Talk:Salvador Allende/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

NPOV

I added some revisions in an attempt to make the article more NPOV. I've read a lot about Allende, and I'm quite confident that there were failings on both sides. However, this page is supposed to be about Allende, and not the coup, don't forget.

I too would like to see that quote by the ambassador sourced. user:J.J.

I agree about still no NPOV - there needs to be a balance but on this issue things tend to quickly degenerate into partisanship :( -- AC

Um... what isn't NPOV? It doesn't say, "the US defeated the evil Allende" nor that "the evil US helped the nasty and corrupt Pinochet, and then helped stymie attempts by families of Americans disappeared by the Pinochet regime to learn what had happened to them..." It is a historical fact that the US helped to overthrow Allende after the nationalization of the copper industry. Even in a detente kind of world, the US continued attempts at stalemating and sometimes replacing socialist governments in the Western Hemisphere. The article passes no judgement on these actions, so why isn't it NPOV? JHK

CIA

Because people dispute the facts of the situation. The CIA to this day denies that it instigated the coup and claims that it only knew about it. Also, the article makes it sound like the coup would not have happened without United States, which looks to me to be a bit dubious. -- AC

Interesting question...would it have? So mention that the CIA still denies it -- but that it's generally held to be true (and by this, I mean throughout the world) JHK

When I said the article wasn't NPOV, I meant it the other way. The way the article was before, it read like chaos and inflation was an inevitable result of nefarious socialists implementing their evil Secret Plan.

For example, when a country is dominated by a few people who subjugate the rest of the population, this is called "united" (a vague term with undeserved but positive connotations) and when the oppressed masses decide to do something about their lot and put someone in power whom they hope will be sympathetic to their cause, then that person has "divided" the country. As if the class war was the invention, or fabrication, of Allende! Bullshit, the class-war is and was always an everyday fact of life in every third ... every society. It's just that with the near-win of the poor against the rich in Chile, it went from a cold war to a hot (and eventually shooting) war.

There's something similar on the Augusto Pinochet page; a seeming "even-handedness" that's not fair at all. That page says that some Chileans thought Pinochet was a brutal mass murderer protecting the interests of the rich, while others think he "saved" Chile from communism and "transformed" its economy into a modern form. Never mind what "modern" means, what I want to know is who are those "others" who care so much about Chile being "saved" from communism? I'd lay 10:1 odds that these "others" are all, or nearly all, rich people.

The CIA to this day denies that it instigated the coup and claims that it only knew about it.

Yeah, and when a convicted murderer says he isn't responsible for the dead body that showed up next to his house two days ago, then this is sufficient to generate "controversy" about the likely suspect. Give me a break! The CIA has admitted, gloated in fact, to lots of evil plots and we have enough evidence for the CIA's involvement in the region that no thinking person should have any doubt on the matter. -- Ark

Right. So let's present the facts and let thinking people form their conclusions. Fact: the CIA denies involvement. Fact: no one believes them. --Stephen Gilbert
I was under the impression that the CIA recently released documentary evidence of their involvement. Or was that just documents saying they knew about it? Or am I confusing it with something else? Tzartzam

Not exactly NPOV, is it? - Zoe

"Not a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty."

US Ambassador to Chile, Korry in 1970 upon hearing of Allende's election

Does anyone have a source for this quotation? If so, we should include it. --Stephen Gilbert

Revertion

I reverted the changes by an anonymous user by the following reasons: -He cites the "Plan Z", a story that has been admited as a fabrication of the military regime. -added some "cases" of torture without citing sources -in general the changes were all oriented towards a against Allende point of view. I think there is room for improvement in the article, but these changes were not it.--AN 21:56 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Brazilian

I'm Brazilian, not Chilean, but I know people who lived there at the time. The interesting assertion that leftists fled the country, "but were never forced to", is true only in the sense that the chilean government wouldn't expel them. If the government got its hands on them, they would be killed, after torture. Just see what happened at the Estadio Nacional.

On the involvement of the US, it is probably already declassified (its role in the case of Brazil already is: the US government didn't directly plot the coup, but planned to give logistical support). So, there is no need to argue about this, people just have to find those documents.

Link

There is a link provided for a future article on the "international communist conspiracy". I think there is a strong likelihood that this article, by its mere existence, will not be NPOV. --Daniel C. Boyer

Moved from article body

It is not that I don't agree with the gist of the following text, but, quite simply, it is not NPOV. If anyone would care to reinsert material from it, please do it judiciously. -- Viajero 16:37, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Alleged US Involvement in Allende's Overthrow

The United States has long been the dominant economic and military power in North and South America, and it is known that the American CIA assisted the Chilean opposition with money and propaganda. Many people believe American support went much further and see Pinochet as essentially a proxy for the CIA.

Officially, the United States opposed President Allende's policies because he was an agent of the international communist conspiracy and represented a threat to the US, as well as a would-be tyrant seeking to undermine Chilean democracy. In this respect he was regarded much as controversial Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is today.

