Posted on 12/10/2006 9:46:26 AM PST by My Favorite Headache
Hell has a new employee...Pinochet is dead at 91.
It's a sad day when conservative discussion and debate is derailed by name calling and stubborn unwillingness to listen to alternative theories.
the price of becoming a real boy...
teeman
oops, my bad, that was pinochio...
Let's compare then:
1. Ideology
STALIN - marxist thug
HITLER - National socialist thug
ALLENDE - marxist thug
2. Economics
STALIN - exerted direct state ownership and control over the economy
HITLER - used force and intimidation to control the economy for the purposes of the state
ALLENDE - was attempting to nationalize industry and establish state ownership of the economy at the time of his coup
3. Military
STALIN - Communist party-led military state
HITLER - Used Nazi party militias (the SS) to establish a a military state
ALLENDE - Had invited an estimated 20,000 marxist militia and guerilla troops, including known left wing terrorist organizations, into Chile at the time of the coup.
4. Constitution
STALIN - Helped Lenin overthrow legitimate government in Russia
HITLER - Got elected through a low plurality in the Weimar legislature through democratic means, then used it to seize dictatorial power. Ignored the opposition's protests that he was violating the constitution.
ALLENDE - Got elected through a low plurality in the Chilean presidential election, and was in the process of using it to seize dictatorial power at the time of the coup. Ignored the Chilean legislature and Chilean Supreme Court, which found him in violation of the constitution.
5. End result STALIN - killed millions because nobody was strong enough to oppose him until too late.
HITLER - killed millions because nobody was strong enough to oppose him until too late.
ALLENDE - stopped dead in his tracks by Pinochet.
The question is, when the Chilean people voted for Allende, were they voting for the end of democracy? I doubt it.
The same could probably be said about the German pluralities that gave the nazis power in the early 1930's.
Allende served three years of a six-year term and was highly controversial, but I have not read any credible evidence that Chile, in 1973, was on the brink of becoming a Marxist dictatorship.
Look into the events of 1973 a little more closely. Marxist militia groups were running all over Chile at Allende's invitation. There had already been a coup attempt earlier that year. The Chilean supreme court had ruled against Allende's seizures of private property, and the majority of the legislature voted for a resolution declaring him in violation of the Chilean constitution for the same stuff. Allende ignored it all. At the same time he's having dinner parties with members of the most repressive thuggish regimes in the world - Castro, the Soviets, marxist militia leaders etc. So yes, he was not at full dictatorial strength himself yet, but it is unmistakable what direction he was heading.
The question for Allende was thus the same as the hypothetical question about Hitler. Suppose it was 1930 and you're walking down the street in Berlin. Hitler approaches unguarded. The Nazi party's paramilitary militias aren't strong yet but they've been around for a couple years now so you know exactly what they're all about. You've also read Mein Kampf and know exactly what Hitler's all about - kill the Jews, take over the world and all the other horrible things he stood for. And suppose you know the guy's history. You know, for example, that he hangs out with a group of radical violent thugs. You know he tried to stage a putsch in Munich in 1923, and that he served a term in prison for it. So it's 1930 and there's Hitler standing before you on the street. You have a clean shot. The question: Would you take it?
This was the situation Pinochet faced with Allende in 1973. He saw a guy who espoused a well known nutty and violent ideology - marxism. He saw that guy taking steps to solidify his own power. He saw that guy bringing marxist militias and guerilla fighters into Chile, and hosting their training camps. He saw that guy hanging out with unmistakable tyrants like Castro. And he knew what Allende was all about, as Allende spent the better part of the sixties hanging out with left wing terrorists and marxist thugs that were not unlike Hitler's nazi buddies. Pinochet acted then because he knew it would be a whole lot worse if he waited until later.
While democracy continues to function any leader, no matter how obnoxious his ideology, can be thrown out of office if the people so choose.
Not if (1) the system is dysfunctional and (2) the obnoxious leader resists. That's a guaranteed formula for disaster in any democracy, and history has proven it. Hitler is a perfect example - he exploited a dysfunctional democratic system under the Weimar constitution to get himself appointed chancellor. Then he discarded that system when it resisted.
Every sign indicates that Allende was doing the same thing. Like Hitler, he used a dysfunctional electoral system to get himself named president despite winning only 36% of the vote and being vehemently opposed by the other 64%. And once in power he began discarding and ignoring the legislature, which the opposition controlled, while simultaneously importing marxist paramilitaries all around the country to prop up his rule.
