Talk:Salvador Allende/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


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


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


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)


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.


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.


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

See also:

Coup not bloody!?!?! 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)


This article needs revisioning. See:


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.


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)


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)


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)