This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dear VV, you insist in factual errors, the US gove was not only interested in to influence the politics of the government of Chile but in to change the government. Also if you think that the CIA stop to promote the coup, please state your source, because this is against the formal instruction to the CIA.
Please don't work to make an encyclopedia a laughing stock Milton 09:20, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
Sorry VV. but in history exists what is called "primary documents" (like the documents released by the Chile declassification program, and secondary documents, that make comments to them. this is the category of your source, that start to said that is the definitive history do the Chilean participation, but in any case, bearing this in mind, your source said :
"""" After the coup in September 1973, CIA suspended new covert action funding
See funding was finished after the Pinochet coup (in 1973), not as you said, after that kidnapping fiasco.
""""""""After Allende’s election and before his inauguration, the CIA, under 40 Committee direction, made an effort—in coordination with the Embassy in Santiago—to encourage Chilean businesses to carry out a program of economic disruption.
This is not exactly information gathering !!! What is not said int his short report that this economics disruption includes financial support for a mayor truck-owners strike, that create havoc in the economy for lack of transportation. And move ones step further to make a coup possible,as was ordened by nixon "Make the economy scream" instruction. But, as can see in the previus extract, covert accion funding was suspended only after the 1973 coup !
"""""" In November 1970 a member of the Viaux group 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.
Sorry but if you give money to some people that is running from the law your are called a accomplice !!! I never said that CIA given money or guns to any specific group that was working in this terrorist act!!
As you can see, interesting information from an agency report that was busy trying to hide his hand !
Milton 09:28, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Dear """" After the coup in September 1973, CIA suspended new covert action funding
It means that until 73 the cia was financing covert accion ........please stop reverting an article to replace it with pov Milton 11:50, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Revert to version agreeded in talk page of state terrorism. Of course it can be developed further, but it is against ettiquette to do a full replace by a new text. Milton 11:50, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
Sorry, it looks more that you replace a page not that you rewrote. As a said, Of course that the page need to be open to developments, but To revert for no reason at all is a blatant violation of Wiki etiquette and I will not stand for it. Stop trying to destroy this page Milton 13:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I sugegst a Compromise, make a single change and we will discuss and make progress, to move on to make the next change and so on. Milton 13:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
Other's pages suggest the following approach:
See VV? your posibilities of compromise are not the best in the area!!!! Milton
I will disect the original article to promote conversation and development
The U.S. Intervention in Chile (It is recomended to star the article with the article name)
was a policy that sought the overthrow the democratically elected Chilean president Salvador Allende
(What was about the article, a factual statment, the recomendation is to let the facts speak by itself. !!)
promoting and supporting a series of activities some oriented to terrorize the population.
(another factual statment, it needs backup, this is why the next quote was introduced )
The formal instruction to the CIA base in Chile was “It is a firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrow by a coup. It will be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 of October, but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure towards this end, utilizing every appropriated resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that USG and American hand be well hidden…”
(More facts)
The first documented action in this regard was the kidnapping of René Schneider,
(it is the firts documented action afther the formal instruction... a new fact)
the army commander (because he was a constitutionalist, i.e. he would not support a coup)
(A not disputed fact)
. The CIA in Santiago kept contact with two groups inside the military and provided guns and money for this action.
(maybe it is wrong, I remember that VV said that was three groups, also the paragrap dont said to what group was the support, needs further work)
One group succeeded in a an action that resulted in the killing of the Army commander on the spot. (A fact, again)
The result was just the opposite that his promoters expected, instead of terrorizing the population, the citizens and the military rallied behind the just elected Allende.
(more fact)
Failing this action, President Richard Nixon gave orders to Richard Helms, at this time the CIA Director, to implement economics sanctions that resulted in extended suffering to the general population.
(more facts, suported by the refenreces)
Some people think that the resulting instability created the conditions for the successful military coup against Allende, in 1973. (An opinion, it needs to be balanced with the opinions that some sustain that the resulting inestability was not a significant factor in making the coup possible)
Where is the emotive stuff, not suported by the facts ??? I don't see it, please help me
Milton 09:44, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
VV there is no My version or Your version in Wikipedia !! Good that you found a error. Your mention that in the case of Schneider's kidnapping was not to "terrorize the population= Why do not just correct it ____????????? Because there is not such claimin the article !!!!!!! Milton 13:10, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC) And the "Formatting" losse a lot of key elements !!!
Why do not work from the original version one step at a time ? Milton 13:10, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I read a quote from Kissinger that ordered the Viaux plot "turned off" on October 15th. The bungled kidnapping happened on October 22nd.
I think that should be mentioned somewhere in the article, along with other information about whether or not the CIA continued to have close contacts with these guys that were involved, and whether or not the weapons they used were provided by the CIA. Supreme Moolah of Iran 07:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The killing of the Chief Commander of the Army I agree that the intention was kidnapping the chief commander, and I modify my suggestion to reflect it, But the fact is that is was killed on the spot, and the people rallied behind the Marxist Allende for his killing, the intention of Kidnapping appears months later, when the team was captured. In practical terms, the important national political impact was for his killing, because at this time nobody was aware that the intention was to kidnap it.
Also I suggest that the title needs to reflect that the action was Against the chief commander of the army, this is the important point, The fact that is name was Schneider is to be mentioned in the paragraph. The Chilean army have a lots of commanders, and if we reefer to Schneider only as a Commander we risk to give the erroneous perception that he was in a low key position. ~~
Why does this article make no mention of the US' dumping strategic copper reserves on the market, leading to the rapid price declines that crippled Chile's economy. This is backed up by documents released during the clinton administration under the FOIA. Combined with the instant cut-off of foreign aid, is it any wonder that the Chilean economy collapsed? Blaming this all on Allende in this article, and the article about Allende, seems at best absent minded. -- jacobolus (t) 10:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I removed:
"The Chamber of Deputies of Chile's Resolution of August 22, 1973 sanctioned Allende's military removal by passage (81 to 47 votes) of its "Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy", and weeks later on September 11, 1973, Chile's armed forces led by Chief Commander Augusto Pinochet, ousted Allende from power. (Pinochet subsequently refrained from relenquishing martial law, and Chile became a military junta under him at that point.)
