On Allende, Pinochet, and the Cold War

I’m preparing my lecture on Chile and Pinochet and I have arrived at a conclusion that the Cold War had nothing to do with what happened. The Soviet Union disliked Allende as much as the CIA did. The USSR’s greatest hatred was always reserved not for capitalists, imperialists, or even fascists. No, the Soviet leadership hated the most those who dared to offer an alternative version of communism / socialism to the one practiced in the USSR. Allende, a politician who committed the unpardonable sin of getting elected democratically and who tried working within the democratic model, could never become acceptable to the Soviets. This is why the USSR refused to give him any help and rejected his pleas for assistance.

So if the US didn’t need to fear a rapprochement between Chile and USSR, why did it help the military coup to destroy democracy in Chile? I have an answer for you:

After Pinochet came to power, senior policymakers appeared reluctant to criticize human rights violations, taking to task US diplomats urging greater attention to the problem. US military assistance and sales grew significantly during the years of greatest human rights abuses.

Before you start huffing and puffing, I want to point out that this quote comes from the official version of events as accepted by the CIA. I got this statement from the CIA’s website.

The Cold War rhetoric was always a cover for financial dealings. Today, certain political forces are working hard to resuscitate this rhetoric. I wonder why they are doing it this time.

Rate this:

37 responses to “On Allende, Pinochet, and the Cold War”

Kyle

September 16, 2012

Not an expert at all, but from what I’ve read on it, the communists in Chile were planning to start a civil war in order to take power from Allende and install a communist dictatorship, which if successful, would have meant Chile would then have become allied with the Soviets.

Also, maybe the U.S. government didn’t understand the Soviet mindset at the time? One major debate that occurred during the Cold War about the Soviet Union, and which is still occurring today among certain historians who study it, was did the Soviet Union behave the way it did because they were communists or because they were Russians? (i.e. was their behavior communist behavior or just the historical behavior of Russians with a communist regime). If they were viewed as behaving as Russians, then the U.S. might not have interpreted that the Soviets were very against any form of communism that was different from their own.

LikeLike

bloggerclarissa

September 16, 2012

Sweet Jesus. Where do you find all this crap, seriously? The Communists in Chile were a tiny minority with no hope of starting a single street fight, let alone a civil war.

The ignorance is daunting. Now I’m seeing how crucial my lecture on this subject is if people are so grievously ignorant.

LikeLike

Reply
bloggerclarissa

September 16, 2012

People who participated in this “major debate” must have been severely brain-damaged to equate Soviet Communists with Russians. The Communist Party of the USSR consisted of representatives of dozens of ethnicities. Stalin was Georgian. So was Beria. Kaganovich, Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev were Jews. Among the five creators of the Soviet Communist party, only one was an ethnic Russian, at least in part. That was Lenin. Analyzing Soviet communism through the lens of ethnicity is extremely bizarre.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Kyle
  
  September 16, 2012
  
  “Sweet Jesus. Where do you find all this crap, seriously? The Communists in Chile were a tiny minority with no hope of starting a single street fight, let alone a civil war.
  
  The ignorance is daunting. Now I’m seeing how crucial my lecture on this subject is if people are so grievously ignorant.”
  
  My understanding of it is that the communists were ravaging the countryside, taking over property and farms, being guided by Cuban advisors. That is part of what led up to the coup. Look up the historian James Whelan and what he has written. He has spent many years living in Chile, learning about it, and researching its history.
  
  “People who participated in this “major debate” must have been severely brain-damaged to equate Soviet Communists with Russians. The Communist Party of the USSR consisted of representatives of dozens of ethnicities. Stalin was Georgian. So was Beria. Kaganovich, Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev were Jews. Among the five creators of the Soviet Communist party, only one was an ethnic Russian, at least in part. That was Lenin. Analyzing Soviet communism through the lens of ethnicity is extremely bizarre.”
  
  You make good points I think, but remember Russia was the central country of the USSR. It was a Russian empire, with Russia the master nation and its surrounding satellite nations that it held to it by force. Also remember that ethnicity and country are not the same thing. Russia itself is a country of multiple ethnicities for example. I am a bit confused about your saying that Kaganovich, Trotsky, Kamenev, and Zinoviev were Jews, as couldn’t they still be Russians and Jews at the same time (Russian Jews)?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    September 16, 2012
    
    ” Look up the historian James Whelan and what he has written.”
    
    – A guy who worked for the Moonie-owned The Washington Times? You cannot be serious. Is there something preventing your from consulting respectable sources instead of these crazed freakazoids? This Whelan guy is as much of a historian as I am a ballerina.
    
    ” It was a Russian empire, with Russia the master nation and its surrounding satellite nations that it held to it by force.”
    
    – According to this logic, you are English, Mexivans are Spanish and Algerians are French.
    
    “Also remember that ethnicity and country are not the same thing. Russia itself is a country of multiple ethnicities for example.”
    
    – I already told you that writing trivialities constitutes trolling.
    
