the CIA or U.S. military, even though some were known to be involved in human rights abuses.[44]

CIA documents show that the CIA had close contact with members of the Chilean secret police, DINA, and its chief Manuel Contreras (paid asset from 1975 to 1977 according to the CIA in 2000). Some have alleged that the CIA's one-time payment to Contreras is proof that the U.S. approved of Operation Condor and military repression within Chile. The CIA's official documents state that at one time, some members of the intelligence community recommended making Contreras into a paid contact because of his closeness to Pinochet; the plan was rejected based on Contreras' poor human rights track record, but the single payment was made due to miscommunication.[3] In the description of the CIA's activities in Chile, it is acknowledged that one of their high-level contacts was more predisposed to committing abuse: "although the CIA had information indicating that a high-level contact was a hard-liner and therefore more likely to commit abuses, contact with him was allowed to continue in absence of concrete information about human rights abuses."[45]

A report dated May 24, 1977 also describes the newfound human rights abuses that may have been occurring in Chile: "reports of gross violation of human rights in Chile, which had nearly ceased earlier this year, are again on the rise... the Pinochet government is reverting to the practices that jeopardized its international standing since the 1973 coup."[46] The document also details how these human rights violations could have caused a worsening of Chile's status on the international stage. It seems that the United States was unable to plan around these violations, as is referred to with the document's mention of high-ranking officials taking parts in the abuses also.

On March 6, 2001, the New York Times reported the existence of a recently declassified State Department document revealing that the United States facilitated communications for Operation Condor. The document, a 1978 cable from Robert E. White, the U.S. ambassador to Paraguay, was discovered by Professor J. Patrice McSherry of Long Island University, who had published several articles on Operation Condor. She called the cable "another piece of increasingly weighty evidence suggesting that U.S. military and intelligence officials supported and collaborated with Condor as a secret partner or sponsor."[47]

In the cable, Ambassador White relates a conversation with General Alejandro Fretes Davalos, chief of staff of Paraguay's armed forces, who told him that the South American intelligence chiefs involved in Condor "keep in touch with one another through a U.S. communications installation in the Panama Canal Zone which covers all of Latin America". This installation is "employed to co-ordinate intelligence information among the southern cone countries". White, whose message was sent to Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, was concerned that the U.S. connection to Condor might be revealed during the then ongoing investigation into the deaths of Orlando Letelier and his American colleague Ronni Moffitt. "It would seem advisable," he suggests, "to review this arrangement to insure that its continuation is in U.S. interest."

The document was found among 16,000 State, CIA, White House, Defense and Justice Department records released in November 2000 on the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, and Washington's role in the violent coup that brought his military regime to power. The release was the fourth and final batch of records released under the Clinton Administration's special Chile Declassification Project.

During the Pinochet regime, four American citizens were killed: Charles Horman, Frank Teruggi, Boris Weisfeiler, and Ronni Karpen Moffit. Later on, in late August 1976, the United States Government stated in a State Department Secret Memorandum, that the United States Government did in fact play an indirect role in the death of the American citizen named Charles Horman. The Secret Memorandum states:

“Based on what we have, we are persuaded that: The GOC sought Horman and felt threatened enough to order his immediate execution. The GOC might have believed this American could be killed without negative fall-out from the USG. There is some circumstantial evidence to suggest: U.S. intelligence may have played an unfortunate part in Horman’s death. At best, it was limited to providing or confirming information that helped motivate his murder by the GOC. At worst, U.S. intelligence was aware the GOC saw Horman in a rather serious light and U.S. officials did nothing to discourage the logical outcome of GOC paranoia.”- Department of State, Secret Memorandum, “Charles Horman Case,” August 25, 1976 (uncensored version)[48]

On June 30, 2014, a Chilean court ruled that the United States played a key role in the murders of Charles Horman and Frank Teruggi. According to Judge Jorge Zepeda, U.S. Navy Capt. Ray E. Davis, who commanded the U.S. Military Mission in Chile, gave information to the Chilean government about Horman and Teruggi that resulted in their arrest and execution in the days following the coup. The Chilean Supreme Court sought to have Davis extradited from Florida to stand trial, but he was secretly living in Santiago and died in a nursing home in 2013.[49]

In a document declassified under the Obama administration's Chilean declassification project, documents were released stating that the CIA suspected Pinochet himself of personally giving the order for the assassination of Ronni Moffitt and Orlando Letelier. Although they were unable to gather enough intelligence that proved that he gave the order, they received shocking evidence from the Chilean Major, Armando Fernandez, who they convinced to come to the capital to give them information, that Pinochet was directly involved in covering up the incident. Even with the evidence that they had, the Secretary of State George Shultz did not feel that there was enough to indict Pinochet but instead used the information to try to convince Reagan to change their policy with Chile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... het_regime

[Heisenberg]

I do not think JFK was communist or Latin American.

I don't think you can pretend to be the serious one in this thread if you write drivel like this.

Are you claiming that Allende and his government were actively trying to be a Soviet satellite state?