Because I Think that the Chilean Chamber of deputies political resolution was a sovereign act by such chamber, and NOT a part of the US Intervention in Chile —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye ( talk • contribs)
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.
Signed: Travb 10:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The Chamber of Deputies of Chile Resolution of August 22, 1973 sanctioned Allende's military removal by passage (81 to 47 votes) of its "Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy", and weeks later on September 11, 1973, Chile's armed forces led by Chief Commander Augusto Pinochet, ousted Allende from power. (Pinochet subsequently refrained from relenquishing martial law, and Chile became a military junta under him at that point.)
to
The Chamber of Deputies of Chile condemned Allende by passage of the Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy. Less than a month later on September 11, 1973, Chief Commander Augusto Pinochet, ousted Allende from power.
The
Chamber of Deputies of Chile Resolution of August 22, 1973 did not "sanction Allende's military removal". Please quote from the document. Please do not add unverifiable historical interpretations of the event. Please verify all of your edits. The best edits are ones which quote the document verbatium.
Travb
03:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I found the quote:
First: To present the President of the Republic, Ministers of State, and members of the Armed and Police Forces with the grave breakdown of the legal and constitutional order of the Republic, the facts and circumstances of which are detailed in sections 5 to 12 above;
Second: To likewise point out that by virtue of their responsibilities, their pledge of allegiance to the Constitution and to the laws they have served, and in the case of the ministers, by virtue of the nature of the institutions of which they are high-ranking officials and of Him whose name they invoked upon taking office, it is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law and ensuring the constitutional order of our Nation and the essential underpinnings of democratic coexistence among Chileans;
I was wrong, I will edit the page quoting this text. Travb 03:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph that begins "The Chamber of Deputies of Chile condemned Allende…": as far as I know, the resolution, while receiving the vote of the majority of the Chamber, fell short of the two-thirds that would have given it legal force. If I'm correct, the article should say this if it discusses the resolution at all. If I'm wrong, would someone please show me a citation to the contrary? This is an area in which I am moderately well-read, but not expert. - Jmabel | Talk 04:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I see that this still hasn't been addressed. We have a half-assed and potentially misleading passage in the lead, and it isn't particularly on-topic (that is, it has no specific relation to United States intervention in Chile). We have s somewhat better handling of this at Salvador Allende ("the Chamber of Deputies (with the Christian Democrats now firmly uniting with the National Party) accused Allende's government of unconstitutional acts and called on the military ministers to assure the constitutional order") and a pretty decent, lengthy discussion of the resolution and Allende's response at [Chilean coup of 1973]; remarkably, the latter is not even linked from the lead as it stands.
I'll give at least seven more days for someone else to rewrite this more evenhandedly, but if it is not sorted out by then, I will simply remove the matter of the Chamber's resolution from the lead, on the basis that it is somewhat off-topic. - Jmabel | Talk 00:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
No mention of ITT? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.24.227.28 ( talk • contribs) 31 May 2006.
Please cease this appalling vandalism which includes:
CJK 01:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The wikisource is about a resolution which has absolutely nothing to do with U.S. intervention in Chile. The resolution was an all-Chilean affair. CJK 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Declassified Documents Relating to the Military Coup, September 11, 1973]. Tazmaniacs 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding that source, it is misleading as it implies that the coup stuff was done in 1964 while the link addresses 1970. CJK 01:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The Marxist presidential candidate Salvador Allende was a top contender in the 1964 election, and the US, through the CIA, spent millions campaigning against him, mostly through radio and print advertising. Covert operations were also ordered to promote a military coup and undermine Allende's government [1].
The covert operations to promote a coup cited in the link were in 1970, not 1964 which is implied by "also". CJK 01:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
But why delete the source? See Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes#Deleting... Tazmaniacs 16:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Bertilvidet and Tazmaniacs, what part of your source says that Kissinger in fact turned the 1970 coup off? I couldn't find anything. The article I cited [5], Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders, says on page 246-254 that "the testimony given to the Committee by Henry Kissinger and General Haig conflicts with that given by CIA officials." Kissinger and Haig said the coup was turned off October 15. CIA officials said that "they operated before and after October 15 with knowledge and approval of the White House." In addition, CIA delivered weapons to a group of kidnap plotters October 22. Vints 06:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
References
The following has been deleted from this page in the past couple of months:
Once Allende was in office, the US, led by Nixon, who stated his fear that Chile could become "another
Cuba", initiated plans to work with insurgent elements within Chile to overthrow Allende in a
coup.
The US began implementing economic sanctions against Chile to encourage Allende's resignation, his overthrow, or his defeat in the impending election of 1976.
The Chamber of Deputies of Chile condemned Allende by passage of the Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy, the declaration stated that "it is (the Armed and Police Forces) duty to put an immediate end to all situations...that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law." Less than a month later on September 11, 1973, Chief Commander Augusto Pinochet, ousted Allende from power.
Signed: Travb ( talk) 07:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Based in part on some recent discussion at Talk:Chilean coup of 1973#Protection: I believe that the title of this article more-or-less forces a one-sided article. I would suggest moving to one of the following:
I'd be quite open to other suggestions, but "intervention" suggests that the article will only deal with what at least borders on illicit, and will not contextualize it. - Jmabel | Talk 00:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean, Jmabel? I don't see how "intervention" necessarily means something "illicit," and greater context can always be found in other articles. There are many pages in Wikipedia exclusively devoted to the real or alleged crimes or human rights abuses of various groups that actually do, with their title and subject, suggest that the articles "deal with what at least borders on illicit," and I've never seen those articles summarily eliminated from existence because of that.
