Talk:Presidency of Salvador Allende

Please do not delete

Please do not delete links to articles nor description of articles in the see also section.

Project FUBELT - secret CIA operations documents: US government spent millions of dollars to unseat Allende. Explains to the user what the program is. This is factually correct, as are the other comments. Salvador Allende was deposed by 1973 coup and Augusto Pinochet - took power in the same 1973 coup.

Further, a referenced paragraph with more historical details is always preferable to a non-referenced article with less histrorical details. Please provide references for new material and do not delete referenced material without discussing it on the talk page.

The removal of Allende was a coup, the use of this word is much more descriptive and accurate than "overthrow". If necessary, I will add several historians who also call it a "coup".

Signed:Travb 10:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

US aligned/Soviet aligned

Due to recent edits, which explain that Allende was "Soviet aligned" to balance the article, I added that Pinochet was "US aligned". I personally feel that both adjectives should be deleted, but to add balance to the edits, this seems like a good, temporary solution.Travb 10:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd really rather get rid of both. I think both are somewhat misleading. But I believe I've already made these remarks elsewhere. Mike18xx seems to have made much the same obviously controversial edits to at least half a dozen articles with little or no discussion on the talk pages. Among other things, he keeps writing that the "Chamber of Deputies of Chile Resolution of August 22, 1973 condemned Allende and implored his forcible removal" with no mention that it failed to achieve the two-thirds majority in the Senate that would have given it legal force. Clearly a resolution like that indicates a constitutional crisis, but he seems (to me) to be building up a picture that Pinochet was somehow carrying out the will of the Deputies in overthrowing Allende, even though their beef against Allende was that they believed him to be subverting exactly the representative democracy that Pinochet simply abolished.

I think that if we are really going to sort this out, we may need to agree to have the discussion centrally in some one place, instead of hashing through the same issues here and at Chile under Pinochet, History of Chile, Salvador Allende, etc. I would say that Talk:Chilean coup of 1973 would be the best place to do it, because it seems to be the pivotal event. - Jmabel | Talk 05:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Parenthisis

I rewrote the first disputed paragraph, deleting paranthesis and deleting "indicted for treason" which is no where found in the text of the document cited. I replaced this unverifable claim with a verifiable source.Travb 11:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Support for Allende

Mike, the second source says: "Whatever the intended outcome from the kidnapping/assassination, it ultimately increased the desire of the politicians and most of the military to ensure that the constitutional process was followed. Although Valenzuela was in a powerful position and could have taken over, the mood had changed so dramatically that he did not make a move."

In addition, this article, Chile: Allende's Rise and Fall, says: "The Schneider incident infuriated Chileans and probably removed the last roadblock to Allende's election ... The Chilean military supported the regime and Allende was careful not to offend it." So the military, citizens, and politicians supported Allende after the assassination of Schneider.Vints 05:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So you are now conflating "supported the regime" with "supported Allende", eh wot? And what "regime", since Allende had yet to take office? (BTW, Mabry's superscript "5" doesn't indicate a source for his statement.) The desire of the Chilean military to avoid a coup at a time when a coup would be unpopular should not, any reasonable mind ought to conclude, be construed as being equivalent to supporting the intended target of the coup. I think these attempts to weasel in the erroneous asssumption that the Chilean military supported Allende are highly innappropriate. Now, you COULD write in support the constitutional process, or some such, and I wouldn't have any objection.--Mike18xx 07:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I equated "the regime" with the regime after the congressional election October 24, ie Allende's regime. To support the constitutional process and to support Allende is essentially the same.