Allende made a state visit to the USSR in 1972 with the aim of securing aid from Brezhnev's government. Whether this constitutes trying to make the country a "satellite state" (not a term introduced by me) is up to interpretation. Surely you can see how this would look in the middle of the Cold War, though.

The personal motives or hypocrisy of certain posters is not relevant.

Of course it's relevant. It's the topic under discussion.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't think you can pretend to be the serious one in this thread if you write drivel like this.

It was a humourous way to point out that it was JFK and the US government who were the belligerent actors in the situation. Since the Bay of Pigs, the US had been the aggressor.

Allende made a state visit to the USSR in 1972 with the aim of securing aid from Brezhnev's government. Whether this constitutes trying to make the country a "satellite state" (not a term introduced by me) is up to interpretation. Surely you can see how this would look in the middle of the Cold War, though.

It does not matter how it looked.

The truth of the matter is that the USSR provided little in the way of tangible support, and this was because they did not think Allende would win. They (more or less correctly) thought Allende was being too soft and it would not be a worthwhile investment.

[Heisenberg]

It was a humourous way to point out that it was JFK and the US government who were the belligerent actors in the situation. Since the Bay of Pigs, the US had been the aggressor.

You're right. There was nothing belligerent at all in the USSR stationing nuclear weapons in Cuba. How silly of me.

It does not matter how it looked.

Since the point I am making is that we need to understand the coup in its proper context, rather than treating it as a morality play, of course it matters how it looked.

[Pants-of-dog]

You're right. There was nothing belligerent at all in the USSR stationing nuclear weapons in Cuba. How silly of me.

Since they were stationed there for the purposes of defending against another US invasion, they were a defensive measure.

If anything, Iraq and N. Korea are good examples of why having WMDs is actually one of the few ways to stop a Us invasion.

Since the point I am making is that we need to understand the coup in its proper context, rather than treating it as a morality play, of course it matters how it looked.

But focusing on how it looked is all about the moral rationalisation for intervention. It is the part of this that is the closest to being a morality play.

If you wish to understand the coup in its proper context, you have to focus on the actual motivations: threats to US economic interests.

[Heisenberg]

But focusing on how it looked is all about the moral rationalisation for intervention. It is the part of this that is the closest to being a morality play.

If you wish to understand the coup in its proper context, you have to focus on the actual motivations: threats to US economic interests.

It's interesting to me that you don't think Cold War strategic considerations were also an "actual motivation", given that the Chilean government was trying to secure economic and political support from the Soviet Union.

Likewise, pretending the Cuban Missile Crisis was a purely defensive measure from helpless little Cuba against the big bad Yanqui - rather than an aggressive measure by a nuclear superpower using Cuba as a geopolitical chess piece. For someone who paints themselves as a rational and objective thinker, you sure sound naive as hell sometimes.

[Zionist Nationalist]

the US saved Chile from being a failed state and you cry about some commies who were executed?
Imagine chile being communist in 1991 when soviet union would collapse it would be hell

[Pants-of-dog]

It's interesting to me that you don't think Cold War strategic considerations were also an "actual motivation", given that the Chilean government was trying to secure economic and political support from the Soviet Union.

That is because the actual amount of support from the USSR was insignificant, according to the Soviet sources. Declassified US documents show that the US was aware that Allende was not involved in any military pact with the Soviets, and that Allende was planning on remaining in the OAS, which excludes Marxist governments. (See pages 8 of 56 and 9 of 56 in this PDF: https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAE ... /doc20.pdf). They also knew he was not supoorting subversive or revolutionary groups outside of Chile (bottom of page 14 of 56).

In contrast, Nixon authorised 10,000,000$ (More if necessary) and focused on destroying the Chilean economy. (https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAE ... /doc26.pdf. CIA director Richard Helms,had horrible handwriting. Here is the clear text of the notes: l in 10 chance perhaps, but save Chile!; worth spending; not concerned; no involvement of embassy; $10,000,00 available, more if necessary; full-time job--best men we have; game plan; make the economy scream; 48 hours for plan of action. This presidential directive initiates major covert operations to block Allende's ascension to office, and promote a coup in Chile.

And hen there are the ties to US companies involved in the coup.

Likewise, pretending the Cuban Missile Crisis was a purely defensive measure from helpless little Cuba against the big bad Yanqui - rather than an aggressive measure by a nuclear superpower using Cuba as a geopolitical chess piece. For someone who paints themselves as a rational and objective thinker, you sure sound naive as hell sometimes.

You originally claimed that Castro brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Now you seem to be saying that Castro was just a pawn of the USSR.

And it should be noted that the US had already tried and failed to invade Cuba at this point.

[Heisenberg]

That is because the actual amount of support from the USSR was insignificant, according to the Soviet sources. Declassified US documents show that the US was aware that Allende was not involved in any military pact with the Soviets, and that Allende was planning on remaining in the OAS, which excludes Marxist governments. (See pages 8 of 56 and 9 of 56 in this PDF: https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAE ... /doc20.pdf). They also knew he was not supoorting subversive or revolutionary groups outside of Chile (bottom of page 14 of 56).