As in every Wikipedia article, illicit actions of an actor can be contextualized with writing in the article. If you feel the US intervention in Chile has been unfairly contextualized you, as you know, are free to add material to the article to contextualize it. -- MarkB2 19:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I would have to agree with the previous statement, since US-Chilean Relations seems to have a more passive connotation. It seems that the title should be used solely for a section or topic which involves past or current economic relations between Chile and the US or similar topics. There is enough information to make this a separate article and there both sides of the argument available. At present there is a consensus about the US intervention in Chile from both sides. This not only includes the recently declassified CIA documents, but a near admission of guilt from the previous Secretary of State Colin Powell who stated that "[the Chilean coup] is not a part of American history we are proud of". for more info see: "The Pinochet File" by Peter Kornbluh or simply google CIA declassified documents on the topic or "Operation Condor." since these documents are now fully available to the general public. So there should be no question that US intervention in Chile is a two-sided statement. Caespinoza 01:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Cespinoza
Maybe someone could better explain the strange sounding "Chile, more than any of its South American neighbors, had an extensive democratic tradition dating back to the early 1930s, and even before. Because of this, it is difficult to gauge how successful CIA tactics were in swaying voters." I have a hard time understanding the "Because". Does this mean that the US try to pay voters to change vote, and that because of democratic tradition, this would be difficult? But, apart of asking if you really think that so many million dollars were there only to "buy votes" (to whom? workers?) and not for other propaganda operations, how do you know it was employed this way? I find it very strange, and it almost seems to me a paradoxical defense of US intervention, in the style: "yes, we did spend money, but it was no use anyway". I hope for some clear reason (which should be included in the article itself, not only debated here). Cheers! Tazmaniacs 05:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Although this article is generally good, it's permeated by sentences like this: "Regarding Pinochet's rise to power, the CIA undertook a comprehensive analysis of its records and individual memoirs as well as conducting interviews with former agents, and concluded in a report issued in 2000 that the CIA "did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency." [3]
Oh, well, that makes me feel better. The CIA investigated itself and concluded it did nothing wrong. Whew!
Does anyone have some reputable independent sources? MarkB2 07:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned in a previous edit, that there is a relatively good source available called "The Pinochet File" by Peter Kornbluh. It is an extensive look at the US involvement in the Chilean Coup. It uses primarily the declassified CIA documents which are available to anyone. Since these documents come directly from the perpetrators there is no reason to believe that it is propaganda from "the other side" of the argument. The CIA documents themselves are available to anyone on-line. I also heard that the book is now available for free in the form of an ebook, but I haven't looked for it myself (since I bought a copy a few years before). I am not sure if it supports all the claims purported by some, but it definitely substantiates many of the more heinous actions. Caespinoza 02:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Caespinoza
Will an article be created on the KGB as well? Maybe it is better to start an article foreign intervention in Chile? Intangible2.0 00:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:PinochetKissinger.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 02:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should really state that there is a difference between the US trying to influence elections and comandeering a Chilean coup. Writers of the time, especially four Marxist writers that I will soon post all indicate that the Coup itseld was PURELY Chilean and mastered only by Pinochet and his inner circle. The only thing you can even blame the US was influencing elections which later influenced the turn of events that LED to the Coup. Remember that Cuba and the Soviet Union were likewise funneling money into Chile and into Allende's campaign. After the US cut off aid, Sweden and other nations INCREASED their aid to Chile. There is no mention of Allende's dismantling of the Constitution. His unconstitutinal confiscation of Chilean farms, the opposition marches to Allende (March of Pots), etc. The Church Commission Report is barely a blip on here. It seems that it doesnt fit into the bias of this article. SHAM of an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.203.139 ( talk) 17:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, you're forgetting to mention that it was the CIA along with the business community that made the economy scream. Allende was taken to task in an obvious example of class warfare. The CIA and the business elites orchestrated a "scorched earth" policy that pitted Allende's policy against business interest in Chile. The Church Committee, if you even bothered to read it, goes into detail how they colluded to make this happen. You're wrong! The Article is too bias to let he CIA off the hook. How come you people never start off with the premise that a foreign nation is manipulating the economic and political affairs of another nation? If you guys cared about democracy at all, you wouldn't have tried to instigate a coup against a democratically elected leader. Hypocrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.220.186 ( talk) 22:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
"The collection of 1,100 documents dealt with the years leading up to the military coup. One of these documents establishes that U.S. military aid to the Chilean armed forces was raised dramatically between the coming to power of Allende in 1970, when it amounted to US$800,000 annually, to US$10.9 million in 1972."
I dont undertand this statement, was this money delivered to Allende`s goverment or directly to the military commanders? Was it just money or military hardware? Is there any source about what happened with that money? Agrofelipe ( talk) 08:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You deleted a lot of information and re-introduced an inaccuracy, which is unsourced. You also put in your unsourced POV, which is not allowed. You denied it last time but its apparent that you are wikistalking: following me to articles and reverting my edits. I suggest you stop. Giovanni33 ( talk) 04:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
To avoid future edit warring here some reasons why this edit is not acceptable to me.
Strong POV language and not backed by source. It is argued or suggested by many historians and journalists that anticommunism wasn't the only motive for U.S. intervention.
The sentence above is backed by a reputable and reliable source. I see no justified reason for its deletion.
