Why USSR never intervine in Chile?

[The Red Next Door]

Why the USSR never did anything about the fascist in Chile and did something about the coup?

[Wanted Man]

Why should they?

[Psy]

Why should they?
To work towards the goal of world revolution and roll back US imperialism.

[Nolan]

The number one reason is because provoking the US and starting World War III would have been a very bad thing, which such an intervention would be certain to do. Besides, it's not like they really cared by that point anyway.

[Red Commissar]

It wouldn't really have been in their interests. From an ideological standpoint one would say they should, but realistically it simply would have not been worth it for them. President Allende had no support from the military either, so it would have been difficult for the Soviets to form a Chilean force to counter Pinochet and co.

It would have been more damaging on them, and more importantly play into the arguments of regimes in South America that the socialist parties in their countries were acting on orders from Moscow. I'd imagine the right-wing reaction we saw in the Southern Cone would have been infinitely worse than what happened in real life.

[Psy]

The number one reason is because provoking the US and starting World War III would have been a very bad thing, which such an intervention would be certain to do. Besides, it's not like they really cared by that point anyway.
If Chile signed a defense pact with the USSR army then NATO couldn't official intervene as then Chile would have been a official protectorate of the USSR thus could have deployed massive force into Chile legally without breaking UN law thus at worse becoming another Cuban missile crisis.



It wouldn't really have been in their interests. From an ideological standpoint one would say they should, but realistically it simply would have not been worth it for them. President Allende had no support from the military either, so it would have been difficult for the Soviets to form a Chilean force to counter Pinochet and co.

But Allende had support from the masses beside Pinochet forces would have been no match for USSR air borne units.



It would have been more damaging on them, and more importantly play into the arguments of regimes in South America that the socialist parties in their countries were acting on orders from Moscow. I'd imagine the right-wing reaction we saw in the Southern Cone would have been infinitely worse than what happened in real life.
Who cares, if the USSR could have purged Chile of CIA paramilitary forces through military occupation the options of Washington would become a moot point as then the USSR could withdraw and not only would the CIA would have lost its assets in Chile.

[Reznov]

When you say USSR Airborne Units, exactly what are you talking about? Or a "Massive Force"?

And how expensive do you think it would be for the USSR to do this, to maintain these units deployed across the ocean from the USSR?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Why the USSR never did anything about the fascist in Chile and did something about the coup?

Because of Uncle Sam.


Why should they?

Probably wouldn't have been a good idea.


To work towards the goal of world revolution and roll back US imperialism.

Yeah, cause they certainly rolled back imperialism in Afghanistan. Can your quasi military fetishist arguments hold up even by your own logic?


The number one reason is because provoking the US and starting World War III would have been a very bad thing, which such an intervention would be certain to do. Besides, it's not like they really cared by that point anyway.

The first part is correct.

However, it's not like the Soviet government "didn't care" that the US overthrew a potential ally, and "imperialist" powers always like to one up their rivals right? This was a defeat for the Soviet Union, just like it was a defeat for Cuba and of course the potential for the workers to empower themselves in Chile and everywhere else in Latin America. Can your "social imperialist" argument hold up to it's own logic?


If Chile signed a defense pact with the USSR army then NATO couldn't official intervene as then Chile would have been a official protectorate of the USSR thus could have deployed massive force into Chile legally without breaking UN law thus at worse becoming another Cuban missile crisis.

LOL. I wonder if you write this stuff while your snorting coke or just eating way too much sugar. That's what your run on sentences make it seem like.

Maybe it's just me. :lol:




But Allende had support from the masses beside Pinochet forces would have been no match for USSR air borne units.

Yeah, Soviet airborne units to stand up against a US backed military in Latin America? Do you not realize the logistical challenge of keeping a military supplied when the geographical location of the potential warzone is in the real, real favor of your enemy?

Support for Allende doesn't count for much, as we saw what became of his supporters.



Who cares,
hahahaha. Who cares about embarking on a suicidal military campaign without any support from anyone else? :laugh:


if the USSR could have purged Chile of CIA paramilitary forces through military occupation the options of Washington would become a moot point as then the USSR could withdraw and not only would the CIA would have lost its assets in Chile.

