And the Chilean military would have been part of that civil war. "There would have been a civil war because we would have attempted to overthrow the democratically elected government and they would have fought back, so we took american money and 'advisors' to move so quickly that there was no chance of the legitimate government fighting back" doesn't really hold moral water with me.
Also, the Beagle Conflict was five years into Pinochet's reign so not really sure how that's a reason to overthrow Allende.
> Allende was a demagogue on the KGB's payroll with drinking issues
The KGB hated the shit out of Allende. Their bottom up socialism stood to be an alternative that would have taken away the KGB's legitimacy even with die hard communists at the time.
Most of the South American dictators from Operation Condor were more brutal than Pinochet, and many of them stole everything they could and left nothing behind.
And the Cuban and Venezuelan dictorships are far more dehumanizing and brutal and Pinochet's regime. Also, Castro's regime started decades before Pinochet and is still there.
Pinochet stole money but left behind a working economy, that was a substantial improvement over what came before.
Allende was trying to consolidate power and eventually turn Chile into a 1 party communist system, through a communist revolution.
Pinochet had a 44% approval rate towards the end of this dictatorship in 1988. Although many people was unaware of the extent of the regime attrocities at that time.
There were extremists/terrorist groups in Chile, such as MIR and FPMR. Some of the Pinochet victims were inocent, others were not.
If Chile had a civil war, that would have accelerated Argentina's invasion plan.
In addition to that, Bolivia has manifested territorial ambitions over their former territories, something that is even in their constitution.
A civil war followed by an invasion by at least 2 countries, or a Cuba/Chile/Soviet union alliance were all excellent reasons to remove Allende. He failed, his ideas were bad, his execution was bad. Beautiful speeches, but a failure nevertheless.
Next time some Mr. Che Guevara t-shirt guy tries to sell you the Communist miracle, go to Cuba and see how they live there, and tell me if you would like to raise your kids in a place like that. Or go to Venezuela, another "miracle". Technically they have equality because most people (except for the regime and party members of course) are equally poor.
Fidel was such as charismatic leader he would only eat food from his own personal garden out of fear of being poisoned, he also lived a life of excess and lived in an oppulent mansion unlike most Cubans.
Following those defintions, the Beagle Conflict goes all the way back to the 1880s. Still failing to see how this is something to remove the legitimate government over and install a brutal dictator.
> If Chile had a civil war, that would have accelerated Argentina's invasion plan.
So, alternative plan, don't have a coup _or_ a civil war. Respect the democratically elected government rather than killing the president in his office.
As illustrated in a quote from one of your favorite comrades:
"Every society is three meals away from chaos", Vladimir Lenin
These people would rather destroy their own economy than give the socialists a fair chance, then use that destruction as "see that's why we need to kill the president".
Now, imagine you hypothetically decide to call yourself exactly that. And then, run for president of a country and manage to get elected.
What do you think will happen to you if you do that? It does not take much IQ to figure out that is certainly going to end really bad for you.
It is a really stupid idea, and that is what Allende did, and he suffered the consequences.
Because that is how things work in the real world.
This comment assumes that in the past, governments around the world always made decisions to placate the U.S., as if whether the U.S. approval or disapproval is required for nation-building. While this may have been true for some countries that considered the U.S. response, it wasn’t widely known that if you made an earnest attempt at “new” social organisation, you’d be killed and replaced by a newly minted, U.S. approved fascist.
>Because that is how things work in the real world
It may look like that’s how things work; i.e. make the U.S. mad and suffer the consequences. But in 1970 there were multiple conversations about how to build a country, and by 1973 there was one less. I personally prefer a reality in which there are multiple methods for governing people, instead of this one-size-fits-all approach that, in 2020, appears to be ill suited for solving modern problems.
If you oppose the international community and their leaders, they will oppose you in different ways.
They will sanction, boycott, sabotage, denounce, impoverish and indebt your country... and if none of that works they will invade you. That's the way it has always been.
Not because Pinochet was not brutal, of course he was... he killed 3,000 people in brutal ways for 17 years. Sure... But add 2 zeroes to that death count and multiply the regime length by 3 and you get Fidel Castro.
The Chilean armed forces (navy, army, air force, police) intervened when they saw an imminent civil war, combined with a likely Argentinean invasion.
That would be effectively the end of Chile.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_conflict
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Soberanía
And Allende's regime was very far from suceeding. He had inspiring speeches but in practice he was a failure as a leader. Allende was a demagogue on the KGB's payroll with drinking issues, his administration was undistinguishable from anarchy.