This section is controversial but a complete deletion is not acceptable. Frederick H. Gareau and Thomas Wright are notable scholars and the section is sufficiently sourced. If there is an issue with NPOV minor changes in the section should do the job after being discussed on the talk page. Neptun88 ( talk) 14:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I knew that this is a controversial subject but I would have never imagined that I would be welcomed with so many allegations after just - what was it? - 9 edits as a registered user. Still, I have not given up hope for a constructive discussion yet.-- Neptun88 ( talk) 17:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
"Strong POV language and not backed by source. It is argued or suggested by many historians and journalists that anticommunism wasn't the only motive for U.S. intervention."
Anti-communism and opposition to the spread of Soviet Socialism and Marxism were the main motives for the US support to pro-democracy groups that opposed Allende`s socialist regime in Chile, all other motives generated from it.
Besides what are these historians and journalists you talk about? Agrofelipe ( talk) 18:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
References
At the start of the article said that has been suggested that this article needs to be merger with CIA intervention….
First I don’t see such suggestion in this page…. Where is such suggestion being made???
Also I think that is wrong, because CIA intervention is only a part of the intervention…. Not the full thing. The actual title presents this broader perspective.
Milton ( talk) 15:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
"Track I" was a State Department initiative designed to thwart Allende by subverting Chilean elected officials within the bounds of the Chilean constitution and excluded the CIA."
How does that work? How does a foreign nation subvert an elected official from another nation within the bounds of that nation's Constitution? You gotta love the language the CIA uses to cover their own behinds. They subverted the democratic process every step of the way in Chile and somehow we're supposed to take the Agency's word that they're "securing democracy worldwide"? Laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.220.186 ( talk) 21:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
This article doesn't even begin to scratch the surface on how the CIA made plans with the business community in Chile to make the economy scream. Th Church Committee report alone has tons of info on this subject. Also, how the CIA manipulated the media, staged phony strikes, etc. And this is just what the CIA has admitted to. C'mon people the CIA did way more than whats written in this article. They made that country ripe for a Coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.220.186 ( talk) 21:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I have substantially re-written the section about the 1973 coup. I believe that the section was misleading in parts and in others factually incorrect, after checking the footnotes attached to the article.
Many of the footnotes cited declassified documents as evidence that the CIA or other parts of the US government brought about the 1973 coup. However, these actually pertain to the 1970 botched coup attempt.
I also removed the section "Nonetheless, this is contradicted by the declassified documents involving the CIA, in which covert operatives were inserted in Chile, in order to prevent a Marxist government from arising and subsequent propagandist operations which were designed to push Chilean president Eduardo Frei to support "a military coup which would prevent Allende from taking office on 3 November." [1] [2]" because this pertains entirely to the 1970 botched coup attempt, which is detailed in the main article in the section 'Allende Presidency: Track II'. If valid, it should be re-inserted in that section, and not the one about the 1973 coup.
I also deleted a series of quotes because I thought they were trivial and added nothing to the section. Most of them related to the botched 1970 coup.
I have also included new sources, including another of Henry Kissinger's transcripted phone calls and a national security decision memorandum. Hopefully people will appreciate the changes, but please before simply reverting them, discuss them here! -- yocto barryc ⁂ ☎ 02:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
References
The version of text I am modifying, says:
However, it was without doubt a major vindication for the Republican administration. Conrad Black, in his work "Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full", notes:
After more than thirty years, no evidence has come to light in either country that the United States played a direct role in the overthrow of the Allende government, but it was certainly a geopolitical bonanza for the United States, as Allende was cavorting with Castro with a particularly irritating relish.[28]
...and...
There is no evidence that the U.S. instigated or provided material support to Pinochet's successful coup in 1973, but the Nixon administration was undoubtedly pleased with the outcome; Nixon had spoken with disappointment about the failed coup earlier that year.
However, Kornbluh, Weiner, and Hitchens all argue the opposite and that controversy was not fairly presented here. The changes I am making present the controversy. Notice that I do not remove what Conrad Black says, although I believe he is incorrect. Regardless, we are supposed to report the controversies and not argue them amongst ourselves.
The changes I make have only added balance by showing the other authors' arguments. I removed the claim "There is no evidence..." as there is plenty of evidence that the US played a key role. A more fair claim would be that it is controversial. Currently this section is already heavily weighted to implying the US took a far more passive role than it did. What I add serves to balance this section out more towards NPOV.
Veritas Aeterna ( talk) 06:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
User:TheTimesAreAChanging, I'm calling you out for willfully misrepresenting two sources here. You inserted "Joaquin Fermandois criticized Kornbluh's "black and white" and "North American centered conception of world affairs", noting that a variety of internal and external factors, including covert actions by Cuba and the Soviet Union (which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars[33]), also played a role and that a careful reading of the documentary record reveals the CIA was largely "impotent"" But nowhere in the two sources (yes, I read them) is a mention of action by Cuba and the USSR that contributed to the coup, and definitely not of the "hundreds of thousands of dollars" of "cost." JF says that Cuba and the Soviets supported the Marxists; he also says that the US and the CIA funneled money to the opposition, and that this could have been "decisive". Ergo he contradicts NOTHING that Winn says, and supports a much more nuanced view than you claim he "supports." Withdraw the source, or modify its wording. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 06:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
United States intervention in Chile. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on United States intervention in Chile. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The section has this sentence:
A subsequent September 2000 report from the CIA, using declassified documents related to the military coup, found that the CIA "probably appeared to condone" the 1973 coup, but that there was "no evidence" that the US actually participated in it.
The source on this claim is missing but is vital to this section of the article. If somebody has a source somewhere that says this you should replace this dead one that exists. Otherwise it looks like whoever put this here was just bullshitting.