Even if we accept that Pinochet saved Chile from Marxist dictatorship, how can we, as defenders of democratic freedoms, possibly celebrate Pinochet's right-wing brand of dictatorship?
We don't need to celebrate it. We can accept it though as a necessary step to defeat a much greater threat, and as one that ultimately preserved and extended democracy in Chile when Pinochet voluntarily relinquished control to a democratic election. Again, the invitation is out there to find another dictator in history who did that.
Allende committed suicide with a AK-47 given to him by Fidel Castro. Allende was also from a well to do family. He was originally a medical doctor. He had plans to destroy the constitution.
Thanks dude.
I remain skeptical, but I do appreciate the trouble you've taken to advance intelligent and well-argued points.
The debate boils down to which was the lesser of two evils, a kind of what-if counterfactual history debate, which - as with other preemptive military strikes - remains a tough argument. But I still cannot bring myself to feel anything but relief that Pinochet has gone.
Thanks for an interesting discussion :)
You started the name calling buddy. your post 66
I am content to disagree with you about my nation and its security from islamics and commies..you can bow down to mohamed for all I care....anywhere but in the US.
When push comes to shove however, you will be sitting somewhere under the old apple tree reading your constitution figuring out how to protect enemy "rights" and I and many others will be blowing up the traitors to smithereens.
Wrong: when Pinochet overthrew Allende, HIS junta became the "proper authorities." They should have acted so.
"We don't need to celebrate it. We can accept it though as a necessary step to defeat a much greater threat, and as one that ultimately preserved and extended democracy in Chile when Pinochet voluntarily relinquished control to a democratic election. Again, the invitation is out there to find another dictator in history who did that."
Fair enough. I can accept that, with emphasis on "ultimately". However, I just feel that we shouldn't lionize the man, he was a dictator, and far from the most humane of staunchly anti-communist leaders like Lee Kuan Yew, Vargas in Brazil, Salazar in Portugal, etc.
I love a good Pinot!
Can I guarantee that everyone of those who received harsh treatment were actually Communists, seeking to steal the property--the fruits of the labor--of affluent Chileans? Of course not. It is entirely possible that some were innocent. The same can be said of the casualties in every Civil strife. Undoubtedly, on more reflective review, some of those tarred and feathered by angry patriots in our own Revolution would have been spared. But that does not discredit in anyway the patriotism or nobility of our Founding leadership.
Decent people, who understand what freedom is about, today mourn General Pinochet. It is truly sad, that so many in high positions in the West lack the moral integrity to join Lady Thatcher in paying justly deserved tribute. Of course the Left wants to darken the General's memory. The last thing they want, if other Western nations fall to Marxist manipulations of elections, for the patriots in the military to intervene. Yet, by contrast, that should be understood to be a duty, under such circumstances. The election of thieves and criminals, bent upon plundering the resources of the citizenry, in elections split three ways, is not something that civilized people can ever accept.
May God Bless the memory and comfort the loved ones of a good, brave and decent man, who passed away on December 10, 2006!
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
The Case of Pinochet
by Jeffrey Hart
THE DARTMOUTH REVIEW
1/29/2001
Though Augusto Pinochet, with the armed forces behind him, could have held on to power in Chile, he made a deal to bring about a peaceful transition to civilian rule. In return for resigning as head of state, he would not be prosecuted for alleged crimes during and after the coup against Chilean President Salvador Allende and, in addition, he would have a Senate seat for life.
This could not affect the charges brought against him by a Spanish judge in a British court, which led to a period of house arrest in England; but it now seems that the Chilean justice system itself is ignoring the original agreement altogether and embroiling him in a variety of charges, notably "kidnapping," that is, the abduction and disappearance of many people during the coup.
It looks as if those who hate Pinochet will stop at nothing to harass him. They speak of "justice," of course, but apparently care little for the agreement with Pinochet that led to the return of civilian democratic rule. I think it is too often characteristic of the left that some notion of "justice"--usually loosely defined--cancels out all considerations of process and prior agreements. Thus Jesse Jackson threatens to "take to the streets" to protest the injustices of a U.S. Supreme Court decision, saying that George W. Bush is an "illegitimate" president. For Jackson, "justice" means the election of his man, Al Gore.