    ” I am a bit confused about your saying that Kaganovich, Trotsky, Kamenev, and Zinoviev were Jews, as couldn’t they still be Russians and Jews at the same time (Russian Jews)”
    
    – Being a Russian-speaker doesn;t make anybody Russian, just like being an English speaker doesn’t make anybody English.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
2. Kyle
  
  September 16, 2012
  
  “- A guy who worked for the Moonie-owned The Washington Times? You cannot be serious. Is there something preventing your from consulting respectable sources instead of these crazed freakazoids? This Whelan guy is as much of a historian as I am a ballerina.”
  
  He worked for The Washington Times for two years and left because of the “Moonies” seizing control of the paper (according to him). He worked for many years as a journalist, doing a lot of work in Latin America, and has also served as a visiting professor at the University of Chile.
  
  “- According to this logic, you are English, Mexivans are Spanish and Algerians are French.”
  
  Not sure what you mean here. My point was that the Soviet empire was controlled by Russia.
  
  “- I already told you that writing trivialities constitutes trolling.”
  
  I agree that writing trivialities is trolling, but that’s not what I saw this as. You said: “Analyzing Soviet communism through the lens of ethnicity is extremely bizarre.” I was pointing out that if one questions whether the Soviet Union behaved the way it did due to Russians is not going by ethnicity but rather by nationality. For example, there are over 185 ethnic groups in Russia.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    September 16, 2012
    
    “He worked for The Washington Times for two years and left because of the “Moonies” seizing control of the paper (according to him)”
    
    – He is a quack whose only claim to fame was that he worked for a stupid tabloid-quality rag. Consult specialists if you want to know what happened.
    
    ” I was pointing out that if one questions whether the Soviet Union behaved the way it did due to Russians is not going by ethnicity but rather by nationality. For example, there are over 185 ethnic groups in Russia.”
    
    – Nationality is the synonym of ethnicity in a Russian-speaking context. You were the one who referenced some bizarre “major debate” as to whether “did the Soviet Union behave the way it did because they were communists or because they were Russians.” I’m pointing out to you that huge number of Soviet communists were not Russian. Stalin spoke Russian with a huge accent until the day he died.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
3. Kyle
  
  September 16, 2012
  
  “- He is a quack whose only claim to fame was that he worked for a stupid tabloid-quality rag. Consult specialists if you want to know what happened.”
  
  He is a specialist. Regarding the Times, he quit the publication when it became apparent what it was.
  
  “- Nationality is the synonym of ethnicity in a Russian-speaking context.”
  
  I see, that is something I didn’t know. Thankyou for the information.
  
  “You were the one who referenced some bizarre “major debate” as to whether “did the Soviet Union behave the way it did because they were communists or because they were Russians.” I’m pointing out to you that huge number of Soviet communists were not Russian. Stalin spoke Russian with a huge accent until the day he died.”
  
  OH HELL, well I realize I made a rather big mistake in my original post that might have given a totally wrong impression. I originally wrote:
  
  “One major debate that occurred during the Cold War about the Soviet Union, and which is still occurring today among certain historians who study it, was did the Soviet Union behave the way it did because they were communists or because they were Russians?”
  
  What I had meant to say was, “Did the Soviet Union behave the way it did because they were communists or because they were controlled by Russians.”
  
  I agree very much that plenty of Soviet communists weren’t Russian, as the Soviet Union itself of course wasn’t just Russia. I don’t know if that changes much by my original post gave the impression that I was saying that all Soviets were Russians, sorry about that.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    September 16, 2012
    
    “He is a specialist.”
    
    – If that’s your definition of a specialist, many things become very clear.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
4. Kyle
  
  September 16, 2012
  
  He spent thirteen years doing the research to write one of his books on Chile, “Out of the Ashes — Life, Death and Transfiguration of Democracy in Chile, 1833-1988.” He wrote a book about Allende and is writing a biography of Pinochet.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    September 16, 2012
    
    So? Being a compulsive author of idiotic writings does not make him a specialist in anything. I’m an academic and I only believe in expertise of qualified scholars, not some tabloid hacks. You are handing over your money to an ignorant hack. It seems a habit of yours.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
5. Kyle
  
  September 16, 2012
  
  How can you judge the quality of his writings if you haven’t read anything he’s written? Also, not sure what you mean by “habit.” Just because I cite an author here or there that you disagree with doesn’t make them a “hack.”
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    September 16, 2012
    
    I only trust peer-reviewed academic sources. It is my job to know where and how to find them. You are asking me why I don’t waste my time consulting “authors” who write garbage on toilet walls. Because life is too short for that.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
6. Kyle
  
  September 16, 2012
  
  “I only trust peer-reviewed academic sources. It is my job to know where and how to find them. You are asking me why I don’t waste my time consulting “authors” who write garbage on toilet walls. Because life is too short for that.”
  