Thanks, ― TaltosKieron Talk 21:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
No way the lede should be this short and this vague for an article this long. natemup ( talk) 02:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dear VV, you insist in factual errors, the US gove was not only interested in to influence the politics of the government of Chile but in to change the government. Also if you think that the CIA stop to promote the coup, please state your source, because this is against the formal instruction to the CIA.
Please don't work to make an encyclopedia a laughing stock Milton 09:20, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
Sorry VV. but in history exists what is called "primary documents" (like the documents released by the Chile declassification program, and secondary documents, that make comments to them. this is the category of your source, that start to said that is the definitive history do the Chilean participation, but in any case, bearing this in mind, your source said :
"""" After the coup in September 1973, CIA suspended new covert action funding
See funding was finished after the Pinochet coup (in 1973), not as you said, after that kidnapping fiasco.
""""""""After Allende’s election and before his inauguration, the CIA, under 40 Committee direction, made an effort—in coordination with the Embassy in Santiago—to encourage Chilean businesses to carry out a program of economic disruption.
This is not exactly information gathering !!! What is not said int his short report that this economics disruption includes financial support for a mayor truck-owners strike, that create havoc in the economy for lack of transportation. And move ones step further to make a coup possible,as was ordened by nixon "Make the economy scream" instruction. But, as can see in the previus extract, covert accion funding was suspended only after the 1973 coup !
"""""" In November 1970 a member of the Viaux group 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.
Sorry but if you give money to some people that is running from the law your are called a accomplice !!! I never said that CIA given money or guns to any specific group that was working in this terrorist act!!
As you can see, interesting information from an agency report that was busy trying to hide his hand !
Milton 09:28, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Dear """" After the coup in September 1973, CIA suspended new covert action funding
It means that until 73 the cia was financing covert accion ........please stop reverting an article to replace it with pov Milton 11:50, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Revert to version agreeded in talk page of state terrorism. Of course it can be developed further, but it is against ettiquette to do a full replace by a new text. Milton 11:50, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
Sorry, it looks more that you replace a page not that you rewrote. As a said, Of course that the page need to be open to developments, but To revert for no reason at all is a blatant violation of Wiki etiquette and I will not stand for it. Stop trying to destroy this page Milton 13:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I sugegst a Compromise, make a single change and we will discuss and make progress, to move on to make the next change and so on. Milton 13:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
Other's pages suggest the following approach:
See VV? your posibilities of compromise are not the best in the area!!!! Milton
I will disect the original article to promote conversation and development
The U.S. Intervention in Chile (It is recomended to star the article with the article name)
was a policy that sought the overthrow the democratically elected Chilean president Salvador Allende
(What was about the article, a factual statment, the recomendation is to let the facts speak by itself. !!)
promoting and supporting a series of activities some oriented to terrorize the population.
(another factual statment, it needs backup, this is why the next quote was introduced )
The formal instruction to the CIA base in Chile was “It is a firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrow by a coup. It will be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 of October, but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure towards this end, utilizing every appropriated resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that USG and American hand be well hidden…”
(More facts)
The first documented action in this regard was the kidnapping of René Schneider,
(it is the firts documented action afther the formal instruction... a new fact)
the army commander (because he was a constitutionalist, i.e. he would not support a coup)
(A not disputed fact)
. The CIA in Santiago kept contact with two groups inside the military and provided guns and money for this action.
(maybe it is wrong, I remember that VV said that was three groups, also the paragrap dont said to what group was the support, needs further work)
One group succeeded in a an action that resulted in the killing of the Army commander on the spot. (A fact, again)
The result was just the opposite that his promoters expected, instead of terrorizing the population, the citizens and the military rallied behind the just elected Allende.
(more fact)
Failing this action, President Richard Nixon gave orders to Richard Helms, at this time the CIA Director, to implement economics sanctions that resulted in extended suffering to the general population.
(more facts, suported by the refenreces)
Some people think that the resulting instability created the conditions for the successful military coup against Allende, in 1973. (An opinion, it needs to be balanced with the opinions that some sustain that the resulting inestability was not a significant factor in making the coup possible)
Where is the emotive stuff, not suported by the facts ??? I don't see it, please help me
Milton 09:44, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
VV there is no My version or Your version in Wikipedia !! Good that you found a error. Your mention that in the case of Schneider's kidnapping was not to "terrorize the population= Why do not just correct it ____????????? Because there is not such claimin the article !!!!!!! Milton 13:10, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC) And the "Formatting" losse a lot of key elements !!!
Why do not work from the original version one step at a time ? Milton 13:10, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I read a quote from Kissinger that ordered the Viaux plot "turned off" on October 15th. The bungled kidnapping happened on October 22nd.
I think that should be mentioned somewhere in the article, along with other information about whether or not the CIA continued to have close contacts with these guys that were involved, and whether or not the weapons they used were provided by the CIA. Supreme Moolah of Iran 07:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The killing of the Chief Commander of the Army I agree that the intention was kidnapping the chief commander, and I modify my suggestion to reflect it, But the fact is that is was killed on the spot, and the people rallied behind the Marxist Allende for his killing, the intention of Kidnapping appears months later, when the team was captured. In practical terms, the important national political impact was for his killing, because at this time nobody was aware that the intention was to kidnap it.
Also I suggest that the title needs to reflect that the action was Against the chief commander of the army, this is the important point, The fact that is name was Schneider is to be mentioned in the paragraph. The Chilean army have a lots of commanders, and if we reefer to Schneider only as a Commander we risk to give the erroneous perception that he was in a low key position. ~~
Why does this article make no mention of the US' dumping strategic copper reserves on the market, leading to the rapid price declines that crippled Chile's economy. This is backed up by documents released during the clinton administration under the FOIA. Combined with the instant cut-off of foreign aid, is it any wonder that the Chilean economy collapsed? Blaming this all on Allende in this article, and the article about Allende, seems at best absent minded. -- jacobolus (t) 10:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I removed:
"The Chamber of Deputies of Chile's Resolution of August 22, 1973 sanctioned Allende's military removal by passage (81 to 47 votes) of its "Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy", and weeks later on September 11, 1973, Chile's armed forces led by Chief Commander Augusto Pinochet, ousted Allende from power. (Pinochet subsequently refrained from relenquishing martial law, and Chile became a military junta under him at that point.)