Some have suggested the real motivations were related to American corporations such as Pepsi, or extensive Chilean investments by the Kennedy family. Others believe that US policy on Chile had more to do with a long-term desire to prevent democracy and popular movements in the hemisphere to ensure the hegemony of capitalism and protect the interests of the rich. Journalist Greg Palast estimates that, at the time of the coup, American corporations controlled over 85% of Chile's industries, and that it was in the interests of these corporations that the US overthrew the Chilean government. ( 1 -- p.92-97)

Alleged Soviet/Cuban Involvement in Allende's Presidency

Many people opposed to Salvador Allende have claimed that he intended to bring Chile into the Soviet orbit as the tip of a Communist spear aimed at subjugating the hemisphere. These accusations are widespread but most do not bear scrutiny.

Just before the coup, the Chilean Congress passed a resolution accusing Allende of numerous illegal, unconstitutional, and dictatorial actions and calling for his removal. They did not make any mention of Cuba or the Soviet Union. No Cuban or Soviet troops were ever stationed in the country. The extent of Allende's official dealings with Communist countries were normal diplomatic and trade ties.

Though the Soviet threat is gone, present day accusations against Venezeulan President Hugo Chavez bear a striking resemblance to those made in the late 1970s about Salvador Allende.

References:

  1. The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast (2002)

See also:

Coup not bloody!?!?!

66.101.169.187 added the line:

The coup itself wasn't actually bloody, but during the afthermath many were killed in a campaign to exterminate Marxism.

How so not bloody? The army bombed the presidential palace... -- Viajero 10:32, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It was actually the Air Force...Probably the anonymous user meant that the number of dead in the coup itself was much smaller that the deaths in the aftermath. In any case, usually coups are bloody, unless bloodless is specified, so probably it is unnecessary. Just an opinion.--AN 19:36, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Umm, right directly as the coup was going on, death squads rounded up a large number of leading intellectuals, activists, and supporters of the Allende reforms, took them to the main stadium in Santiago, and murdered them. It wasn't a country-wide bloodbath but it certainly wasn't "bloodless" either. If we are going to call this "bloodless" we'd have to call basically every coup ever "bloodless". -- wji 7 Sep

Mmmm...that's not what I said. I said that if a coup is bloodless it is worth mentioning it, because it is against the "norm" for coups, if it is bloody, as most are and this certainly was, telling so is as rather superflous. About the national stadium, telling "took them to the main stadium in Santiago, and murdered them" is a not completely precise. There were thousands taken to the stadium, most of them mistreated, probably hundreds tortured, but, according to the Retig Commission, 40 ejecuted (or murdered).--AstroNomer 19:09, Sep 8, 2003 (UTC)

Revisioning

This article needs revisioning. See: http://val.dorta.com/archives/000343.html

POV

This article takes the point of view:

  • Allende was democratically elected, and
  • that no democratically elected leader should EVER be deposed by a coup
  • that therefore any US support to overthrow Allende was "anti-democratic" and therefore BAD

Other POVs exist:

  • a narrow plurality of 36% is not a mandate for socialism
  • socialism ruined the economy in only 3 years' time
  • Allende was plotting to take the country into a dictatorship
  • the Chilean people did NOT vote for dictatorship
  • that therefore Allende himself was anti-democratic and therefore BAD

I would like the article to clarify the distinction between the "US is bad" point of view and the "Allende was bad" point of view -- rather than assuming or implying that the US is bad. --Uncle Ed 15:53, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


I'm sorry, there are no proofs that Allende would take the country into a dictatorship but it is a fact that Allende was democratically elected and deposed by a coup that took the country into a dictatorship lasted 17 years.

Nevertheless, that fact should not be turned into bias.


Theres no proof that "Allende was plotting to take the country into a dictatorship" maybe because the supposed plot was made up (known only as "plan Z").

a voting was weeks from taking place, in wich the people would decide if allende should stay or not, but before this could had happened the rightists took the country into a dictatorship.

The supposed "plan Z" was actually invented by the rightists, it was their way of justifiying the coup. (anon 4 July 2005)

  • In the article, we say that Plan Z was "false propaganda". I don't see how we could be clearer than that. -- Jmabel | Talk July 6, 2005 01:20 (UTC)
    • "disinformation" might be better. or "falsified." J. Parker Stone 6 July 2005 01:30 (UTC)

id say falsified is a better word for it.

But Plan Z wasnt the only propaganda, several 1 issue magazines appeared in countries sorrounding chile, telling about how leftist terrorists had the country in chaos and how they were all nothing but crooks. (when in fact the supposed "terrorists" were in great part university students. Several friends of my dad used to fight for the "frente patriotico manuel rodriguez" and they are all doctors).

The media was all in the rightists hands, so whenever the CNI or the DINA would kill someone on the street, the media would fix the story and make the agents look as if they were heros (whore journalists like Claudio Sanchez and Pablo Honorato are among them)

the censorship was extreme back then, the catholic channel bought the rights for movies such as "brazil", "hellraiser", "last temptation of christ" and others, just for the purpose of not showing them.

my... i just got carried away here.