I've yet to hear of anyone anywhere who's equated a "regime" to a political polity not yet in power. Your argument here is simply untenable -- You might as well maintain that since I don't want to strangle Hillary Clinton right now, (chiefly for the reason that I wouldn't be able to get away with it) why then I obviously must "support" her. Even after I've just snuffed her chief-of-staff. It's simply ludicrous.--Mike18xx 13:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole quote reads: "The Schneider incident infuriated Chileans and probably removed the last roadblock to Allende's election. Whom Congress on October 24th voted 135-35 to elect Allende, he became the majority-elected president of Chile. On November 4th, the first freely-elected Marxist president was inaugurated. Allende's commitment to create a Marxist socialist state by democratic means was not as unrealistic as his narrow victory in the popular elections or Popular Unity's minority position in Congress might suggest. There was broad support to expand the government's already large role in the economy, to acquire all of the assets of the copper companies, to redistribute land, and to break dependency upon foreigners. A large faction of the Christian Democratic party had advocated measures as radical as those of Popular Unity and the combined Christian Democratic-Popular Unity vote could be interpreted as a popular mandate. Popular Unity, although rent by ideological splits, was sufficiently unified in the beginning to make Allende's peaceful, democratic approach a possibility. The Chilean military supported the regime and Allende was careful not to offend it." Vints 12:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you were quote an even longer portion, you might possibly be able to get my objection above ("BTW, Mabry's superscript "5" doesn't indicate a source for his statement.") to scroll off the top of the page. Suffice to say, you've yet to find a credible outlayer opposed to the norm of a military grudging holding its nose and biding its time.--Mike18xx 13:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way I never wrote anything about CIA guns as you suggested in the edit summary.Vints 12:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that you wrote it; I suggested that you failed to correct a known error.--Mike18xx 13:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. In this sentence: "The Chilean military supported the regime and Allende was careful not to offend it." "the regime" refers to Allende's government and "it" refers to the military. Don Mabry first mentions Allende's inauguration, and then "the regime". The note you mention is not important. There are no requirements that sources also, in turn, have references for each statement.Vints 16:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Simply regurgitating your previous arguments in defiance of your critics' retorts is not a logically valid buttressing of your position. Unless you can find a credible source which specifically states "The military...supported Allende," I'm not going to buy these arguments -- because you'd think that in 36 years, somebody would have done so if it were true. The military refraining from instigating a coup on the spot does not qualify as "support". --Mike18xx 06:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If the Chilean military had supported Allende, then they would not have done a coup against him. Tazmaniacs 13:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The military supported Allende after Schneider was murdered in October 22, 1970. Before that incident some military groups participated in attempts to promote a coup. And there was a successful coup three years later, in 1973.Vints 16:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Regime here simply means the constitutional regime of Chile. Electing a new president is not customarily seen as a change of regime, much though that has become a common usage in the U.S. in the last five years. - Jmabel | Talk 23:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"Reforms" vs "policies"

Although I might understand why you substitute "land reform" by "land redistribution" (underscoring, as I read it, the fact that it was not a "real" land reform), the word "reform" in itself has nothing POV, and Allende was democratically elected to reform Chile. Everybody wants to reform, even neoliberals do it today! There's nothing POV in the word, only the way you read it. Cheers! Tazmaniacs 13:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Un, Taz; "reform" is a purely arbitrary euphemism for property redistribution. It's hard to find a better case of POV on Wiki.--Mike18xx 13:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. I don't know what the Webster says, but Wordreference gives many sense to this word. The only POV is your reading in it. Reform can be an euphemism for property redistribution, as well as today an euphemism for the Washington consensus policies implemented in the 1990s in South America. It has many different senses. Tazmaniacs 13:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I challange you to find any case of "land reform" which does not include some form of government swiping and redistributing stolen property.--Mike18xx 06:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Mike, when the various Eastern European governments redistributed publicly owned lands after the fall of the Communist regimes, who exactly do you feel they were stealing from? - Jmabel | Talk 23:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with those, but you're making a false-analogy if you're equating that to Allende's land- and mine-grabs. Furthermore, since "land reform" is a English term, but Chile is a Spanish-speaking nation, I see no credible reason for labeling Allende's policies as "reforms" due to usage.--Mike18xx 04:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may insert my two cents' worth of information here, I want to remind both of you that "Land Reform" or "Land Redistribution" or whatever you want to call it was already in the presidential program of Pedro Aguirre Cerda, back in the '30s. He never managed to get a law approved on the topic, but President Jorge Alessandri did in 1962 (the so-called "flowerpot reform"). The pace of reform sped up under Eduardo Frei Montalva, and Allende simply took it to the next level by means that turned out to be on the border of legality and caused untold violence on the countryside. He didn't start the process, he only exacerbated it beyond any logic. Mel Romero 09:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"First freely-elected Marxist blah-blah-blah"

