Pinochet

hard to understand in another way , would be happy to hear how it could be interpreted ?

Poorer and with Africa-tier inequality top kek

>Inequality is a good measure of development
Wow didn't know India was so far ahead of the US

>La Fundación sostiene[144] que, en su tesis, Allende no hacía más que citar al científico italianoCesare Lombroso, siendo crítico de sus teorías. Farías mantiene las afirmaciones aparecidas en su libro.[145]
Basically, the quote is actually from another person that Allende was critiquing.

GINI is pure bullshit when it comes to evaluating a country's living conditions.
Also, wtf, I love Kazakhstan!

The other map you posted is very outdated, dumb idiot.

Tyrant. Considering the deaths oppression and mass corruption typical if governments like his. No different the mobutu sese seko but without Chicago boys

>deaths and oppression
>to mostly left wing terrorists
>on top of that it was just 3'000 deaths
Yeah, terrible stuff, we should have had a civil war I stead and let the communists win yet again to prove once again the utter failure they are.

The coup against Allende was necessary.

The 17 years of dictatorship after that was mostly just so he could fuck bitches and get money.

Nah, he should have been re elected desu. he almost did it.

>butthurt that his favoured party didn't win in a fair election so he launches a bloody coup and reign of terror
Yes, truly a hero

Ignorinh the concentration camps and the mass tortures? Anyone who opposed him got fucked regardless of political affiliation.

Good. He was destroying leftist trash which wanted to enslave Chilean people and bring them poverty.

>Congress of Chile passes a resolution demanding the president step down due to his repeated abuses of the constitution
>military forces the president to step down

Let's be real, this shit didn't come out of nowhere.

>his party
He was independent.

>fair election
Arguably. He got 35% of the vote (Socialist), second place for 34% (Liberal) and third place got like 30% (Christian Democracy). Congress chose next between the two candidates with the highest vote, and they chose Allende if he promised to keep his government constitutional, which he didn't, so it was a just coup d'etat.

Also
>bloody coup and reign of terror
Only if you were a left wing terrorist.
Also, three thousands death on a 17 year long period is hardly bloody.

Only left wing terrorists and communists/socialists got blown the fuck out, and for good reason. Not only they ruined the country, but they were attempting to retake it by force.

Exactly. On top of that, most of those were openly terrorists.

I'm glad some people on here actually know history. Thank you.

Pinochet was a mason, expelled from the lodge after overthrowing a fellow mason, Allende.
Allende may have alligned Chile with the USSR, but we can never know. He wasn't like the guerrilla left in the rest of LatAm, he was democratically elected.
Pinochet wasn't any better. His "economic miracle" is a fantasy put together by edgy teens who think they're fascist for supporting a repressive capitalist.
His government was a disaster for the chilean worker. Recessions due to the implementation of neoliberal policies, decline in productivity and reduction of wages are of course belittled by the astonishingly moderate and unsustainable economic growth.

I do have to say it was likely the most moderate and rational of the latin american dictatorships regarding the combat of communism, perhaps because there wasn't an important guerrilla. The murders were made public and the bodies returned to the families, and the number of victims was fairly low in relation to the duration of the dictatorship.

In conclussion, there was no good future for Chile, Allende or Pinochet, even until today, it's part of a toxic system where you have to forcefully choose between left or right as if they were completely different.

le epic meme XDDD

You know tyrant doesnt mean something evil, it's just a person that take power by force

Based Ghaddaffi

>Allende was communist

>Allende may have alligned Chile with the USSR, but we can never know.
He was about to receive support from the USSR, but the shipments were eventually returned. He did get support from China and Cuba though (canned meat and weapons, respectively).

>He wasn't like the guerrilla left in the rest of LatAm, he was democratically elected.
But there was still a guerrilla left terrorizing the country during his government.

>Pinochet wasn't any better.
He definitely was. Chile under Allende was a complete shit-hole.

>His "economic miracle" is a fantasy
Not in the slightest. The "economic miracle" was real, it was just interrupted by the latin american crisis of the time (from which Chile recovered the fastest).
Also, considering that by the end of Pinochet's government Chile was the country with the least poverty in latinamerica after Argentina (considering we used to be poorer than most of our neighbors), I would hardly say his government was bad.

>put together by edgy teens who think they're fascist for supporting a repressive capitalist.
I hate fascism and I think Pinochet did a net positive for the country. Also, most of the "repression" was justified.

>His government was a disaster for the chilean worker.
Not in the slightest. Allende's government was. Take a look at the following chart taken from the "Macroeconomic Populism in Latin America (Dornbusch, Edwards)" paper which illustrates real wages under Allende between the vertical lines and under Pinochet after the second vertical line. Allende's government was a real disaster for Chilean workers, Pinochet managed to fix some of it at least.