Balance

Former Assistant Secretary of State William D. Rogers argues:

It was rather "Allende's ... disastrous economic policies, his attack on Chile's democratic institutions, [and] the wave of popular resentment that swept the Chilean military to power. [1]

Factual error

The mention that the comunist party was in the oposition of Allende is a factual error, In fact, the comunist party was part of Allende coallition. The idea of the CIA finncing this party is really a novelty,,,,, please show your source Milton 20:42, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Democracy vs. Marxism

For a quarter century, Marxists have been accusing the US of using anti-democratic methods to stop the "free and fair" democratic aspirations of the poor downtrodden masses to vote for Marxist-style socialism. Chile is their best example, but they're going to try using Haiti too.

U.S. overthrows Chilean democracy (1963-1973) [2]
Well, this is not the first time the US has removed a democratically elected leader from power (only to be replaced by a dictator) and it looks like it won't be the last. [3]

Supporters of democracy and free markets, on the other hand deny the Marxist accusations, saying that no people has ever voted for a Marxist dictatorship. Allende tried to trick his people the same way Hitler tricked the Germans.

Whether you agree or disagree with these two points of view (POV), they are the most widely held among scholars and politicians. So they should BOTH be in the article, along with any other creditable POVs.

Please don't try to make the article support only the Marxist POV. --Uncle Ed 15:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My latest research makes him look like history's first "democratically-elected Marxist president".

Marxist President Salvador Allende's pledge to bring socialism, constitutionally and without violence ... [4]
On September 4, 1970, Salvador Allende became the first Marxist to be democratically elected the leader of a Latin-American nation. Because he received only a plurality of votes in the presidential election, his election had to be confirmed by the Chilean Congress. U.S. President Richard Nixon ordered the CIA to prevent Allende's confirmation, but the CIA's attempts to foment a coup ultimately failed: On October 24, the Chilean Congress voted to confirm Allende after he pledged support of 10 libertarian constitutional amendments. As president of Chile, Allende promoted democratic socialism, governing by elections and legislation rather than violent change. He redistributed land and, to the chagrin of the United States, nationalized foreign-owned businesses. The CIA worked to destabilize his government, and international economic agencies denied loans and capital to Chile. On September 11, 1973, economic turmoil resulted in a military coup led by General Augusto Pinochet. With the military in revolt, Allende retreated with his supporters to the presidential palace in Santiago, which was surrounded by tanks and infantry and bombed by air force jets. Allende survived the aerial attack but then allegedly shot himself to death as troops stormed the burning palace. --History Channel [5]

Did Allende miscalculate? Looks like taking over the copper industry would be the logical first step in setting up a successful socialist economy (according to Marxist theory). But he didn't count on the reaction of the export market. Foreign customers refused to buy copper! I wonder if he had any idea they would do that....

In 1970, Dr. Salvador Allende Gossens became president after an intense Congressional debate. Allende proceeded to nationalize the country's vital copper industry and the international community responded with a boycott that helped cripple the economy, particularly as the government also nationalized the coal and steel industries and much of the banks. Unhappiness in the country reached such levels that the military took action in 1973, taking over the government and killing Allende. General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte became president and the next years saw thousands of Chileans arrested and killed by the junta. Pinochet lasted until 1988 as calls for the end of the Pinochet dictatorship became impossible to resist. He was replaced by a member of the Christian Democratic Party in 1990, bringing to a close 17 years of military rule. [6]

3 quotes and 2 comments above by Uncle Ed 14:24, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Did Allende Shoot himself?

Just a note: This is also a POV which is Controversial on the Left. Some of my Comrades, particularly from the Chilean community are absolutely against the theory that he shot himself. I am partial on this, because I have not seen any evidence to the contrary, but perhaps it should be metioned that many do not believe this to be what happened.--Mista-X 20:15, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

His own family believes he shot himself. --Cantus 02:46, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cantus: Can you confirm this with quotes? I remember hearing his duaghter say in a documentary "They said that he had shot himself.", not that she necessarily believed that herself.

I also remember various of his Comrades say that he would never do such a thing, and that that day he fought like the bravest of any soldier could, and cursed and swore at anyone who tried to stop him from fighting.

They say he would have died fighting rather than shoot himself.

I guess it could be a bit of romaticism; and personally I don't blaim him or think any less of him if he did shoot himself. --Mista-X 05:03, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I thought the fact that he committed suicide was pretty well-confirmed. Trey Stone 06:05, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I eliminated the sentence that stated that he "probably" killed himself, as almost all other UNBIASED sources accept that Allende killed himself. I added, however, that some of his supporters still believe that he was killed.

Pinochet's orders

Pinochet gave specific orders that if Allende would surrender, he (Allende) should be taken into a plane to later destroy that plane in flight (thus, killing allende) (anon 4 July 2005)

  • Do you have a citation for that claim? -- Jmabel | Talk July 6, 2005 01:19 (UTC)

yes i do, its on the Radio transmition of the miltar forces of september 11 1973, the recordings are still around and you can hear very clearly when Pinochet says that.