Perhaps Vints should go over to the Nazism page and edit in a couple remarks reminding everyone, obsessively, that the Nazis were freely elected. Because, after all, that's soooo relevent and justifies dictatorship. Er, right.--Mike18xx 05:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Allende being the first freely-elected Marxist president is historically interesting, as most Marxists came to power through a revolution. As for your remark about the reduction in economic aid, the section name/heading is "United States opposition to Allende," not intervention. If that doesn't belong there, then neither does Allende's love life in the Soviet section. And why do you try to disguise your changes? Here you make some remarkable changes and deletions, not commented in the edit summary, and at the same time you rearrange the text so the history won't show the changes. The actual changes are made visible here. Most of them appears to be factually incorrect. I would call that vandalism. Vints 16:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Historically interesting" is your POV. (Leftists never find it "historically interesting" that the Nazis were elected.) (And Franklin D. Rossevelt is the first elected "Marxist" president, not Allende, if the "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" test is passed. Unsurprisingly, both presided over destroyed economies. Suffice to say that Allende was preceded by scores of elected property-redistributionist politicians; what's distinct about him is merely the overtness of his association with communist totalitarians.)--Mike18xx 01:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It was interesting that you did not reply to my main objection, these changes, visible here. Why did you try to disguise them? About Allende being the first freely-elected Marxist president, of course that is historically interesting. It's mentioned in several articles on Allende (even Jose Pinera mentions it). I doubt there has ever been a president or Marxist named "Rossevelt." Most people know that the Nazists were elected in Germany.

The hell they do. Go breathlessly announce it on the Nazism page, Vints, and see how far the fluffing gets.

But they were the only nazi government in history, so why write they were the "first freely-elected."

Come now; let's now discount the existance of all the other fascist crumbs right down to the present in the form of (elected!) "bullethead" Chavez.

About the $35,000, search the Hinchey report for "humanitarian". You also deleted a sentence in a direct quote in your last edits. Vints 05:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted a sentence with a CBS "round-up" source-quote (i.e., not a REAL source). You now have a better, original source (hooray!) I shall examine your latest addition to see if it accurately quotes the source, or remains curiously committed to the erroneous implication that the CIA wanted Schneider murder and was rewarding the group for that reason.--Mike18xx 10:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If the fact that he was the first elected Marxist president is mentioned in several reliable sources/articles (though I don't include Jose Pinera's to those), then Wikipedia can mention it.Vints 14:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If their not relevent enough to the main bio, I fail to see how they are more relevent here.--Mike18xx 22:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Elected Capitalist..." Jmabel queries in an edit commentary: "elected Marxist president"?? Do we call G.W. Bush the "elected capitalist president of the United States"??) Answer: George Bush isn't a capitalist, so it would be erroneous to label him one.--Mike18xx 04:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Since on the surface the claim that "George Bush isn't a capitalist" seems absurd, would you mind explaining yourself? - Jmabel | Talk 17:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Duh: George Bush is a *socialist*. Just because he isn't a member of the Democratic Party doesn't mean that he's not one.--Mike18xx 01:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Mike, this:

...the Church Committee observed: "The CIA attempted, directly, to foment a military coup in Chile. It passed three weapons to a group of Chilean officers who plotted a coup. However, those guns were returned. The group which killed Schneider apparently was not the same as the group which received CIA weapons." "The record shows that the kidnapping took the station by surprise and that the CIA did not have absolute knowledge of Schneider’s attackers," (and) "...the CIA and the White House did not want Schneider assassinated." "In November 1970 a member of the Viaux group (responsible for the Killing of Schneider) who avoided capture recontacted the Agency and requested financial assistance on behalf of the group. Although the Agency had no obligation to the group because it acted on its own, in an effort to keep the prior contact secret, maintain the good will of the group, and for humanitarian reasons, $35,000 was passed."