Surprisingly few voices have been raised to say a good word for the octogenarian and now ill Pinochet. Margaret Thatcher is the only one who comes to mind as defending him, though I imagine Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman would agree with her. It was Friedman's graduate students from the University of Chicago, after all, who reformed and reinvented the Chilean economy while Pinochet was in power--and, not incidentally, gave that country a Social Security system superior to anything now suggested by the American leadership.
As it happens, I paid pretty close attention to developments in Chile during the Allende regime and after his fall, and I spent an interesting couple of weeks in Chile a year or so after the military coup. I concluded then and continue to believe that Pinochet deserves the thanks of his country. His coup and authoritarian regime laid the basis for Chile's current prosperity and democratic stability.
Of course, he overthrew the "democratically elected" Allende. But Allende won power in a three-way race in which the votes for his opponents were split. A minority president, he sought the rapid "Castroization" of the country in the teeth of massive strikes by truckers who tied up transportation and by thousands of women who descended on Santiago, Chile, banging on pots and pans for hours in protest of what he was doing to the economy. He was also muzzling the opposition press through his control of the printers' union and unconstitutionally restricting travel within Chile by its own citizens. Not long before the coup, the Chilean Parliament came within a few votes of impeaching him. The coup occurred when he tried to put pro-Allende officers in key positions in the military.
Allende, a revolutionary throughout his adult life, was a leader of the Chilean Socialist Party. Despite its title, that party was to the left of the regular Communist Party. Its goals were no different, but it was more audacious. In its publications, the regular Communist Party warned Allende that he lacked a "revolutionary situation" in Chile. In communist jargon, that meant he lacked the support or at least neutrality of the police and the armed forces. Allende believed in the Castro model, that you make a revolution by going ahead and doing it. You "create facts."
The regular communists were right. The air force shot a couple-dozen rockets into the presidential palace, destroying it. Then the troops stormed it and cornered Allende in his office. He put a machine gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. The gun was an engraved gift from Fidel Castro. His wife and daughter fled to Cuba. The daughter married the head of the Cuban KGB. Just democrats, you understand.
I was able to make appointments with government, media and opposition figures, and even had a couple of hours with Pinochet himself in his office atop a new skyscraper called the Diego Portales, which was used as his headquarters while the palace was being rebuilt.
I had a luncheon interview with the editors of the daily El Mercurio, which had the format and editorial policy resembling our Wall Street Journal. Allende had tried to close it down. It supported the Pinochet government. I also interviewed the editors of a weekly that looked exactly like our Time magazine. It was democratic-socialist in the Western European way and sharply critical of Pinochet. It published unhindered.
About the coup itself, I have seen no higher estimate of those killed than 3,000. In view of the fact that this was, in essence, a civil war, and that the Communist Party and its Allende socialist allies were, per capita, the largest revolutionary grouping in Latin America, I would say that 3,000 casualties is remarkably light.
Pinochet saw it as his job to maintain order while his economists revamped the economy. I'd say that he maintained order. I had rented a tiny Fiat, and when I tried to enter a "parking garage" near the Diego Portales, a solider waved a machine gun and yelled, "No, no se–or!" The parking garage was full of tanks. There would be no riots. The lobby of the Diego Portales was full of rather runty little soldiers who all looked about 16 years old, all with machine guns. I had hoped no car would backfire outside.
Up in his rooftop office, wearing a blue suit and white socks, Pinochet struck me as a typical barracks solider. He had little concern about the nuances of politics. He wanted to "improve his image." He did not laugh when I advised that he proclaim himself a socialist, praise Willy Brandt, but change none of his policies.
Pinochet kept order. The real work was done by a team of young economists from the University of Chicago. It was exciting to sit with the economists behind the large windows of the best club in Santiago, gaze at the sunset on the snowy Andes behind the city, smoke cigars and drink pisco sours (a pleasant sort of daiquiri), while the economists conversationally dismembered the inefficient, politicized, and subsidized industries, restructured the economy and modernized Chile.
These young men were the genuine revolutionaries, and they had a wonderful élan.
It might be regrettable, but the Romans knew that a "dictator" sometimes is indispensable when things are spinning out of hand. Indeed, the Romans invented the word dictator. Pinochet did what had to be done when his country required it. The left and the liberals (is that a redundancy?) will never forgive him.
Appreciate the info!
I asked the following questions of another Leftist on this thread (so far, no answer...big surprise).