  • Is there a transcription available? Or a book or article that specifically alludes to this? Or a clear place someone can go to access the recordings? Because all we have right now is your anonymous, unsigned assertion. I'm not saying that it would have been out of character for Pinochet, just that it is the sort of thing that needs a citation. -- Jmabel | Talk July 7, 2005 04:25 (UTC)

Articles about Allende/Pinochet regime change in Chile

Marxist-style socialism and democratic processes

Cantus deleted this sentence of mine 3 months ago, calling it part of a "POV edit":

Ever since, Allende has been at the focus of intense controversy over whether a Marxist-style socialist government has ever come into power via democratic processes.

I wonder two things:

  • Is there anything inaccurate or biased about this sentence?
  • If not, which article is the best place for it?

I'm leaning toward 1973 coup in Chile, with "the coup" as the subject of the sentence in place of "Allende". --Uncle Ed 15:23, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Marxist-style" is an essentially meaningless phrase, since Marx was first and foremost a political economist, not a political leader. In addition, there are many shades of socialism, and also things that look like socialism -- or are called socialism -- but are not. For those of us with nuanced views of the matter, the question is a highly tendentious one. -- Viajero 15:58, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

mispronounciation-guides

It is a common trait of English, particularly American, mispronounciations of Roman languages such as French and Spanish to put a gliding 'y' at the end of words ending with -e (or with -e+silent consonant).

Wikipedia ought better not contribute to the proliferartion of this error[7].

Maybe it would be the best to use a standardized phonetic alphabet, such as SAMPA, for pronounciation guides – but if not, here are a couple of non-standard pronounciation guides for the surname Allende:

/Tuomas 09:38, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Question

I haven't read back through all the past comments on this page - and surely, there were many - but why do all the headings about additional articles use this ridiculous "regime change" euphemism which is, by my recollection, barely three years old, if that? It was a coup d'etat - un golpe, if you want to be more regional - so why can't it be called just that? "Regime change" probably has poorer connotations than coup anyways after the events of the last two years. Wally 04:15, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't much care about the wording of headings in Talk. In the article itself, there's only one "regime change" heading. The references listed under that heading include information about the coup but also information about the developments preceding it. I think "regime change" is more accurate because it seems more inclusive, covering the background to the coup as well as the coup itself. The word "coup" is used in the first sentence of the article and extensively thereafter, so there's certainly no attempt to substitute a euphemism. JamesMLane 16:43, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
To me, however, the use of "regime change" at all is a poor attempt to sub in a neologism that oughn't be there, especially a neologism of such differing connotations by political view. Frankly, given that the term was never used before the Iraq situation, and is associated closely with it (thus immediately polarizing the issue), I just think it oughn't be included at all, even in a heading. Coup, if anything, is matter-of-fact and doesn't of necessity mean anything negative. Wally 21:43, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sorted on this article. Shall now go and check the others. –Hajor 21:53, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Just to note, on the other articles (Augusto Pinochet, at least), it seems that "See further" is all that's used. That works for me, if there aren't objections. Short, sweet, purposeful. Wally 06:04, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Allende's Last Speech

I have added a link to a wikisource version of Allende's Last Speech [8]. The page was copied from wikipedia, but the translation had been listed as a possible copyright violation. Here is daniel chernilo's web site. It contains both the disputed text and an audio recording of the speech. We could ask him for permission to use his translation -- though it clearly needs some work. Or, I was wondering if some Spanish speaker here would be willing to quickly re-translate the speech for wikisource to avoid copyvio issues (it's not very long). I'm very skeptical that there are copyvio problems with the speech itself, but the translation is another matter. Wolfman 01:10, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Can you please provide a link to the original Spanish-language speech so I (or someone) can do an "unpolluted" translation? -- Jmabel 23:37, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
The following links are from the page referenced above (on the left hand side navigation bar) mp3, spanish text. Thanks. Wolfman 23:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hideous, because all accented letters are FUBAR, but here goes. This in not a verbatim, literal translation: I'm trying to get the tone accurate and in many cases one would make different word choices in different languages.

In particular, I have chosen to translate the Spanish-language Patria as "Nation", rather than the more literal "Fatherland", because the latter is almost nonexistent in English except as a translation from German. I do not think it has the right connotation, I do not think any native English-speaker would opt for "Fatherland" in a similar context. -- Jmabel 01:27, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

A million thanks; have wikisourced it. Wolfman 01:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Santiago de Chile, 11 September 1973, 9:10 A.M. This will surely be my last opportunity to address you. The Air Force has bombed the antennas of Radio Magallanes. My words have neither bitterness nor deception. They should stand as a moral castigation of those who have been traitors to their oaths: Chilean soldiers, titular commanders-in-chief, Admiral Merino, who has designated himself commander of the Navy, even more señor Mendoza, the cringing general who only yesterday manifested his fidelity and loyalty to the Government, and who also has named himself Director General of the Carabineros. In the face of these deeds it only falls to me to say to the workers: I shall not resign!