is not very well written. You begin with "the Church Committee observed", then you put together quotes from three different articles. In the first quote you also delete a sentence and change another (bold): The CIA attempted, directly, to foment a military coup in Chile. It passed three weapons to a group of Chilean officers who plotted a coup. Beginning with the kidnaping of Chilean Army Commander-in-Chief Rene Schneider. However, those guns were returned. The group which staged the abortive kidnap of Schneider, which resulted in his death, apparently was not the same as the group which received CIA weapons.[1]

You also managed to destroy the notes section.[2] Vints 08:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing those glaring oversights. Now then, could you do something about the absolutely hideous grammar (say in a long, slow, sepulchral voice, like a matinee movie announcer promoting a grade-Z horror flick, e.g., "S-n-a-k-e-s--o-n--a--p-l-a-n-e!") of the these following sentences, which you stubbornly *insist* upon preserving: Beginning with the kidnaping of Chilean Army Commander-in-Chief Rene Schneider. However, those guns were returned. The group which staged the abortive kidnap of Schneider, which resulted in his death, apparently was not the same as the group which received CIA weapons."...? My sore, aching eyeballs would surely appreciate it. Suggestion: Use the text I supplied.--Mike18xx 10:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The truckers' strike had of course economical impacts [3]: "The October strike, which began among small truckers in southern Chile and then spread to include large segments of the self-employed as well as employees, cost Chile $100 million, which it could ill afford, and radicalized the situation." Vints 16:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The "$100 million" figure seems suspiciously inflated and "rounded" for "consumption" purposes. Be that as it may, however, it is disingenuous to imply that the truckers strikes were causing severe damage to the economy when the currently was already inflating 140% per year, soon to be 500+% per year (if you think $100M represents "damage" to the economy of an entire country, compare it to the ruination of taking every single savings account and wad of bills under matresses in the entire country and slashing its buying power to only 29% of what it was a year ago. -- Truck owners don't strike when there's money to be made shipping produce; they strike when there's no money to be made because the "money" is hyperinflating fiat toilet-paper falling to bits before your eyes, and a contract to truck goods for a specified payout is worthless unless the trucks have warp-drive engines. The reason the truckers strike is made the "scape-goat" to blame for, rather than the consequence of, an already imploding economy, is entirely propagandistic -- socialists cannot handle the amply demonstrated historical fact that socialism destroys economies. So, there must always be scapegoats.--Mike18xx 04:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, despite having that source at your disposal, presumably for some time, I note your lack of interest in ever changing the CIA-name-dropping and "well-off sectors" class-warfare rhetoric previously (and perhaps reverted back) in the article to wording more resembling that in the source, which clearly details that "SMALL (emphasis mine) truckers struck because the government had decided to favor state-owned trucking and the small owners feared this policy would shut off their access to spare parts." Oh, but no, we can't have that--we need scapegoats! We need sinister schemes from Washington DC to explain the collapse of the Utopian "Marxist experiment" which "could not be allowed to succeed"! ...good grief...--Mike18xx 04:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The first things you write is your own POV or original research. Wikipedia must back all claims with reliable sources. Don't delete text which is verified by sources. Note also that there are several other references listed in this article. You should discuss in Talk before making major changes and deletions, and cite references for your claims. The article says the truckers' strike was indirectly financed/financially aided via the CIA, which is verified by the Church report. The truckers had their own reasons for the strike, but it was also backed by the opposition. Both points could be mentioned. The rest of your quote says: "That the 27-day strike was quickly joined by others threatened by the government was primarily the work of domestic opposition forces." Vints 06:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reasons to not mention that Allende was the first elected Marxist president. Several other articles do, and it's referenced. You suggest that student groups are not a well-off sector. So you mean it's the poor people in Chile that go to university? Previously you changed "some (mostly professional) unions" to "several (mostly professional) unions" and "some student groups" to "student groups" [4]. Explanation? Vints 10:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

References

Allende and Hyperinflation

1. 140% is not hyperinflation. 2. The citation calling it hyperinflation is not listed. References without the abilty to reference them are not reliable and not evaluatable. 3. Adding disputed tag until this nonsense - which was also spread to the hyperinflation page. is corrected