(continued)
>Recessions due to the implementation of neoliberal policies
There were two recessions. First one happened because of the previous unstable government with it's inflation and similar factors. Second one happened under the latin american crisis (which was not caused by him)

>decline in productivity and reduction of wages are of course belittled by the astonishingly moderate and unsustainable economic growth.
Wages increased, as did productivity, when compared to Allende's government. The economic growth wasn't unsustainable, in fact, the following presidents kept the same economic model and saw similar and even greater economic growth (we do have to thank the return of democracy for that though, as democratic countries offer a safer foreign business environment).

TL;DR: Pinochet did nothing wrong.

Pinochet killed the second highest number of people of any of the Condor participants in the Southern Cone.

Sure, they didn't go full retard like Argentina did, but nobody goes full retard like Argentina.

This post more or less kills the question. Let me complement recalling that as a result of the violent actions promoted by Allende's administration 500 chileans died. This is an even higher rate of killing than that of the military regime of Pinochet.

Like two thirds of the people Pinochet killed were killed in the year after the coup.

So 1970-1975 was just an absolutely shit period in Chilean history, and things stayed pretty bad until the 90s.

>He was about to receive support from the USSR, but the shipments were eventually returned. He did get support from China and Cuba though (canned meat and weapons, respectively).
"make the (Chilean) economy scream.” Who said these words and when?

>But there was still a guerrilla left terrorizing the country during his government.
Big words. So how many people those evil terrorists killed? Because Pinochet killed 3000 more.

He only killed leftists and traitors. Killing 3,000 commies and lefties is not bad.

Frankly, if Allende was going to take Chile down the same path Chavez took Venezuela, three thousand dead would be a small price to pay to avoid that.

>Let me complement recalling that as a result of the violent actions promoted by Allende's administration 500 chileans died
Source?

...

>"make the (Chilean) economy scream.” >Who said these words and when?
A politician who is known for not keeping his promises. Saying something is not the same as doing something. The economy under Allende fell on its own.

>Big words. So how many people those evil terrorists killed? Because Pinochet killed 3000 more.
More than enough. Also, they were explicitly in favor of achieving a violent revolution, so executing them was just self defense.

This guy gets it.

Everything said there is refuted in the long post above.

>Pinochet killed the second highest number of people of any of the Condor participants in the Southern Cone.
[citation needed]

Let's be real, CIA sabotage against the Chilean economy and the Allende government is a pretty well documented fact.

It is not, however, clear what proportion of the economic turmoil of these years was caused by the CIA, and how much was simply Marxism working as usual.

It explicitly means cruel and oppressive ruler you illiterate fraud

Why do people jack off to this guy so much?

>1970-1975 was just an absolutely shit period in Chilean history
True

>things stayed pretty bad until the 90s.
Nah. Things stayed pretty much the same with the return of democracy. Except for the curfew and the return of democracy itself, of course.

I mean, just in terms of how many people died or would have died under a full term Allende president would be way higher than three thousand.

>CIA sabotage against the Allende government is a pretty well documented fact.
Correct, and rightly so.
>CIA sabotage against the Chilean economy is a pretty well documented fact.
Not true in the slightest.

>It is not, however, clear what proportion of the economic turmoil of these years was caused by the CIA
It is. A round 0%.

>how much was simply Marxism working as usual
Gee, I don't know! It's not like we can't compare how marxism usually works in other countries, or can we!?
You are pretty much a retard if you expected Allende's government to behave any different than the usual starvation ridden marxism.

>Analyzing the political repression in the region during that decade, Brazilian journalist Nilson Mariano estimates the number of killed and missing people as 2,000 in Paraguay; 3,196 in Chile; 297 in Uruguay; 366 in Brazil; and 30,000 in Argentina.[25]

I must emphasize, Argentina went full retard.

Uruguay, true to form, did the best job.

Brazil definitely did the best. That's a pretty clean record considering the size of the country. And yeah, Argentina really went full retard.

captcha: torrent blue

>how many people died or would have died under a full term Allende president would be way higher than three thousand
We have a prophet here. I'm still waiting for a source of those 500 killed by leftists supported by Allende's administration.

BROTHER COLONEL

I'm not the guy you originally replied to. It's just that considering his disastrous government, and some other events such as scarcity, breadlines, etc it's not unreasonable to think that under his government thousands of people could have perished from starvation. There aren't any stats about it afaik, but again, it's not unreasonable.