Standing at a historic point, I will repay with my life the loyalty of the people. And I say to you that I am certain that the seed we have surrendered into the worthy conscience of thousands and thousands of Chileans, will not be able to be reaped at one stroke. They have the power, they can make us their vassals, but not stop the social processes, neither by crime nor by force. History is ours and is made by the people.

Workers of my Nation: I want to thank you for the loyalty you have always had, the confidence you placed in a man who only was the interperter of great yearnings for justice, who pledged his word to respect the Constitution and the law, and who did so. In this final moment, the last in which I will be able to address myself to you, I want you to take advantage of the lesson: foreign capital, imperialism, united with reaction, created the climate for the Armed Forces to break their tradition, that which they were taught by general Schneider which was reaffirmed by commander Araya, victims of the same social sector that today will be be expecting with an alien hand to reconquer the power to continue defending their profits and their privileges.

I address myself to you, above all to the modest woman of our land, to the campesina who believed in us, the mother who knew of our concern for the children. I address myself to the professionals of the Nation, to the patriotic professionals who continued working against the sedition overseen by their professional academies, classist academies that also defended the advantages of a capitalist society.

I address myself to the youth, to those who sang and who brought their happiness and their spirit to the fight. I address myself to the man of Chile, to the worker, to the campesino, to the intellectual, to those who will be percecuted, because in our country fascism has now been present for several hours; in the terrorist assassinations, blowing up the bridges, cutting the railways, destroying the oil and gas pipelines, in the face of the silence of those who had the obligation to behave.

They are in jeopardy. History will judge them.

Radio Magallanes will surely be silenced and the tranquil metal of my voice will no longer reach you. It is not important. You will continue to hear it. I will always be together with you. At least my memory will be that of an upright man who was loyal to the Nation.

The people ought to defend themselves, but not sacrifice themselves. The people ought not let themselves be subdued or persecuted, but neither should they humble themselves.

Workers of my Nation, I have faith in Chile and its destingy. Other men will go beyond this gray and bitter moment when treason tries to impose itself upon us. Continue to know that, muchsooner than later, we will reopen the great promenades down which free men pass, to construct a better society.

Long live Chile! Long live the people! Long live the workers!

These are my last words and I have certainty that my sacrifice will not be in vain, I have certainty that, at the least, I will be a moral lesson to castigate felony, cowardice, and treason.

Hope that helps -- Jmabel 01:28, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

recently cut

The following passages were recently cut from the article. Offhand, I'm not convinced these cuts are beneficial (although the second one was, perhaps, poorly placed and belongs more in the "legacy" section):

As provided in the Chilean constitution, the national legislature had to choose between Allende and the next-highest vote-getter (Alessandri), and they voted for Allende. This was quite ironic for him, since he had actually obtained a higher percentage of the vote in the previous presidential election, six years earlier (however, in that election, there had been no strong third candidate like the one in 1970).

The coup that many Chileans hoped would protect the constitution actually resulted in its destruction. Pinochet ruled, unelected, for seventeen years. His government's human rights abuses left more than three thousand Chileans dead or missing during the long period of dictatorship.

Without the first passage, the article now has no explanation at all of how he became president without a majority; this is as notable as (say) how Rutherford B. Hayes became president of the United States, but the article now glosses it over.

As for the second passage, I would think it should be expanded upon (and relevant citations found) rather than removed: many people, including many Chilean politicians, who supported the coup became rapidly disillusioned with Pinochet, and, inevitably, some also revised their opinion of Allende either in a more favorable direction (by contrast) or less favorable (as a contibutor to a crisis that laid the country low).

I'd also think there should be mention of the fact that a generation grew up in the Pinchet years hearing only anti-Allende propaganda in school, but as Pinchet's image had become more and more tarnished, Allende's reputation among that generation is on the rise.

I'd like to hear what some other people have to say before I edit: also, I consider myself knowledgable but not expert on this, and would be very happy if someone genuinely expert would take it on. -- Jmabel 03:43, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the first paragraph, and agree this issue should be mentioned. I removed the second because it's a highly incomplete summary of a complex issue. Pinochet's legacy is debated today both in Chile and abroad, and he has supporters. None of this has anything do with Salvador Allende, however, and he is the subject of the article. There is an article Augusto Pinochet where this controversy is collected (and fought over viciously). Any supposed "give-and-take" between Pinochet's reputation and Allende's is speculative at best and certainly minor; one would think he'd be evaluated on his own merits. VV 04:43, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"It has been suggested"

Recent anonymous addition: "It has been suggested that the CIA aided Pinochet by allowing him to study the outdated documents explaining military tactics and the formation of the CIA itself." I suppose this statement makes itself trivially true, but has it been suggested by someone of any significance? If so, cite. If not, it should not be in the article. -- Jmabel 17:14, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Could be true, but I don't know of any source for it either. Probably should be removed for now. Cadr 17:42, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree and I've removed it. JamesMLane 03:24, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moved a link

I moved a link from the "External links" section to the "Also see..." section. Regards. Johdl 04:54, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

reverting two edits

I'm reverting two recent anoymous edits not because they are necessarily wrong, but because they are confusing. If someone can clarify, the infomation in these may well belong in the article.