Stirling Newberry 08:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, it is not saying that 140% is hyperinflation, but that 508% is. Also, I gather that you are disputing a single sentence. Would it be acceptably to you to downgrade this to {{dubious}} after the particular sentence, which produces ^{(dubious assertion)} ? - Jmabel | Talk 17:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This is all hair-splitting akin to arguing that a rocket-sled straight to Hell ain't actually going to Hell -- despite the visible flames dead-ahead -- because the rockets haven't throttled up to full-power.--76.17.171.199 17:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Photo

It's widely knowed in Chile that the photo showed in the article, with the guy with a worker helmet and a neckerchief attacking a policeman, the guy isn't a UP supporter. The photo was altered to support dictatorial repression, and the guy was in fact a "Patria y Libertad; Fatherland and Liberty" clusher. The BRP "Ramona Parra Brigade; Brigada Ramona Parra" (what's painted in a very different light in the helmet) was a political organization of mural painters of the chilean Communist Party, very far from a urban fighters cell... The worker helmet and the WHITE neckerchief was in fact the "uniform" of "Patria y Libertad" conchs. I think the photo should be removed, or tagged accordingly.IsmaelPR 08:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Widely known? by whom? and what do you mean by "conchs" and "clusher"? The picture was not created during the Military Regime, but taken in 1972, during a pro-Allende march. You cannot just delete a picture because you believe that something doesn't agree with your personal POV. The picture is only representative of the state of chaos that existed then. Mel Romero 07:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No Mel. First of all, try to assume good faith. I'm not removing the photo because isn't my POV, I'm removing it because the photo version isn't reliable. When I say "widely knowed" refer to any one interested in politics who lived in Chile between 1972 and 1975. I KNOW the photo was taked in 1972. The photo was USED, after EDITING, during first years of dictatorship as propaganda. I'm tryng to get some reliable cites about this, while achieve that (sadly don't know photographer name) I'm just tryng to give other proof who at last demostrate the photo is dubious. Mainly:

• The guy attacking the police wears a worker helmet and a white neckerchief. The worker helmet and the white neckerchief was a recognized symbol on the nationalist movement "Patria y Libertad", never used by any leftist movement in Chile.
• The guy also used a nunchaku. This was also a extenden practice of "Patria y Libertad" bullyings.
• The BRP it's the "Brigada Ramona Parra", a mural painters organization. BRP was part of the chilean Communist Party, the most moderated of the UP who constantly press his allies to avoid fights with police or right movements. By the 70s, the chilan PC severely discouraged his militants wear jeans (an "imperialist symbol"), specially while using the party symbols or during public manifestations. The guy in the photo wear jeans.
• The BRP was a popular organization, formed by militants, but with a special role in the UP movilization. They weren't fighter groups hoped to clash against the police!!! The photo is edited using BRP name because BRP used sometimes a worker helmet during painting... You do not wear nunchakus and masks while painting murals for a public organization. BRP wasn't semi clandestine or nothing similar, but a propaganda front with the participation of famous painters and other artists.
• Finally... the black letters who read "BRP" simply have no light.
• I'm not removing the photo again. Hope you do it by your self, or anyone talk about the obvious reliability problem of the photo._IsmaelPR 17:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting analysis, but as someone who is interested in the politics of the time and was living in Chile during the period mentioned (albeit quite young), I remember clearly the impact of the first appeareance of the picture. Whether or how it was used afterwards does not alter its power to portray the spirit of the times. Also, I must dissagree on your apology of the BRP. Since these articles are supposed to be based on credible sources and not on "widely known" beliefs, I suggest you review the history of the Brigade on the historical archive of the PUNTO FINAL magazine which should, as being the official magazine of the MIR and the Communist Party, probably suffice as non-biased source. You can access it online at http://www.puntofinal.cl Mel Romero 09:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

---

"It's widely knowed in Chile that the photo showed in the article, with the guy with a worker helmet and a neckerchief attacking a policeman, the guy isn't a UP supporter. The photo was altered to support dictatorial repression, and the guy was in fact a Patria y Libertad"

Is this a JOKE?, I cant believe that someone would actually believe such nonsense! Not only he gives a lot unverifiable "facts" about the attacker claiming is was a Patria y Libertad militant, like use of "nunchakus" and "imperialist jeans" but also at the same time picturing the Ramona Parra brigades of the UP as "harmless painters". PLEASE. 190.47.240.22 (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Salvador Allende template.jpg

Image:Salvador Allende template.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"His presidency was ended"

Oh man, the passive voice sucks. Can someone think of a better way to phrase that? Or is that deliberately phrased not to 'spoil' the following sentence which lists the coups and other such things? Krupo 22:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Allende-Castro.jpg

Image:Allende-Castro.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

...military dictatorship under General Augusto Pinochet.