Tell me, how do you overthrow a Communist revolution without killing Communists? How do you establish rule of law when every aspect of the government is riddled with Communists from top to bottom? If Pinochet had done it your way, Chile would be a Communist dictatorship exporting Communist revolution all over Latin America (and making common cause with our enemies in the WOT).
Don't go throwing around insults. In fact, perhaps it is YOU who is the Leftist, trolling in DU only to make FR look bad.
I never said that no Communists should have been killed in the coup. In fact, doubtless in the early fighting, many Communists were justifiably killed. What I meant was that he should have gone for mass imprisonment instead of mass killings, and that he should have done it with respect to a rule of law. There were factions of the gov't who SUPPORTED the coup, including the Christian Democratic Party of Chile, but eventually denounced him (along with the Catholic CHURCH) for his junta's excesses.
Besides, after Pinochet's coup succeeded, Chile was free of the chance of a Marxist dictatorship for all time. Or are you questioning Pinochet and his junta's abilities?
You are being oftly naive. Communists are not purged overnight. The above ground party is the least of the target government's problem. It's the underground party that needs to be dug out and eliminated. This takes a great deal of time and intelligence. Perhaps the following will shed light on what Pinochet was up against:
(Excerpt taken from "We Are the Next Target):
The goals and methods of Communism
Yet it seems almost incredible that any ideology could lead to well-coordinated deception on such a huge scale. Whenever the word "Communism" is mentioned, most people think of a philosophy, a political theory, an economic system, or perhaps a political party. But Communism is none of these. Before we can understand the Communist role in strategic deception and terrorist warfare, we must answer one critical question: What is Communism?
Karl Marx and V.I. Lenin are widely known as the founders of Communism. However, not everyone who professes the ideology of Marx and Lenin is a true Communist. Lenin himself defined Communism as an international organization, akin to the Mafia, whose members would constitute an elite corps of professional revolutionaries.[40] As he described it in 1902, "In form such a strong revolutionary organization in an autocratic country may also be described as a 'conspiratorial' organization... such an organization must have the utmost secrecy."[41] Shortly after seizing control of Russia in 1917, Lenin revealed the secret of Communist success in a booklet, declaring that "The Bolsheviks could not have maintained themselves in power... unless the strictest, truly iron discipline prevailed in our Party."[42] Naive believers in Marxist ideology are constantly purged from the Party, for the organization can rely only on those people blindly willing to obey orders.[43] Communism explicitly disavows all moral rules, and its members must constantly shift tactics, sometimes even carry out seemingly anti-Marxist actions, as its leadership adapts the revolution to changing circumstances.[44] Thus Communists possess the fanatic discipline needed to carry out deception on a scale beyond the imagination of most outsiders, including staging their own alleged "collapse."
The ultimate goal has been stated openly by every major Communist leader since Karl Marx: a world government dominated by the Communists.[45] Lenin described how, to overthrow existing governments, the Communists organize parallel revolutions in each country. Most of the Communist Party structure must operate underground, invisible to the larger population, while it uses both legal and illegal methods, including deception and, in Lenin's own words, "terrorism."[46] Its secret members, operating under strict orders, infiltrate the highest levels of the target government and its military, as well as the labor unions and other popular movements, the communications media, and even the anti-Communist opposition itself.[47] From these positions, the Communists can orchestrate an apparently spontaneous, violent revolution, while paralyzing the efforts of the target government to respond effectively. The confused population, unaware of the well-organized forces behind the crisis, negotiates a series of compromises leading to further instability and finally to the victory of Communism.
As growing numbers of nations fall to the revolution, it becomes possible to reunite them under a Communist world regime.[48] This is being carried out in a two-stage process. The transition step to this "new world social order," as American Communist William Z. Foster called it,[49] involves merging the newly captive nations into regional governments.[50] The Communists have explicitly worked toward creating a united Europe,[51] a united American hemisphere,[52] a pan-African regional entity,[53] and, for the Middle East, a pan-Arab regime.[54]
Marxism-Leninism, then, is not an ideology, but a strategy for achieving world revolution. Communists are the disciplined members of an international organization that uses Marxist-Leninist techniques. And terrorism is a key ingredient in the success of such revolution. To see how the entire strategy works, we now turn to an overview of Communist revolutions in action.