  1. "...but Allende dismissed such allegations" became "...but Allende dismissed such allegations and even enforced the Senats [sic] power to overrule or delay his decisions and plans." Obviously "Senats" is "Senate's", but what does this mean that he "enforced" their power? Maybe "abided by"? And why should this be singled out in the second paragraph of the article?
  2. "This included nationalization of certain large-scale industries (notably copper)" became "This included nationalization of certain large-scale industries (notably copper) meaning 150 workers employed or more". Two problems here: (1) this edit suggests, I believe falsely, that all businesses over 150 employees were nationalized. (2) the sentence doesn't flow. Given that the exact meaning isn't clear (just what was nationalized?), I'd hope to see a citation.

If you are the person who wrote the reverted passages and if you can express yourself more clearly in Spanish than in English, feel free to respond in Spanish & I can translate for you. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:31, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Did he shoot himself (revisited)

While I think it is perfectly likely that Allende killed himself with a machine gun, there is still no cited source for the claim that his personal doctor said that he committed suicide. As I understand it, that doctor was, himself, a victim of the Pinochet government not long after. I'm not saying this is false, I'm just saying no one seems to have a citation. Also, even if the doctor said this, it is unclear (1) whether he made this statement on the basis of first-hand knowledge or just hearsay (i.e. did he actually see the death scene and/or the body) and (2) made this assertion in a context where he could be presumed free of coercion.

The autopsy, presumably by the victorious forces, would do little to settle the matter.

As for the circumstantial detail that follows this in the article, "On the stock of the gun was a gold plate with the words "To my good friend Salvador Allende from Fidel Castro" engraved in it," yes, there was such a gun, but again, this was added separately without citation. Why should anyone believe, even if he killed himself, that he did it with this particular gun? Again, I have seen no citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:49, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

  • "also, no one has been able to produce any citation on the claim that his personal doctor said that he committed suicide. I've asked." You can find the interview with the eye-witness, Dr. Patricio Guijón (who by the way, was not Allende's personal doctor, but just one of the doctors that happened to be assigned to La Moneda Palace's infirmary) in pag. 282 and followings of the book "El dia en que murio Allende" ("The day that Allende Died") compiled by Mr Ignacio Gonzalez Camus, the Chilean Institute of Humanistic Studies (ICHEH) and the CESOC, in 1988.

As to the questions, Dr. Guijón has declared: (1) that he made this statement on the basis of first-hand knowledge (he was actually present at the instant of death and he remained next to the body); (2) he made his statement inmediately (within minutes) of the death, repeated it several times to his fellow inmates while in a prison camp (Isla Dawson Prison Camp) while he was confined there (there are several witnesses, including present Education Minister, Mr. Sergio Bitar, who has included the version in his own account of his prison days) in a moment in which he could be presumed free of coercion, and has repeated it without changes up to today.

At the time of Mr Allende's reinterment in Santiago, in 1990, there was a medical examination of his remains, in order to confirm the identity, and to dispel rumors about his end. At that time it was confirmed that the only physical injury apreciable was a massive head injury that is compatible with a suicide wound.

I recommend Mr. Camus's book as being probably the only book that is completely based on personal interviews with the "then" (1988) survivors, from both sides of the coup, and probably one of the more impartial ones written to date. By the way, I am also trying to find the newspaper interview with Mrs. Isabel Allende, surviving daughter of Mr. Allende, and a member of the Chilean Congress to date, in which she acknowledges the fact that Mr. Allende committed suicide. That interview happened when she took office as president of the Chamber of Deputies a couple of years back, and caused quite a stir on the leftist political parties at the time. Mel Romero 00:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That explains some of the discrepancy. I assumed that "Allende's personal doctor" could only mean Enrique Paris Roa. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:45, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Interview with Allende

After reading a recent column by Georgie Anne Geyer, I was intrigued by the following:

When I interviewed Allende just before he became "the world's first elected Marxist president," I asked him whether, if he were elected, there would be elections again. "You must understand," he answered carefully but revealingly, "that by the next elections, everything will have changed." This threat of Marxist change in a country unprepared to deal with it assured that his regime would not last.

http://www.uexpress.com/georgieannegeyer/?uc_full_date=20030131

How and or should this be incorporated into the article? TDC 22:26, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Cautiously, at best: after all, we have only Geyer's impression that this implied that Allende would avoid having a next round of elections. Nothing in his conduct as president particularly suggests that, and it seems extremely unlikely that the Christian Democrats would have voted in congress to let him take office if they agreed with Geyer's estimation. I think it would be OK (but not terribly useful) to indicate here that Geyer held this opinion, and she's certainly a respectable foreign correspondent, but it's just one opinion among many, and I'm not sure it's particularly worth putting in an encyclopedia article on Allende. Certainly worth putting in an article on Geyer, who probably deserves one. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:40, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Wages