The military dictatorship was in fact a Junta conformed by the four armed forces of Chile, the Army, the Navy, the Air force and Carabineros de Chile (police force). Pinochet was named head of the Junta in 1973. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynotle (talk • contribs) 03:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

US effect on economy

Does anyone have any information on the amount of aid that was cut to Chile under Allende, and the possible effect on Chile's economy. Even a simple percentage of GDP would be a good step. There is a short sentence mentioning the reduction, but it doesn't go into any detail, and it's not mentioned in the Economics section at all. Also, although this would be harder to find and interpret, is there any information on more clandestine efforts to destabilize the Chilean economy? I've already lost the link, but someone linked to a page mentioning that Nixon was trying to get exactly that done, but it didn't mention what steps were actually taken. The only example I can think of is funding the striking truckers, but I don't really know much about that.Hisownspace (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

---

I don't think you are going to find any more examples of destabilization by the US on the chilean economy except for the cease of trading and the cut of aid to Chile, by the US government and other financial institutions, although that could be explained as well for Allende`s cease of payment of the national debt and the massive illegal nationalizations.

Granted that Nixon was furious with Allende and his socialist ideology, and the US did gave financial help to opposition parties on Chile and the anti-communist media. But other than that I haven't found any direct attempts of sabotage on the chilean economy under Allende other than Allende`s own failed socialist policies.

Also I haven't found any direct link between the truckers strikes and US money, although the US state department`s report states that some money to the opposition campaign MIGHT have found its way to the truckers.

My source is the US state department http://foia.state.gov/Reports/ChurchReport.asp190.47.240.22 (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Chile under Allende → Chile under the Unidad Popular government — Chile was not ruled by Allende, it was ruled by the Unidad Popular. Dentren | ^Talk 00:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Google reveals this term is quite widely used to represent this period. 76.66.194.128 (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Ridiculously soapy proposal with not even a claim to be based on policy. Andrewa (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose A distinction without a difference. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Chile was (and is) a presidential republic and the executive has direct authority not derived from a legislative mandate. Allende was head of UP but it was a fractious legislative coalition that didn't govern anything. — AjaxSmack 17:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Deaths under Allende Goverment

Why no mention of the police state under Allende, with far more deaths under him than under Pinochet by at least one order of magnitude? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.34.45 (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

How is it with those armed forces the congresional resolutions is quoted that Allende formed?91.156.75.23 (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Will take a look into the content, be remember Wikipedia has a policy of a neutral point of view and of using reputable non-biased sources. I you want to include abuses occurring during the Allende years by yourself go on, but do so using neutral wording. Dentren | ^Talk 14:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I am only interested in the subject and had not heard of this until I read this article.91.156.75.23 (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

All links you have provided are broken. Dentren | ^Talk 14:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I havent provided any links.91.156.75.23 (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Presidency of Salvador Allende. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060216175158/http://www.iglesia.cl/iglesiachile/2003/1973/aplenenu.html to http://www.iglesia.cl/iglesiachile/2003/1973/aplenenu.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100228185053/http://www.cepchile.cl/dms/lang_2/doc_1140.html to http://www.cepchile.cl/dms/lang_2/doc_1140.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070831070131/http://www.josepinera.com/pag/pag_tex_quiebredemoc_en.htm to http://www.josepinera.com/pag/pag_tex_quiebredemoc_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources 13/14

In the first paragraph of the "Economics" section, there appear to be two sources for the claim that the real average GDP experienced negative growth between 1971 and 1973. The first (source 13) links to nothing. The second links to a chart of GDP per capita, which in fact shows an increase during this time period. Is there something to account for this? At best the source is a measurement of a different metric than the article provides, and at worst the source contradicts the article. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dce4096 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)