The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Alternatives to Pinochet and his regime in 1973
Amongst all the moral indignation - much of it false and facile (including the automatic knee-jerk use of the word 'fascist', which cannot be applied to Pinochet's regime) - I have never heard any constructive views put forward on how the Chilean state should have proceeded given the disastrous state of affairs obtaining at the end of Allende's rule.
Should the parliament simply have let Allende carry on with 1000% inflation? With its East German and Soviet advisers, expropriations, nationalisations without compensation, and so on?
Pinochet's rule was not perfect, but he did restore stability to the country, much as Franco did to Spain and - to be honest - Soviet dictatorship did after the Russian civil war. No society tolerates the prospect of its own breakdown for long and the survival of the community is the overriding social and biological principle in human behaviour. It is to be regretted that Pinochet's restoration of order involved the murder and torture of so many, but, in the long run, the alternative would have been far worse.
1. Henry VIII makes Pinochet look like a social worker. Discuss. 2. Put the following in order of nastiness (equal positions are allowed): Lenin / Hitler / Cromwell / Caligula / Pinochet / Stalin / Castro / Franco / Suleiman the Magnificent / Saddam Husein / Mussolini / Napoleon. Does the context become clearer?
I don't understand why there is a very marked bias when dealing with dictators depending on if they are from the Right or the Left. Pinochet overthrew the government and ruled as a dictator. This is true. But Fidel Castro also overthrew the Batista government in Cuba. Fulgenico Batista was a dictator, this is true. But that doesn't make Castro and the Cuban Communist regime in Havana a democracy. The WP page on Fidel Castro says that he established a one party state, which is a dictatorship. But WP insists on calling him a leader, and only including the word dictator in the criticism, quote "Critics call him a dictator." But on the page for Pinochet it is stated that he is a dictator. I have no problem with this label for Pinochet, it is factually true. But why not apply the same label to Castro? There is the U.S. Congressional Church Committee report on the Pinochet coup in Chile which concludes that the U.S. government didn't take a role in the coup. Then right after that there is a statement about academics saying that the support of the US was instrumental to the coup. I just feel that the same policy should be applied evenly to dictators of the Right and the Left. Call a spade a spade. Call the Right Wing Dictators Dictators, but also call the Left Wing Dictators Dictators.NapoleonX (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
If you have issues with the Fidel Castro page, fine; bring them up on the talk page of that article. The Church Committee report is a primary source from the US government, which is certainly not a neutral party here; for both these reasons, it cannot form the basis of the narrative presented here. Secondary academic sources are much preferred. Please read WP:RS, in particular WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a glance at the articles on Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong dispels the notion of some "marked bias" on Wikipedia in favor of "left-wing dictators." Vanamonde93 is right, if you have an issue with the Castro page, take it there. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The article actually praises Pinochet for making Chile perhaps the most prosperous and developed nation in Latin America. The current poverty rate in Chile is between 11-19% (national standards said 11%, UN reports said 18%) and Chile joined the OECD, the 34th and only Latin American nation in the group so far. Before 1970 when Allende was elected president, about 40% of Chileans lived in western (i.e. comparable to European or American) middle class standards. Chile is 3rd place in both western (the US and Canada) and southern (Australia and NZ) hemispheres in the standard of living as well. And finally, when poverty rates were 58% when Pinochet came to office in 1973, but said to "risen" to 45% by the time he left power in 1989-90, either this is going by UN standards (probably the earlier) or Chilean standards (the latter), since Chile is still rather an underdeveloped nation, even though it's close to other large Latin American economies Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Costa Rica, pre-1990s Venezuela, and even Mexico's standings. + 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
There's a lot of objective fact going on about how expropriated property was returned to private owners and business moved back to Chile... But really, besides one sentence mentioning substantial economic growth that happened, there is a distinct bias in the interpretation of that section. "Shock Doctrine" (a decidedly un-academic source) is referenced alongside one or two others in a critical way. The poverty rate is brought up, but no mention of how the poverty rate went from 45% to around 15% in the span of 15-20 years. Nor how Chile has the highest economic income-per-person in South America currently; by a large margin in fact. There seems to be too much inaccurate criticism in that section and in the interest of being bias-free, that ought to change. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Conflict in casualties reported: 3,000 or 60,000?
Throughout this article, and notably under Human Right abuses" the number of 3,000 deaths is quoted often, but it should include the deaths by DINA during its "Operation Condor", s stated in the article:
"DINA led the multinational campaign known as Operation Condor, which amongst other activities carried out assassinations of prominent politicians in various Latin American countries, in Washington, D.C., and in Europe, and kidnapped, tortured and executed activists holding left-wing views, which culminated in the deaths of roughly 60,000 people.
No, because not all of the deaths during Op. Condor can be attributed directly to the DINA (i.e., the 30,000 in Argentina during the Dirty War). The 60,000 deaths associated with Op. Condor are already mentioned as you pointed out above, and in proper context.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. Since DINA led the international assassination campaign (Operation Condor) in various Latin American countries, then the article should clarify in no uncertain terms that there were about 3,000 deaths in Chile and about 60,000 outside the country. See, if DINA led the campaign, as stated in the article, then the casualties must be attributed to DINA. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Operation Condor as described on Wikipedia is basically a hoax. There were 3,000 deaths in Chile, and 8,000-30,000 deaths in Argentina. None of the other countries involved in Condor—Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay—experienced political killings that numbered greater than hundreds. Even if we use the highest estimate for Argentina—and accept the conflation of all democide in the participating countries with assassinations specifically attributable to Condor—there are no sources that explain where the missing tens of thousands of killings took place. (The blog Wikipedia cites to enumerate "Victims of Operation Condor by Country" certainly sheds no light on the matter.) Wikipedia's article on Condor may have taken on a life of its own through citogenesis, but even a cursory examination reveals that many of its sources are simply being deliberately misrepresented. For example, Wikipedia cites McSherry's "Tracking the Origins of a State Terror Network: Operation Condor" for the estimate that "possibly more" than 60,000 individuals were assassinated in connection with Condor: The actual figure McSherry gives is "at least" 402. (Unsurprisingly, Augusto Pinochet's claim that DINA "led" Condor is also not supported by the cited sources, which instead merely testify to the fact that Condor existed; even if it were true—I claim no expertise on the matter—did Chile still "lead" Condor after DINA was abolished in 1977?)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)