I notice that "Allende responded with massive price control measures and by a constant raising of the basic salaries..." was recently changed to "Allende responded with massive price control measures and by a constant raising of the minimum wage..." without any citation. Was the old information wrong or are these two terms equivalent? Were only minimum wages raised? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:06, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

I just think it's interesting that the person praised as a democratic visionary by socialists was an admirer of Joseph Stalin. Not that he enacted any kind of Stalinist police state, but it kinda makes you wonder. J. Parker Stone 03:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Poet Pablo Neruda and artist Siqueiros were Stalinists too, back then being in favour of Stalin was not much different, as it was cold war, and the united states held a mayor power in all south america (so a lot of scorn was around, specially in Chile, were american corporations already had made 80 billion dollars by the explotation of chilean mines). People sympathized with russia, but most left wing revolutionaries were in favour of Trotsky, not Stalin. Allende was in part betrayed by the USSR, as Allende went to Russia and asked them for support, the russians sayd no, only giving a small help of weath buyed in Australia, as several boicotts were in place in Chile at that time. The reasson, it has been speculated, and most likely its true, was because Russia and America had been negotiating, and America would be willing to remove their forces from Viet Nam if Russia would stop giving help to South America. Of course, one wonders if this is true, and the only way to do so is to look at outer factors, as in the 70s all of South America was in the hands of numerous Dictatorships, all of them supported by the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kessingler (talk • contribs) 11 Oct 2005 This comment was added by Kessingler to the archive page and was never in the original talk page.

Suicide, again

I notice there has been quite an edit war recently over the question of whether Allende is definitively known to have committed suicide. I'm not goint to participate in the edit war, but I strongly suggest the parties move the issue to the talk page rather than the article, or I am liable to ask for page protection.

For whatever it is worth: I long presumed that the reports of Allende's suicide were false, and that he had been murdered during the coup. As I understand it (and it would be good if someone had a citation for this), at this point his own family seems satisfied with the evidence of suicide, and that seems pretty solid to me.

The matter has been greatly complicated by false claims that his "personal physician" attested the suicide, which appears not to be true. However, just as you can present false evidence against a guilty person, you can present false evidence for a truth. -- Jmabel | Talk 15:55, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

3RR

I blocked the anon user 200.30.222.170 (talk · contributions) for violating the 3RR, but it was pointed out to me that no-one had bothered to tell him about the rule, or warned him of the consequences of breaking it — despite the fact that he reverted eleven times in a row. I've unblocked him, explaining why. In future, it would be better to warn the User in question before lodging a complaint on the Administrator's Noticeboard; the 3RR isn't knowable a prior... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am convinced 200.30.222.170 was Ruopollo (talk · contribs), who did the same reverts 4 times and was warned by me about the 3RR rule. I can't believe they are not the same person, in the light of which I think he should be reblocked? --SqueakBox 22:39, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC).

Ruopollo, who had clearly taken over from 200.30.222.170 in the edit war stopped after I sent him my note, but 200.30.222.170 then comes back later to revert 5 more tiimes. Unless 200.30.222.170 is not Ruopollo he can have no justification for not knowing the rules, --SqueakBox 22:54, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
You're almost certainly right (identical changes kind of give that away), but I'd be inclined to let the matter drop now. Neither has edited for a couple of hours. And they've both been warned. So, if and when they come back, we can start afresh. Perhaps he/she/they'll engage in some dialogue next time round. –Hajor 23:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, in that case you still need to give a formal warning to 200.30.222.170 (in case you're wrong, and to make any block justified and legitimate), and then you need to inform Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as well as the 3RR page (in both cases giving the full details). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have been the one doing the changes. I am Chilean, there is not a single serious complaint that Allende was murdered. His daughter, Isabel Allende, currently president of the chamber of deputies has accepted this, two of his personal doctors and life long friends, Drs. Soto and Jiron (http://www.estocolmo.se/chile/jiron.htm), have talked about the same. I can provide links to books and films if needed. The official biography from the Presidency of Chile, in the current administration of Socialist Ricardo Lagos, says he commited suicide. (http://www.presidencia.cl/view/viewGaleriaPresidentes.asp?id=31&seccion=Galeria%20Presidentes&interfazseccion=Galeria%20Presidentes#a31) So who are those supporters who claim he was murdered? Nobody serious. His closest people all admit it was suicide. But in wikipedia apparently you guys are more worried to put personal views rather than facts. Of course some might say Allende was killed. Some people say the holocaust didn't happen. I don't think anybody here thinks there is any "discussion" about that one too. Instead of putting he commited suicide at the top of the page as I have been doing, I will put all these FACTS in the discussion of the SUICIDE. Is that OK or is that also too much and needs to be deleted? (unsigned, User:Ruopollo 19 April 2005)


Translation

Somebody can translate the Spanish article that is more complete that this (anon 29 April 2005)

  • Feel free to put in a request at WP:TIE. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:39, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sucide one last time