  Actually, I agree with you on the peer-review part. I will have to look up how Mr. Whelan’s work is viewed among other historians. As I said, he was a visiting professor at the University of Chile, however I don’t know what of. Non-academics can produce some very good works though, for example Albert Camus wrote a work that really tore apart communism. No one paid attention to it though because he lacked the formal academic credentials. It wasn’t until Raymond Aron wrote his book “The Opium of the Intellectuals” that the communists had a real problem, as Aron had formal credentials.
  
  Also the book “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” by William Shirer is regarded as a great work of history, but Shirer was a journalist, not an academic historian.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply

September 16, 2012

It was the rightist bourgeoisie who were trying to start a civil war and instead staged the coup.

US did use fear of da Commies to justify a lot to the American public but in the case of Lat Am I think they mostly favor right wing governments because these tend to be better for US corporate rule.

LikeLike

bloggerclarissa

September 16, 2012

My lecture on the Pinochet will be a flop because, after all the sources I consulted, I still have no idea what to say about the extent of the US involvement in the situation. I watched the documentary La batalla de Chile. It is very enlightening but it has next to nothing on the US involvement.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Z
  
  September 16, 2012
  
  Part I does, if I remember right. But if you mean you are looking at the argument that there was no US involvement (Church Commission said there was no “smoking gun” if I remember right), I’d say it’s naive & disingenuous. But the coup also had a lot of Chilean support.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    September 16, 2012
    
    I’m trying to figure out whether the US involvement was decisive. At this point, I’m not sure to what extent it influenced the situation.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. Z
      
      September 16, 2012
      
      That is more complicated a question than you need to answer for this class, I think … and may not be the main question … although maybe you could ask Chilean observers from the time, or have students do this. I am not sure I would insist on there having been a single decisive factor, but I’m not a historian or a Chile expert.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. bloggerclarissa
        
        September 16, 2012
        
        Yes, I think I will limit myself to giving them a list of sources at the end of class and telling them that this is an issue where everybody should formulate their own opinions.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
2. Z
  
  September 16, 2012
  
  Why the emphasis on whether US involvement was decisive — why is that such an important question?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    September 16, 2012
    
    “Why the emphasis on whether US involvement was decisive — why is that such an important question?”
    
    – Because I know the students will ask and I need to be able to say something. This is a very inquisitive and involved bunch of students. I’m not a specialist in this area, so I freak out before these lectures. They have been successful so far, but it’s one thing for me to talk about the Dirty war in Argentina which I did last time and which I know by heart and it’s a very different thing to talk about Chile where my knowledge is not nearly as good.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. Z
      
      September 16, 2012
      
      So what do you tell them about US role in Argentina?
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. bloggerclarissa
        
        September 16, 2012
        
        Everything. 🙂 The financial support, the training for the milicos, the encouragement for the Junta. I gave them some quotes from Kissinger that left them speechless. That was a good class.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        Z
        
        September 16, 2012
        
        There was a lot of the same in Chile, SOA, etc.
        
        LikeLike

Benoni

September 16, 2012

“I wonder why they are doing it this time.”

Well, the Republicans are doing it because, as reactionaries, the more fear they whip up, the more votes they’ll get.

Communists do it because it’s the only thing that gets them any attention anymore.

LikeLike

Rob F

September 16, 2012

“No, the Soviet leadership hated the most those who dared to offer an alternative version of communism / socialism to the one practiced in the USSR.”

Out of curiosity, how similar do you consider this to what happened between the USSR and Yugoslavia under Tito? There are obviously significant differences (eg, IIRC, the Yugoslav Communist Party was expelled from the International, but Tito retained control of the YCP because, in part, he was an effective partisan in WW2).

LikeLike

bloggerclarissa

September 16, 2012

That’s the perfect example of what I’m talking about, Rob F. Stalin hated Tito with a hatred he never had for Hitler. It was precisely this alternative version of socialism that Stalin so detested. And this was also the reason why all the different schools of thought were destroyed so viciously during th Stalinist purges.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Rob F
  
  September 16, 2012
  
  And the Sino-Soviet split would be another example, even though it was after Stalin’s death.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    September 16, 2012
    
    “And the Sino-Soviet split would be another example, even though it was after Stalin’s death.”
    
    – Absolutely!
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply

Anonymous

September 16, 2012

Chile is not my area. But my adviser in college was a Bolivian who grew up in Chile and worked for the Allende government. As I recall, the nationalization of US owned co copper mines was a big factor in ticking off the US government – much like trying to buy back land from United Fruit Co sparked involvement in Guatemala.

LikeLike

September 16, 2012

Whelan is not a historian, he is a journalist, and a tendentious one.

LikeLike

September 16, 2012

And @Kyle — in those courses on bibliography, you consider distinctions between scholarly and popular sources, even when said popular sources also depend upon “research,” etc. This is why someone like Whelan is not just someone one *disagrees* with.

LikeLike

bloggerclarissa

September 17, 2012

OK, I just gave the lecture and it went very well. It turned out I have 2 Chile enthusiasts in the class who have read a lot on the dictatorship and the involvement of the CIA and they were eager to share this information with the students. It’s great to see students who are so involved and interested.

LikeLike