New Thread For Chile, Pinochet, etc etc.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

New thread.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

The economy did better only after citizens lost their rights and were oppressed by the government.  If you were looking to that as an inspiration to what should be done here in our bad economic times, I'd say "fuck you, buddy."

Actually, the Chilean economy did worse after the coup.

I would of course disagree with that assessment. So would many economists.

[Vermouth]

Also, it's not really Monday morning quarter-backing to say that the policies the U.S. typically implemented in these situations were idiotic, for one simple reason - we deviated from them in the case of Bolivia under Eisenhower.  We proved that we could maintain a working relationship and diplomatic ties with a socialist leaning government AND keep it within the U.S.' sphere without these types of anti-democratic activities...If anything, the U.S. leaders' unwillingness to accept the kinds of changes people across Latin America were demanding during this period is what would have pushed these nations into the Soviet sphere.  Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm unfamiliar with 1950s US policy in Bolivia. Why did we deviate then? And why did we go back to direct intervention in Latin America, though not as extensively, later on?

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Also, it's not really Monday morning quarter-backing to say that the policies the U.S. typically implemented in these situations were idiotic, for one simple reason - we deviated from them in the case of Bolivia under Eisenhower.  We proved that we could maintain a working relationship and diplomatic ties with a socialist leaning government AND keep it within the U.S.' sphere without these types of anti-democratic activities...If anything, the U.S. leaders' unwillingness to accept the kinds of changes people across Latin America were demanding during this period is what would have pushed these nations into the Soviet sphere.  Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm unfamiliar with 1950s US policy in Bolivia. Why did we deviate then? And why did we go back to direct intervention in Latin America, though not as extensively, later on?

It doesn't appear that US planners perceived Bolivia as a serious threat. I see no evidence that they made any overtures to the Soviets which would have alarmed the US.

[Vermouth]

It doesn't appear that US planners perceived Bolivia as a serious threat. I see no evidence that they made any overtures to the Soviets which would have alarmed the US.

Guatemala had no ties to the Soviet Union either.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

It doesn't appear that US planners perceived Bolivia as a serious threat. I see no evidence that they made any overtures to the Soviets which would have alarmed the US.

Guatemala had no ties to the Soviet Union either.

Some in fact thought it did. It does appear to have been an blunder, however, at least in ethical terms.

[Vermouth]

Guatemala had no ties to the Soviet Union either.

Some in fact thought it did. It does appear to have been an blunder, however, at least in ethical terms.

Do you really think so, Mr D? I can't find anything on it. Guatemala certainly had socialist elements, but its ties were clearly to the US, not the USSR.

I'm quoting a declassified CIA document from 1952 here:

"[President Arbenz] does not agree with the economic and political ideas of the Guatemalan or Soviet Communists.
…
Arbenz had no fear of a conservative coup and has taken no active steps to guard against one.
…
Rather than setting up a Communist state, Arbenz desires to establish a “modern democracy” … Arbenz’ personal idol is FDR and his reforms are patterned after New Deal reforms … None of the reforms are substantially extreme as compared to many of those in the US, Europe, and even in other Latin American countries.
…
His goal is to assert the rights of the Guatemalan Government to dictate the terms under which foreign firms shall operate in the country … Yet he realizes this is not possible without US markets and US capital … He has never used the potential weapon of proposed trade treaties with Soviet bloc countries, although it seems logical to assume that such commercial overtures have been made to him."

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_PBHISTORY

I think they weak evidence in the end.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Oh I forgot about the Haitians.

Who cares if we orchestrate coups and subvert democracy in Haiti?  Well, the Haitians care.  And every American should, even if they don't.

Haitians will continue to eat mud regardless of who is in power. Like many African states, it's a complete mess. Really, I don't care and I shouldn't not least because the US would need to completely control Haiti in order for there to be progress.

Scaybeez, a democratic election is not necessarily democracy as you and I would understand it. If the European powers decided to oust Hitler after his election victory they would in fact be subverting German "democracy". When we consider the Nazi holocaust, the Soviet holocaust, and the Chinese holocaust, etc. as the products of "democracy", "popular will", and self-determination" the charge of subverting "democracy" kind of loses it's sting, no? Sure, you can still say that the US doesn't practice what it preaches but is that what you really want? Is your ultimate goal to side with anyone and anything that runs contrary to the American/capitalist order, so to speak, no matter how difficult they are to reconcile to your alleged values?