How does one kill oneself with a machine gun? Wouldn't the recoil act against that? Watsonladd 21:35, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • I imagine you'd be dead from the first bullet or two before recoil became an issue. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:23, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

OK, it's obviously not "one last time". Recently, anonymously added: "Another version says that Allende was killed in combat on the steps outside the Presidential Palace." No citation. Is there any reason to keep this in the article? I'm inclined to delete, but not unilaterally. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:23, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

If someone is looking for a moderately small research project, it might be worth assembling who said what at what date about the mode of Allende's death. This obviously keeps coming up, so we might as well gather what is out there. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:23, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

"Antisemitism and Euthanasia"

Literally every other reference I can find on the web to Salvador Allende: Antisemitism and Euthanasia by Víctor Farías is a repetition of one identical item, according to which the book isn't even published yet. So let me ask: has the person who is citing it here seen an advance copy? Is there any basis to consider it a credible source? Is it actually published somewhere (in which case please add publication information)? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:29, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see, it has come out in Spanish. Then it should be cited by its Spanish title an publication information, no? And I still ask, have those who are citing it actually read it, or are they just repeating what they saw on a blog someplace? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:31, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Here's a review, in Spanish, from someone obviously very anti-Allende, but much more substantive than the one thing that's been floating around in English. By the way, this remarks that Farías does not assert that the Nazi Walter Rauff financed Allende's 1969 parliamentary campaign, although remarks on "some believing" this. Quoting from that review:
"Higiene mental y delincuencia (Mental Hygiene and Delinquency), which is the title of the book written by Allende in 1933, according to the exhumation and revelation by Víctor Farías, defends the thesis of the most blatant antisemitism. The Jews, according to Allende, are characterized by determined forms of crime: "fraud, falsehood, calumny, and, above all, usury". Allende was an antisemite who intellectually promoted the massive sterilization and "eugenic science" of the Nazis not only in this book, but in the initiative which, later, in 1939, he led as minister of health in the Unidad Popular government of president Aguirre-Cerda (1939-1941)."
For whatever it's worth, I've looked at this and a few other things on line and suspect that Farías' "euthanasia" may be an exaggeration: lots of people writing, most of them hostile to Allende, none citing any actual endorsement of euthanasia, just of eugenics.
So what are we left with? I haven't seen the book, so I'm just going by reviews, but if the gist of the reviews is accurate, then Allende in the 1930s was an antisemite and a supporter of eugenics. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:53, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
The book is quite good. It is short and the author pretty much let's Allende's thesis do the talking. The Allende Foundation is going to publish the thesis to try to prove Farias wrong, but his project of law whe he was minister of health still stands. Anyway, I want to know something. Someone put on a footnote that Allende's mother was jewish. According to who? The Gossens family came to Chile from Belgium and were devouted catholics. From what source do we know they were jewish? In fact I would say that affirmation is wrong. (anon, 2 June 2005)

Here is a rebuttal to Farias's claims from the Allende Foundation: [9] They accuse Farias of conflating Allende's summaries of then-current theories about crime with his actual beliefs. They include specific quotes from the thesis, rejecting the theory that Jews and other races are predisposed to various crimes, and quote the conclusion of the thesis where Allende concludes that criminal nature stems both from human nature and from the influence of society (and not from . It is clear, in any case, that Farias's research is not NPOV and his allegations should not be repeated uncritically in the Allende article. I also believe that this POV disqualifies his 'fascism' slur from appearing in this article -- if we're going to "teach the controversy" it should probably be in an article about Farias or his book. I took a first stab at the paragraph, but I doubt that it will be the last one. Eliot 23:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The thesis itself has been released, so now we can use primary sources in the construction of this article. [10] Eliot 23:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see that this has recently been changed again, saying that "Farías maintains the affirmations that appear in his book" and removing the statement that the thesis itself refutes him. I didn't read the entire thesis, but I read chunks of it, and it sure seems to me like Farías was entirely off base here. Has he published a rebuttal of what the Allende Foundation has to say, or is he just standing firm in the face of all evidence? If he has actually rebutted particular points, we should cite a document where he does that. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:33, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Needing at least an improved citation

From the current state of the article:

After Pinochet assumed power, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told U.S. President Richard Nixon that the U.S. "didn't do it" (referring to the coup itself) but had "created the conditions as great as possible" [11], including leading economic sanctions.

The quoted phrase is not on the referenced web page (though the reference is clearly relevant to the article in general), and the quoted phrase is not good English, which makes it unlikely that it is an accurate quote of Kissinger, whose use of English is generally correct, if not always inspired. Does anyone have an accurate quotation and a citation? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:30, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Dubious inclusion

The recently added external link The Myth of Allende leads to what appears to be just an anti-Allende piece on someone's personal blog. I think it shouldn't be here, but rather than delete it unilaterally, I figured I'd ask for comments first. Is there a justification for keeping this? At the very least, it should be labeled to clearly indicate what it is. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:31, August 14, 2005 (UTC)