Because I Think that the Chilean Chamber of deputies political resolution was a sovereign act by such chamber, and NOT a part of the US Intervention in Chile —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye ( talk • contribs)
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.
Signed: Travb 10:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The Chamber of Deputies of Chile Resolution of August 22, 1973 sanctioned Allende's military removal by passage (81 to 47 votes) of its "Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy", and weeks later on September 11, 1973, Chile's armed forces led by Chief Commander Augusto Pinochet, ousted Allende from power. (Pinochet subsequently refrained from relenquishing martial law, and Chile became a military junta under him at that point.)
to
The Chamber of Deputies of Chile condemned Allende by passage of the Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy. Less than a month later on September 11, 1973, Chief Commander Augusto Pinochet, ousted Allende from power.
The
Chamber of Deputies of Chile Resolution of August 22, 1973 did not "sanction Allende's military removal". Please quote from the document. Please do not add unverifiable historical interpretations of the event. Please verify all of your edits. The best edits are ones which quote the document verbatium.
Travb
03:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I found the quote:
First: To present the President of the Republic, Ministers of State, and members of the Armed and Police Forces with the grave breakdown of the legal and constitutional order of the Republic, the facts and circumstances of which are detailed in sections 5 to 12 above;
Second: To likewise point out that by virtue of their responsibilities, their pledge of allegiance to the Constitution and to the laws they have served, and in the case of the ministers, by virtue of the nature of the institutions of which they are high-ranking officials and of Him whose name they invoked upon taking office, it is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law and ensuring the constitutional order of our Nation and the essential underpinnings of democratic coexistence among Chileans;
I was wrong, I will edit the page quoting this text. Travb 03:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph that begins "The Chamber of Deputies of Chile condemned Allende…": as far as I know, the resolution, while receiving the vote of the majority of the Chamber, fell short of the two-thirds that would have given it legal force. If I'm correct, the article should say this if it discusses the resolution at all. If I'm wrong, would someone please show me a citation to the contrary? This is an area in which I am moderately well-read, but not expert. - Jmabel | Talk 04:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I see that this still hasn't been addressed. We have a half-assed and potentially misleading passage in the lead, and it isn't particularly on-topic (that is, it has no specific relation to United States intervention in Chile). We have s somewhat better handling of this at Salvador Allende ("the Chamber of Deputies (with the Christian Democrats now firmly uniting with the National Party) accused Allende's government of unconstitutional acts and called on the military ministers to assure the constitutional order") and a pretty decent, lengthy discussion of the resolution and Allende's response at [Chilean coup of 1973]; remarkably, the latter is not even linked from the lead as it stands.
I'll give at least seven more days for someone else to rewrite this more evenhandedly, but if it is not sorted out by then, I will simply remove the matter of the Chamber's resolution from the lead, on the basis that it is somewhat off-topic. - Jmabel | Talk 00:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
No mention of ITT? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.24.227.28 ( talk • contribs) 31 May 2006.
Please cease this appalling vandalism which includes:
CJK 01:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The wikisource is about a resolution which has absolutely nothing to do with U.S. intervention in Chile. The resolution was an all-Chilean affair. CJK 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Declassified Documents Relating to the Military Coup, September 11, 1973]. Tazmaniacs 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding that source, it is misleading as it implies that the coup stuff was done in 1964 while the link addresses 1970. CJK 01:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The Marxist presidential candidate Salvador Allende was a top contender in the 1964 election, and the US, through the CIA, spent millions campaigning against him, mostly through radio and print advertising. Covert operations were also ordered to promote a military coup and undermine Allende's government [1].
The covert operations to promote a coup cited in the link were in 1970, not 1964 which is implied by "also". CJK 01:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
But why delete the source? See Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes#Deleting... Tazmaniacs 16:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Bertilvidet and Tazmaniacs, what part of your source says that Kissinger in fact turned the 1970 coup off? I couldn't find anything. The article I cited [5], Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders, says on page 246-254 that "the testimony given to the Committee by Henry Kissinger and General Haig conflicts with that given by CIA officials." Kissinger and Haig said the coup was turned off October 15. CIA officials said that "they operated before and after October 15 with knowledge and approval of the White House." In addition, CIA delivered weapons to a group of kidnap plotters October 22. Vints 06:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
References
The following has been deleted from this page in the past couple of months:
Once Allende was in office, the US, led by Nixon, who stated his fear that Chile could become "another
Cuba", initiated plans to work with insurgent elements within Chile to overthrow Allende in a
coup.
The US began implementing economic sanctions against Chile to encourage Allende's resignation, his overthrow, or his defeat in the impending election of 1976.
The Chamber of Deputies of Chile condemned Allende by passage of the Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy, the declaration stated that "it is (the Armed and Police Forces) duty to put an immediate end to all situations...that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law." Less than a month later on September 11, 1973, Chief Commander Augusto Pinochet, ousted Allende from power.
Signed: Travb ( talk) 07:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Based in part on some recent discussion at Talk:Chilean coup of 1973#Protection: I believe that the title of this article more-or-less forces a one-sided article. I would suggest moving to one of the following:
I'd be quite open to other suggestions, but "intervention" suggests that the article will only deal with what at least borders on illicit, and will not contextualize it. - Jmabel | Talk 00:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean, Jmabel? I don't see how "intervention" necessarily means something "illicit," and greater context can always be found in other articles. There are many pages in Wikipedia exclusively devoted to the real or alleged crimes or human rights abuses of various groups that actually do, with their title and subject, suggest that the articles "deal with what at least borders on illicit," and I've never seen those articles summarily eliminated from existence because of that.