>It is. A round 0%.
Your own government diagrees.

intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/94chile.pdf

>t. never read the paper
Cite where exactly in the paper does it say that the CIA sabotaged the Chilean economy and how.
That's right. Nowhere.

>The "cool but correct" public posture and extensive clandestine activities formed two-thirds of a triad of official actions. The third waseconomic pressure, both overt and covert, intended to exacerbate thedifficulties felt by Chile's economy. The United States cut off economicaid, denied credits, and made efforts-partially successful-to enlist the cooperation of international financial institutions and private firms in tightening the economic "squeeze" on Chile. That international "squeeze" intensified the effect of the economic measures taken by opposition groups within Chile, particularly the crippling strikes in themining and transportation sectors. For instance, the combined effect of the foreign credit squeeze and domestic copper strikes on Chilesforeign exchange position was devastating.

Brazilian here. Ou military regime was extremely moderate. They simply allowed the takeover of universities by a leftist hegemony.

Their inaptitude was such that a marxist military (general) historian that leveled the regime with Nazi Germany had his new book celebrated by a rally presided by the president himself, marshall Castelo Branco.

Argentina's killed would be more about 9k.

>The United States cut off economicaid, denied credits, and made efforts-partially successful-to enlist the cooperation of international financial institutions and private firms in tightening the economic "squeeze" on Chile
This is completely legal, so it doesn't count as sabotage. Every country is in their right to deny economic relationships with other countries.
Try again.

To be fair, Condor estimates are pretty ambiguous in general. Chile's case isn't though, with around 3'000, but Argentina's case in some estimates goes up to 50'000.

A savior but really his only problem that he did was that 3,000 wasn't enough. I think that an this might be unpopular but considering that in 1973 before Allende was overthrown, there was over 1.6 million voters that voted for the Popular Unity. So I think that Pinochet should have personally gotten rid at least 1 million leftists. And I mean "kill" those one million leftists and reeducate the remainders. Probably round up about 2 million or so sympathizers and get rid of the 1 million who voted for Allende.

This, but unironically.

It would be one of the most lethal killings in the Cold War but at least 1 million would need to be killed off. Chile had about 9 million people in the 1970s, I think if they had just shrunk to 8 million, it wouldn't be that bad. So yeah, liquidate about 1,000,000 leftists, and their sympathizers, and probably reeducate the rest and put, 2 million in camps until Marxism was wiped out.

>This is completely legal
A powerful empire convinces or forces numerous institutions (including the World Bank) to fuck up the economy of a small country that wanted to be more independent. Of course foreign credit and aid returned when Pinochet came to power. So much for your economic miracle.

And I would say that financing the opposition and the strikes wasn't exactly legal.

>A powerful empire convinces or forces numerous institutions (including the World Bank) to fuck up the economy of a small country that wanted to be more independent. Of course foreign credit and aid returned when Pinochet came to power. So much for your economic miracle.
You are right, and this is completely justifiable. You don't support economically your ideological enemies, that's retarded.

>I would say that financing the opposition and the strikes wasn't exactly legal
Sure, but that's not economic sabotage. Deal with it, Allende's government (just like every other marxist government) fell on its own.

Nice goalposting anyways. At least we agree there was no economic sabotage at this point.

There was economic pressure and attempts (often successful) to destroy Chile economically. All because they dared to nationalize their copper companies.

Bait?

>There was economic pressure and attempts (often successful) to destroy Chile economically.
The only attempts to pressure the economy were lawful and justified. No country is forced to economically support their ideological enemies. Allende's government fell on it's own on completely justifiable means.

>All because they dared to nationalize their copper companies.
Eh, it had more to do with the ideological context of the cold war.

>Eh, it had more to do with the ideological context of the cold war.
American actions forced Allende to ask Soviets for help.

Yes, so? Every country is justified in denying economic relationships with other countries (which, by the way, were not completely cut off in Chile's case). Also, Allende also got support from Cuba and China, and they still fucked up. I bet the whole marxism shit had nothing to do with it though.

Good post

You are a retard

>Anons continue to ignore my radical but necessary alternate proposal that Pinochet should have done. Kill 1 million socialist voters, and detain 2 million suspects in camps until Marxism was wiped out.

I don't think that going full Suharto would have been better than just killing 3k, user. Kuomintang killed about 2,6 million and look at China today.

>country has freedom
>no one shits in the street.
pick one american.

The Kuomitang is as based as ever, what the fuck are you on?

There were two major recessions under Allende and it was only until Chile was under left-wing government that it got better.

>incompetent chucklefucks
>based
2/10

>incompetent
>achieved the fastest economic progress out of any other country
Whoa, dude...

