Salvador Allende vs. Augusto Pinochet

[Velasco]

It didn't have to, and that's not the point. The point is that we are better off today because it won, and while, say, Pinochet was terrible, it was still better than allowing Allende and his ideology to take root.

Do you have even an approximate idea of Allende's ideology? I you want to congratulate to you and to the dozen of kids who have voted for Pinochet in this poll. Surely you sign Margaret Thatcher's assessment: Pinochet was an abnegate freedom fighter that brought democracy to his country. Of course, crimes and 17 years of dictatorial regime are simple anecdotes of history.

Oh, and the comparison between Allende and Shining Path deserves a honour place in the Deluge.

This thread has been an awful idea, by the way.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The "it" I was referring to was Allende's Presidency. There is no chance Allende would still be in office come 1980.

Attacking Lima is not the same thing as having a serious chance at controlling it, that's like saying the IRA ever controlled Belfast (actually there are some neighborhoods in Belfast that had periods of brief IRA control, which is better than the Shining Path ever got in Lima) or were close to driving the British out. But despite all that it's pretty absurd to say that Pinochet in Chile made all the difference in if the Shining Path was defeated or not, especially considering how small the Chile-Peru border is.

And considering that even Cuba wasn't willing to touch the Shining Path with a 50 foot pole, no there wouldn't be anyone in the Allende government who would either. Why on Earth would someone in a democratically elected socialist government want to back a militant Maoist group that consider such people a threat to their goals and was killing democratic leftist politicians and activists in Peru?

[Zioneer]

I can't believe that Vosem is seriously arguing that the fact that Pinochet was on the "right side" in the Cold War means he was better in the long run than Allende. It's patently absurd. By definition, a non-murderous non-dictator is better than a murderous dictator. And especially absurd because Allende was willing to be at least a respected partner with the US, if they would've let him.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

No, in fact it's the single most significant thing. In the Cold War you had one side, which, although supported by some very flawed elements (such as Pinochet), had leadership whose ultimate goal was one that envisioned democracy, free speech, and free markets, that set about taking apart its worst creations at the end of said conflict; and another side that stood for total worldwide dictatorship, economic ruin, repression, and famine

don't you realize how easily this can be turned around?  'despite their faults, on one side you had a commitment to equality, the historical self-realization of the working class, economic liberation, an end to hunger and scarity; on the other, a dedication to exploitation by forced labor, control of the resources necessary for life by the few, false scarcity...'

Indeed, we've had posts arguing that any left-wing Latin American government no matter how corrupt and authoritarian is better than even a center-leftist if supported by the right.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This can't end well...

As expected.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Vosem, we don't want to know how much of a disgusting, degenerate excuse of a human being you are. We really don't need this knowledge in our lives.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Vosem, we don't want to know how much of a disgusting, degenerate excuse of a human being you are. We really don't need this knowledge in our lives.

But we do need your histrionics about Vosem.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Vosem, we don't want to know how much of a disgusting, degenerate excuse of a human being you are. We really don't need this knowledge in our lives.

But we do need your histrionics about Vosem.

I fully support bitching about supporters of murderous dictators, yes.

[BradyNH]

This may very well be the worst thread I've had the misfortune of encountering in my time here.

Allende, by the by.

[Ichabod]

Pinochet killed a former Army Commander in Buenos Aires (the person who recommend him to Allende), a former Allende's Foreigns Affairs Secretary in Washington and tried to kill a former Frei Montalva's VicePresident in Rome. Yeah, GREAT foreing policy

[politicus]

This can't end well...

It didn't.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Pinochet killed a former Army Commander in Buenos Aires (the person who recommend him to Allende), a former Allende's Foreigns Affairs Secretary in Washington and tried to kill a former Frei Montalva's VicePresident in Rome. Yeah, GREAT foreing policy

Off the topic but I thought Chile doesn't have a Vice President.

[Lumine]

Pinochet killed a former Army Commander in Buenos Aires (the person who recommend him to Allende), a former Allende's Foreigns Affairs Secretary in Washington and tried to kill a former Frei Montalva's VicePresident in Rome. Yeah, GREAT foreing policy

Off the topic but I thought Chile doesn't have a Vice President.

Not at all times, but whenever the President is unable to perform his duties, he resigns or he is away from the country, the most senior cabinet member takes the role of Vice-President in the meantime. Frei travelled a lot around the world, and Bernardo Leighton, as the Interior Minister, had to take the Vice-President role four times. Pinochet and the DINA contacted a group of Neo-Fascists in Italy and they hired them to murder Leighton, a powerful voice in the DC against the military government. Leighton was shot, but he survived.

NOTE: We actually had Vice-Presidents from 1823 to 1833, Diego Portales eliminated the office for he believed it to be useless.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Pinochet killed a former Army Commander in Buenos Aires (the person who recommend him to Allende), a former Allende's Foreigns Affairs Secretary in Washington and tried to kill a former Frei Montalva's VicePresident in Rome. Yeah, GREAT foreing policy

Off the topic but I thought Chile doesn't have a Vice President.

Not at all times, but whenever the President is unable to perform his duties, he resigns or he is away from the country, the most senior cabinet member takes the role of Vice-President in the meantime. Frei travelled a lot around the world, and Bernardo Leighton, as the Interior Minister, had to take the Vice-President role four times. Pinochet and the DINA contacted a group of Neo-Fascists in Italy and they hired them to murder Leighton, a powerful voice in the DC against the military government. Leighton was shot, but he survived.

NOTE: We actually had Vice-Presidents from 1823 to 1833, Diego Portales eliminated the office for he believed it to be useless.

Thanks, the thing was puzzling me

[courts]

The one who wasn't a dictator.

so none of the above? good, i agree.

[Marnetmar]

The non-fascist one.

[Ichabod]

Pinochet killed a former Army Commander in Buenos Aires (the person who recommend him to Allende), a former Allende's Foreigns Affairs Secretary in Washington and tried to kill a former Frei Montalva's VicePresident in Rome. Yeah, GREAT foreing policy

Off the topic but I thought Chile doesn't have a Vice President.

You are right but, as Lumine said, Leighton was Vice President although not all the time. I wrote in that way just because Interior Minister in Chile is the most important guy after the President meanwhile in the US is fairly unimportant.

[TNF]

The non-fascist one.

Fascism is not a blanket term for all authoritarianisms.

[politicus]

The one who wasn't a dictator.

so none of the above? good, i agree.

Categorizing Allende as a dictator is pretty far out.

[Peter the Lefty]

The one who wasn't a dictator.

so none of the above? good, i agree.

Allende was quite simply not a dictator.  No idea where you're getting that idea from.

[Supersonic]

Pinochet, not that my vote should surprise anyone. (HP)