As in every Wikipedia article, illicit actions of an actor can be contextualized with writing in the article. If you feel the US intervention in Chile has been unfairly contextualized you, as you know, are free to add material to the article to contextualize it. -- MarkB2 19:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I would have to agree with the previous statement, since US-Chilean Relations seems to have a more passive connotation. It seems that the title should be used solely for a section or topic which involves past or current economic relations between Chile and the US or similar topics. There is enough information to make this a separate article and there both sides of the argument available. At present there is a consensus about the US intervention in Chile from both sides. This not only includes the recently declassified CIA documents, but a near admission of guilt from the previous Secretary of State Colin Powell who stated that "[the Chilean coup] is not a part of American history we are proud of". for more info see: "The Pinochet File" by Peter Kornbluh or simply google CIA declassified documents on the topic or "Operation Condor." since these documents are now fully available to the general public. So there should be no question that US intervention in Chile is a two-sided statement. Caespinoza 01:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Cespinoza
Maybe someone could better explain the strange sounding "Chile, more than any of its South American neighbors, had an extensive democratic tradition dating back to the early 1930s, and even before. Because of this, it is difficult to gauge how successful CIA tactics were in swaying voters." I have a hard time understanding the "Because". Does this mean that the US try to pay voters to change vote, and that because of democratic tradition, this would be difficult? But, apart of asking if you really think that so many million dollars were there only to "buy votes" (to whom? workers?) and not for other propaganda operations, how do you know it was employed this way? I find it very strange, and it almost seems to me a paradoxical defense of US intervention, in the style: "yes, we did spend money, but it was no use anyway". I hope for some clear reason (which should be included in the article itself, not only debated here). Cheers! Tazmaniacs 05:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Although this article is generally good, it's permeated by sentences like this: "Regarding Pinochet's rise to power, the CIA undertook a comprehensive analysis of its records and individual memoirs as well as conducting interviews with former agents, and concluded in a report issued in 2000 that the CIA "did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency." [3]
Oh, well, that makes me feel better. The CIA investigated itself and concluded it did nothing wrong. Whew!
Does anyone have some reputable independent sources? MarkB2 07:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned in a previous edit, that there is a relatively good source available called "The Pinochet File" by Peter Kornbluh. It is an extensive look at the US involvement in the Chilean Coup. It uses primarily the declassified CIA documents which are available to anyone. Since these documents come directly from the perpetrators there is no reason to believe that it is propaganda from "the other side" of the argument. The CIA documents themselves are available to anyone on-line. I also heard that the book is now available for free in the form of an ebook, but I haven't looked for it myself (since I bought a copy a few years before). I am not sure if it supports all the claims purported by some, but it definitely substantiates many of the more heinous actions. Caespinoza 02:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Caespinoza
Will an article be created on the KGB as well? Maybe it is better to start an article foreign intervention in Chile? Intangible2.0 00:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:PinochetKissinger.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 02:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should really state that there is a difference between the US trying to influence elections and comandeering a Chilean coup. Writers of the time, especially four Marxist writers that I will soon post all indicate that the Coup itseld was PURELY Chilean and mastered only by Pinochet and his inner circle. The only thing you can even blame the US was influencing elections which later influenced the turn of events that LED to the Coup. Remember that Cuba and the Soviet Union were likewise funneling money into Chile and into Allende's campaign. After the US cut off aid, Sweden and other nations INCREASED their aid to Chile. There is no mention of Allende's dismantling of the Constitution. His unconstitutinal confiscation of Chilean farms, the opposition marches to Allende (March of Pots), etc. The Church Commission Report is barely a blip on here. It seems that it doesnt fit into the bias of this article. SHAM of an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.203.139 ( talk) 17:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, you're forgetting to mention that it was the CIA along with the business community that made the economy scream. Allende was taken to task in an obvious example of class warfare. The CIA and the business elites orchestrated a "scorched earth" policy that pitted Allende's policy against business interest in Chile. The Church Committee, if you even bothered to read it, goes into detail how they colluded to make this happen. You're wrong! The Article is too bias to let he CIA off the hook. How come you people never start off with the premise that a foreign nation is manipulating the economic and political affairs of another nation? If you guys cared about democracy at all, you wouldn't have tried to instigate a coup against a democratically elected leader. Hypocrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.220.186 ( talk) 22:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
"The collection of 1,100 documents dealt with the years leading up to the military coup. One of these documents establishes that U.S. military aid to the Chilean armed forces was raised dramatically between the coming to power of Allende in 1970, when it amounted to US$800,000 annually, to US$10.9 million in 1972."
I dont undertand this statement, was this money delivered to Allende`s goverment or directly to the military commanders? Was it just money or military hardware? Is there any source about what happened with that money? Agrofelipe ( talk) 08:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You deleted a lot of information and re-introduced an inaccuracy, which is unsourced. You also put in your unsourced POV, which is not allowed. You denied it last time but its apparent that you are wikistalking: following me to articles and reverting my edits. I suggest you stop. Giovanni33 ( talk) 04:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
To avoid future edit warring here some reasons why this edit is not acceptable to me.
Strong POV language and not backed by source. It is argued or suggested by many historians and journalists that anticommunism wasn't the only motive for U.S. intervention.
The sentence above is backed by a reputable and reliable source. I see no justified reason for its deletion.