Misleading comment. It has already been debunked in this thread.

bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-24014501

>According to the poll, 55% of Chileans regarded the 17 years of the dictatorship as either bad or very bad, while 9% said they were good or very good.

Only 9% of Chileans have a positive view of Pinochet. That's fucking brutally damning. If he was a decent leader, that number would obviously be way higher.

Only ultra-wealthy Chilean elites and edgy underage NEET autists have a positive view of this shithead.

Well if we followed my proposal if I was able to go back in time and give Pinochet my proposal there won't be that many people around now would there? Remember 1.6 million voted against their interests in favor of foreign Marxism at least a million should have been killed.

>ad populum is an adequate evaluation of a government
Go back to

>Well if we followed my proposal if I was able to go back in time and give Pinochet my proposal there won't be that many people around now would there? Remember 1.6 million voted against their interests in favor of foreign Marxism at least a million should have been killed.

>How do chileans feel about him?
Economically, he was a savior. But fucking degenerate; the japanese gore levels of torture, to make blind eyes to pedophilia practiced by their subordinates and similar stuff undermined his reputation and image.
i can't get a good source, but according to my family (most of them lived in the dictatorship), it was known that the military we're savage and inhuman in their interrogations, but people got really upset when the methods were revealed.
The victims may be commies, but that just justified shooting them, not rape them for fun. That's what I have concluded after years of hearing both left and right wing militants, but it seems that most people believe that Pinochet didn't know that his subordinates did such atrocities; and most of them (left wing) put the blame in the CIA and in Pinochet's wife, Lucía Hiriart, portrayed as a racist, opportunistic and evil bitch.

I did read something about that nazi colony. That's very dark.

We had very little of this sort in Brazil. Only about 400 commies were killed (probably less).

t. Suharto

So it was justifiable for Britain and the US to cut off support and let Rhodesia, a stable country with some democracy, fall to rebel forces who ruined the country?

Tyrannical savior, imagine if Chile was stuck under Allende and other communists to this day like Venezuela and Brazil.

>they were in favor of violent revolution
That's why they supported democracy and voted it out. Interesting.

>Brazil is communist
lol

Pinochet was a piece of shit. Sure, fighting communism can be a good thing. But there was no need for all the killing, torture, and rape.

Yes

Not the ones who died. Targeted people were terrorists from organizations such as VOP, MIR, and FPMR. None of them were pro democracy.

There absolutely was, except for the torture and the small amounts of rape (which were on the torture side of things).

>There absolutely was, except for the torture and the small amounts of rape (which were on the torture side of things).
Wrong

I love when marxists denounce the lack of free trade as a reason marxist regimes fail.

I'm not a Marxist. And Allende wasn't even a communist.

Well that must be for english because for ancient greece is someone that take power by force you illiterate turd

It doesn't matter, your discourse is the same as one from a marxist

>those who were killed were terrorists
The families of people who """"""disappeared"""""" would say otherwise.

Actually I have changed my mind, Pinochet should have killed 3 million instead of 1 million. And at least 4 million should have been detained until Marxism was wiped out in Chile.

No, they really were. Terrorists groups such as MIR have over 600 confirmed deaths in their own website. And there were more terrorist groups than just the MIR.

>whataboutism

Reminder

Edgy internet teenagers

It literally is, if your government was any good then even if your population didn't like you personally, they would like the positive effects from your amazing governing.

Explain to me why he got 45% of the Chilean population to vote for him to extend his presidency for 6 more years in the 1988 plebiscite then.
Also, consider the fact that most people surveyed in the poll above did not experience his government nor the previous government, so they are not in a position to accurately evaluate his government in terms of "feelings".

>Tyrant? Or Saviour?
Savior
>Was Allende going to turn Chile into a communist dictatorship
No, but the country was on the verge of a civil war, so the country at the moment was a race to reach the power from all sides.

>is this CIA propaganda to justify its interventions in the third world?
Well, they were kind of right.

>Likewise, was Pinochet as brutal as he is depicted or is this modern socialist propaganda?
He wasn't very brutal for dictatorship standards. In fact, his dictatorship has been pretty clean compared to the rest.

>How do chileans feel about him?
Support has been decreasing, but a month ago there was a survey about which Chilean president was the favorite from the country, and Pinochet was ranked as 4th most admired out of 7 (with 15% of the preferences)
On top of that, 45% of people voted for him to remain in power during the 1988 plebiscite.

>Modern government is from Allende's socialist party after all.
The party changed. It used to be a democratic socialist one, now they are just social democracy.

You have to consider that most people surveyed in that poll did not experience his government. 45% of the people who DID experience his government wanted his presidency to extend for 6 more years.