Wars of national liberation
Because open warfare against target governments would simply lead to defeat, the Communists always disguise their revolutions as civil wars. They camouflage their intentions by pretending to fight for the liberation of one class of people from another, using a divide-and-conquer technique against a nation's social structure. This method is referred to as a "war of national liberation," and it adapts its tactics to the unique circumstances of each country. Such a war can pit industrial workers against capitalists, as in Russia, Catholics against Protestants, as in Northern Ireland, blacks against whites, as in South Africa--or Arabs against Jews, as in Israel. The Communists do not openly identify themselves, acting instead as representatives of the supposedly "oppressed" class of people.
By painting their revolution as a spontaneous uprising of "oppressed masses," the Communists hope to convince the target population that it faces an unwinnable war rooted in fundamental social tensions. If the government is also paralyzed and cannot stop the terrorism, public morale quickly drops and the weakening government loses popular support. Believing that the revolution must eventually win, the population abandons active opposition to the terrorists and instead sues for peace at any cost. The perception ultimately becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as the government collapses altogether.
Any "war of national liberation" can be divided into seven steps:
Step 1) To establish themselves in the minds of the target population as a force to be reckoned with, the revolutionaries must first force a heavy-handed reaction by the government. Their tactics are based on a 1969 book by Brazilian Communist Carlos Marighella, the Mini-Manual for Urban Guerrillas, which has been translated and distributed to terrorists throughout the world. Marighella explained how to use such frightening violence that "the government has no alternative except to intensify repression. The police roundups, house searches, arrests of innocent people, make life in the city unbearable... The political situation is transformed into a military situation, in which the militarists appear more and more responsible for errors and violence... The urban guerrilla must become more aggressive and violent, resorting without letup to sabotage, terrorism, expropriations, assaults, kidnappings and executions, heightening the disastrous situation in which the government must act."[55]
Step 2) Having provoked a harsh reaction by the target government, the Communists now flood the Western news media with stories of government atrocities, real or fabricated. The goal is to begin isolating the government from Western, primarily American, support. The revolutionaries label convicted terrorists as "political prisoners"; they invent elaborate stories of secret prisons and "death squads"; and they hide among civilians during fighting, causing the government to kill innocent people accidentally. Such heads of state as Chiang Kai-shek of China, Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua, and the Shah of Iran have been portrayed as corrupt and repressive. The South African government has been painted as being violently racist, while the French colonial administration in Algeria and the British rule in Northern Ireland have been labeled as undemocratic. Similar publicity attacks have been used against South Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, Rhodesia, El Salvador, Argentina, and dozens of other nations. The news media has always cooperated in these smear campaigns, never allowing the target regime a fair chance to respond to the charges.
Step 3) The Communists can now count on the U.S. State Department to pressure the target government to begin giving in to the revolutionaries, supposedly for the sake of "human rights." The regime offers compromises, including political reforms, the release of captured terrorists, and military cease-fires, which allow the terrorists to regroup and seize territory. But the revolutionaries also increase their demands, taking advantage of the government's weakened image.
Step 4) As the government loses prestige, the Communists escalate the revolutionary violence and general unrest. They organize mass demonstrations, which agitators turn into riots. Labor unions go on strike, building toward a general labor strike that cripples the entire economy. Marxist professors in the universities indoctrinate and recruit naive youth, who join the growing ranks of Communists and terrorists. And some Communist agents even infiltrate local religious organizations, masquerading as priests or other clergy so as to neutralize opposition and recruit more people into the revolution. This can be seen, for example, in the Liberation Theology movement in the Catholic and Protestant churches, which teaches that Jesus was a Marxist revolutionary. Liberation Theology is active today in many parts of Latin America, Africa, and the far East.
Step 5) Since the Communists are only a tiny minority of the population, they must create the illusion of popular support. By waging terrorist warfare against the very people they claim to be liberating, the revolutionaries can frighten the people into passive or even active support of the revolution. In China and Nicaragua, the Communists murdered peasant farmers in rural villages; in Algeria, they maimed and killed Arab muslims; in Northern Ireland, they have killed thousands of Catholics while "kneecapping" thousands more with guns and electric drills;[56] in South Africa, they have burned to death many hundreds of blacks with "necklaces"--tires soaked in gasoline, placed around the victim's neck, and lit on fire.[57] The revolutionaries accuse the victims of "collaborating" with the government, sending a powerful message to the rest of the population not to resist.
