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.
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 :)
"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.