That document is dated December 1970, two years before Allende made a state visit to the USSR and appealed to Brezhnev for aid. According to former KGB General Nikolai Leonov, the USSR approved a delivery of weapons to the Chilean military in 1973, but redirected the shipment once news of the coup reached the USSR.

You originally claimed that Castro brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Now you seem to be saying that Castro was just a pawn of the USSR.

Don't try to be cute. You know exactly what I meant. If you really need it explaining again: Castro willingly let his country be used as a chess piece during the missile crisis, which was an aggressive move by the USSR. In doing so, he helped to bring the world to the brink of nuclear war. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

[Pants-of-dog]

That document is dated December 1970, two years before Allende made a state visit to the USSR and appealed to Brezhnev for aid. According to former KGB General Nikolai Leonov, the USSR approved a delivery of weapons to the Chilean military in 1973, but redirected the shipment once news of the coup reached the USSR.

Yes, in both of these cases, we see that the US chose to intervene before any Soviet intervention or alignment was seen to take place.

Thus, Soviet intervention cannot be a cause of the coup, unless the US is also capable of seeing the future.

Don't try to be cute. You know exactly what I meant. If you really need it explaining again: Castro willingly let his country be used as a chess piece during the missile crisis, which was an aggressive move by the USSR. In doing so, he helped to bring the world to the brink of nuclear war. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

Castro did what he needed to do to get the US to back off. That does not make him the belligerent actor in this situation.

[Heisenberg]

Yes, in both of these cases, we see that the US chose to intervene before any Soviet intervention or alignment was seen to take place.

Deciding to intervene before Soviet intervention was seen to take place is not the same thing as the Soviet Union having nothing to do with the intervention. The document you linked to is littered with references to the potential for Allende's government to align with the USSR, so Cold War strategic considerations were clearly a motivation (which you continue, absurdly, to deny). And of course, the actual coup happened after Allende had been making overtures to the USSR for economic and military aid.

Castro did what he needed to do to get the US to back off.

Castro was so unhinged in 1962 that even Krushchev thought he was mad and cut him out of negotiations. The US "backed off" after rational negotiation with the USSR, not because of Castro actively trying to provoke nuclear war. He told Krushchev to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US, for crying out loud. How is that not belligerent? If he'd had his way, the world (and especially Cuba) would be a smoldering ruin.

[Crantag]

In all seriousness, all of these things can be said about the Soviet Union's proxy regimes in the Cold War as well.

Whataboutism.

I think it's past time that we stopped acting as though Cold War support for Pinochet's Chile, or Apartheid South Africa occurred in isolation. The overthrow of Allende happened just 10 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, after all.

The fact that we continue to prop up similar regimes (e.g. the Gulf Monarchies) in the absence of a similar existential threat is a far more pressing problem.

Apologetic.

A good job of furnishing some contemporary examples of classic flaws of logic.

[Crantag]

No gout. I quit drinking in January. Sadly, I have a lonely $800+ bottle of Ballantines 30-year scotch, bottled about 40 years ago that is the last of my stash.

Send it on thisaway.

I'll pay for the shipping.

[Heisenberg]

Whataboutism.

No. Context.

Apologetic.

Yes, I am an apologist for the West's behaviour in the Cold War. Just as you are an apologist for the Purges and the Gulags, and continue to be one of the forum's most prominent apologists for Chinese and North Korean totalitarianism. What is your point?

[Pants-of-dog]

Deciding to intervene before Soviet intervention was seen to take place is not the same thing as the Soviet Union having nothing to do with the intervention. The document you linked to is littered with references to the potential for Allende's government to align with the USSR, so Cold War strategic considerations were clearly a motivation (which you continue, absurdly, to deny). And of course, the actual coup happened after Allende had been making overtures to the USSR for economic and military aid.

Yes, it is littered with possible problems that might come about if there were an alliance. There is also no mention of any actual intervention.

I have presented evidence showing that the US planned to intervene regardless of Soviet intervention. In fact, the evidence shows that the US intervened even before Allende took office.

If you wish to show that this intervention came about as a result of Soviet activity, please present it.

Castro was so unhinged in 1962 that even Krushchev thought he was mad and cut him out of negotiations. The US "backed off" after rational negotiation with the USSR, not because of Castro actively trying to provoke nuclear war. He told Krushchev to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US, for crying out loud. How is that not belligerent? If he'd had his way, the world (and especially Cuba) would be a smoldering ruin.

It is not belligerent because you are discussing his intentions, not his actions. The actual people who actually did things were the US, who invaded Cuba already, and the USSR, who moved some boats.

I also find this characterisation of Castro as mentally unhinged to be contradicted by the fact that he successfully ran Cuba for decades after this, all while defending Cuba from continued US aggression.

For a lunatic, he seemed awfully canny.

[Heisenberg]

If you wish to show that this intervention came about as a result of Soviet activity, please present it.

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.

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.

It is not belligerent because you are discussing his intentions, not his actions.

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.