Step 6) Now the Communists are ready to enter the final phase of their revolution. With the target government steadily losing control over the country, the revolutionaries step up general terrorist violence while simultaneously negotiating for a new government. To accomplish this, the Communists often must split their revolutionary movement into two wings: an extremely violent faction pretending to oppose any peace agreement, and a more political faction that projects an image of pragmatism. The two factions secretly coordinate their activities, carrying out a "good cop/bad cop" scenario. Frightened by the escalating terrorism of the revolutionaries, the government makes concessions to the seemingly moderate faction, hoping to discourage the forces of violence. As the Communists tighten the vise, the government bargains away its remaining strength.
Step 7) Finally, in the name of democracy and "human rights," the U.S. State Department withdraws its support from the embattled regime, using diplomatic pressure to force out the old government entirely and replace it with another. The Communists have by this time maneuvered themselves into position to join the new coalition government. Because this new regime is weak and divided, the Communists quickly move to consolidate total power for themselves. Their naive liberal allies are executed, followed by systematic mass terror against the whole population. A Communist regime has been imposed.
These seven steps describe the pattern of a war of national liberation. This strategy has been used, with slight variations, against almost every nation now under Communism, and is well under way for many remaining non-Communist nations.[58] As we have seen, terrorism is a cornerstone of this strategy.
40 Lenin, V.I., "What is to be done?", 1902, in Connor, J.E., Ed., Lenin on Politics and Revolution, Pegasus, Indianapolis, 1968, pp. 61-72.
41 Ibid., p. 73.
42 Lenin, V.I., "Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder, International Publishers, New York, 1940, p. 9.
43 Ibid., pp. 31-32.
44 Ibid., p. 82.
45 Goodman, E.R., The Soviet Design for a World State, Columbia University Press, New York, 1960.
46 Lenin, "Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder, Op cit., pp. 12, 18-19.
47 Ibid., pp. 14, 20-21, 34, 37-39, 42-48, 62, 65, 76-77, 80, etc.
48 Stalin, J., Marxism and the National Question, International Publishers, New York, 1942, p. 38, passim.
49 Foster, W.Z., Toward Soviet America, Elgin Publications, Balboa Island, CA, 1961 (originally published 1932), pp. 39-40.
50 Petrenko, F., and Popov, V., Soviet Foreign Policy: Objectives and Principles, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1985, pp. 285-287.
51 Golitsyn, A., New Lies for Old, Op cit., pp. 341-342.
52 Foster, W.Z., Toward Soviet America, Op cit., pp. 272-273.
53 Gromyko, A., Africa: Progress, Problems, Prospects, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1983, pp. 41-51.
54 Agwani, M.S., Communism in the Arab East, Asia Publishing House, New York, 1969, pp. 9-20.
55 As quoted in Sterling, Op cit., pp. 21-22.
56 Sterling, Op cit., pp. 151, 171.
57 Reed, D., "South Africa: Glimmers of hope?", Reader's Digest, Aug., 1987; McAlvany, D.S., "Revolution and betrayal: The accelerating onslaught against South Africa," The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, July, 1986, pp. 10-11; Bureau for Information, Talking with the ANC..., Government Printer, Pretoria, South Africa, 1986, p. 24.
58 For example, see Sterling, Op cit.; Batista, F., Cuba Betrayed, Vantage Press, New York, 1962; Weyl, N., Red Star Over Cuba, Hillman Books, New York, 1961; Smith, E.E.T., The Fourth Floor, Random House, New York, 1962; Clark, M.K., Algeria in Turmoil, Grosset & Dunlap, New York, 1959; True Aspects of the Algerian Revolution, French Interior Ministry, Paris; Kai-shek, C., Soviet Russia in China, Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, New York, 1957; Welch, R., Again, May G-d Forgive Us, Belmont Publishing Company, Belmont, MA, 1952; Somoza, A. and Cox, J., Nicaragua Betrayed, Western Islands, Boston, 1980; Pahlavi, M.R., Shah, Answer to History, Stein & Day, New York, 1980; Pike, H.R., A History of Communism in South Africa, Christian Mission International of South Africa, Germiston, South Africa, 1985; de Villamarest, P.F., The Strategists of Fear, Geneva, Switzerland, 1981; and many others.
But Pinochet's coup had popular support, unlike the communists. He could have rallied political power and turn public opinion against the communists, instead of carrying out purges and underhanded executions. He could have just thrown them all in jail. And most important of all, he should have brought back the civilian gov't, stepped aside of actual governing and just acted as guardian of the legitimate government, instead of taking power for himself and his military.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.