This section is controversial but a complete deletion is not acceptable. Frederick H. Gareau and Thomas Wright are notable scholars and the section is sufficiently sourced. If there is an issue with NPOV minor changes in the section should do the job after being discussed on the talk page. Neptun88 ( talk) 14:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I knew that this is a controversial subject but I would have never imagined that I would be welcomed with so many allegations after just - what was it? - 9 edits as a registered user. Still, I have not given up hope for a constructive discussion yet.-- Neptun88 ( talk) 17:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
"Strong POV language and not backed by source. It is argued or suggested by many historians and journalists that anticommunism wasn't the only motive for U.S. intervention."
Anti-communism and opposition to the spread of Soviet Socialism and Marxism were the main motives for the US support to pro-democracy groups that opposed Allende`s socialist regime in Chile, all other motives generated from it.
Besides what are these historians and journalists you talk about? Agrofelipe ( talk) 18:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
References
At the start of the article said that has been suggested that this article needs to be merger with CIA intervention….
First I don’t see such suggestion in this page…. Where is such suggestion being made???
Also I think that is wrong, because CIA intervention is only a part of the intervention…. Not the full thing. The actual title presents this broader perspective.
Milton ( talk) 15:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
"Track I" was a State Department initiative designed to thwart Allende by subverting Chilean elected officials within the bounds of the Chilean constitution and excluded the CIA."
How does that work? How does a foreign nation subvert an elected official from another nation within the bounds of that nation's Constitution? You gotta love the language the CIA uses to cover their own behinds. They subverted the democratic process every step of the way in Chile and somehow we're supposed to take the Agency's word that they're "securing democracy worldwide"? Laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.220.186 ( talk) 21:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
This article doesn't even begin to scratch the surface on how the CIA made plans with the business community in Chile to make the economy scream. Th Church Committee report alone has tons of info on this subject. Also, how the CIA manipulated the media, staged phony strikes, etc. And this is just what the CIA has admitted to. C'mon people the CIA did way more than whats written in this article. They made that country ripe for a Coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.220.186 ( talk) 21:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I have substantially re-written the section about the 1973 coup. I believe that the section was misleading in parts and in others factually incorrect, after checking the footnotes attached to the article.
Many of the footnotes cited declassified documents as evidence that the CIA or other parts of the US government brought about the 1973 coup. However, these actually pertain to the 1970 botched coup attempt.
I also removed the section "Nonetheless, this is contradicted by the declassified documents involving the CIA, in which covert operatives were inserted in Chile, in order to prevent a Marxist government from arising and subsequent propagandist operations which were designed to push Chilean president Eduardo Frei to support "a military coup which would prevent Allende from taking office on 3 November." [1] [2]" because this pertains entirely to the 1970 botched coup attempt, which is detailed in the main article in the section 'Allende Presidency: Track II'. If valid, it should be re-inserted in that section, and not the one about the 1973 coup.
I also deleted a series of quotes because I thought they were trivial and added nothing to the section. Most of them related to the botched 1970 coup.
I have also included new sources, including another of Henry Kissinger's transcripted phone calls and a national security decision memorandum. Hopefully people will appreciate the changes, but please before simply reverting them, discuss them here! -- yocto barryc ⁂ ☎ 02:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
References
The version of text I am modifying, says:
However, it was without doubt a major vindication for the Republican administration. Conrad Black, in his work "Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full", notes:
After more than thirty years, no evidence has come to light in either country that the United States played a direct role in the overthrow of the Allende government, but it was certainly a geopolitical bonanza for the United States, as Allende was cavorting with Castro with a particularly irritating relish.[28]
...and...
There is no evidence that the U.S. instigated or provided material support to Pinochet's successful coup in 1973, but the Nixon administration was undoubtedly pleased with the outcome; Nixon had spoken with disappointment about the failed coup earlier that year.
However, Kornbluh, Weiner, and Hitchens all argue the opposite and that controversy was not fairly presented here. The changes I am making present the controversy. Notice that I do not remove what Conrad Black says, although I believe he is incorrect. Regardless, we are supposed to report the controversies and not argue them amongst ourselves.
The changes I make have only added balance by showing the other authors' arguments. I removed the claim "There is no evidence..." as there is plenty of evidence that the US played a key role. A more fair claim would be that it is controversial. Currently this section is already heavily weighted to implying the US took a far more passive role than it did. What I add serves to balance this section out more towards NPOV.
Veritas Aeterna ( talk) 06:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
User:TheTimesAreAChanging, I'm calling you out for willfully misrepresenting two sources here. You inserted "Joaquin Fermandois criticized Kornbluh's "black and white" and "North American centered conception of world affairs", noting that a variety of internal and external factors, including covert actions by Cuba and the Soviet Union (which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars[33]), also played a role and that a careful reading of the documentary record reveals the CIA was largely "impotent"" But nowhere in the two sources (yes, I read them) is a mention of action by Cuba and the USSR that contributed to the coup, and definitely not of the "hundreds of thousands of dollars" of "cost." JF says that Cuba and the Soviets supported the Marxists; he also says that the US and the CIA funneled money to the opposition, and that this could have been "decisive". Ergo he contradicts NOTHING that Winn says, and supports a much more nuanced view than you claim he "supports." Withdraw the source, or modify its wording. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 06:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
United States intervention in Chile. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on United States intervention in Chile. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The section has this sentence:
A subsequent September 2000 report from the CIA, using declassified documents related to the military coup, found that the CIA "probably appeared to condone" the 1973 coup, but that there was "no evidence" that the US actually participated in it.
The source on this claim is missing but is vital to this section of the article. If somebody has a source somewhere that says this you should replace this dead one that exists. Otherwise it looks like whoever put this here was just bullshitting.
Thanks, ― TaltosKieron Talk 21:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
No way the lede should be this short and this vague for an article this long. natemup ( talk) 02:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)