Seriously. Stop posting. Your an embarrassment to military tacticians and to communists.

[Q]

When you say USSR Airborne Units, exactly what are you talking about? Or a "Massive Force"?
The Red Army was rather big.


And how expensive do you think it would be for the USSR to do this? To actually maintain these units deployed across the ocean from the USSR?

This is hilarious. Wasn't Moscow supposed to be committed to support worldrevolution?

Of course they weren't as Moscow had their own counter-revolution within the revolution many decades before that faithful day in 1973. From that point on the Comintern became nothing more than a stooge for USSR foreign policy and when it was needed to dismantle it, to secure the allied friends in WWII, this was exactly what was done.

Allende's regime never would have counted on direct intervention from Moscow, as that simply was not going to happen. And Allende had a whole plethora of examples, from China in 1927 and Spain in the 1930's to the other Latin-American countries in the 1960's and 1970's to base that on. Wanted Man's rather succinct answer is exemplary for this line of thought.

[Psy]

When you say USSR Airborne Units, exactly what are you talking about?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMJpYVFxrRI
(video also shows USSR Naval infantry with the landing craft)

They are basically airborne mechanized infantry meant for rapid deployment through air drops.



And how expensive would it be for the USSR to do this?
Of course the USSR deploying into Chile would be very costly and risky but the gains of pushing NATO out of Chile would have been worth it.

[bcbm]

at worse becoming another Cuban missile crisis

yeah, almost global nuclear war, no big deal.

[Psy]

Yeah, cause they certainly rolled back imperialism in Afghanistan. Can your quasi military fetishist arguments hold up even by your own logic?

A) They didn't win in Afghanistan
B) They were actually somewhat of a progressive influence to Afghanistan.




Yeah, Soviet airborne units to stand up against a US backed military in Latin America? Do you not realize the logistical challenge of keeping a military supplied when the geographical location of the potential warzone is in the real, real favor of your enemy?

Support for Allende doesn't count for much, as we saw what became of his supporters.

Because Allende didn't prepare a revolutionary army. If the USSR armed the proletariat and peasants of Chile and formed them into militias they would drastically restricted movement of CIA forces.

[Reznov]

rMJpYVFxrRI
(video also shows USSR Naval infantry with the landing craft)

They are basically airborne mechanized infantry meant for rapid deployment through air drops.


Of course the USSR deploying into Chile would be very costly and risky but the gains of pushing NATO out of Chile would have been worth it.

And thats the kind of units you think the USSR should have sent?

How would it have been worth it?

[bcbm]

damn i forgot to say inb4 revolutionary army

[Kléber]

Real reason they didn't intervene is they knew their T-72's were crap with the exploding turrets and the autoloader that could chew off your arm.. USA's M1 Abrams would destroy them. :drool:

[Raúl Duke]

Why not? Here are some reasons I've gathered:

1) Russia is in Europe/Asia, across the ocean and far away from Chile. It's not in a favorable geographic location to Russia as say Afghanistan is (where in that case they did intervene in favor of the pro-USSR left-leaning Afghani government in the 80s)

2) The US considered, from a foreign policy standpoint, Latin-America as their "backyard" and would not happily tolerate the Soviets encroaching in that. See US response to Cuba and responses to other left-wing and/or USSR-leaning Latin-American nations across the 20th century. The US would have intervened and it might have led to a proxy-war.

3) From my understanding, I don't think Allende approach the USSR to entail having such a strong co-operative bond as say Cuba, etc. It was a left-wing government, but was it a pro-USSR one?


Of course the USSR deploying into Chile would be very costly and risky but the gains of pushing NATO out of Chile would have been worth it. I doubt it, at least not from a defensive standpoint. Soviet policy was probably more concern in gaining allies and "satellite states" around the USSR and perhaps only sending aid to already formed rebel movements in areas where Russia perhaps had nothing to lose.


If the USSR armed the proletariat and peasants of Chile and formed them into militias they would drastically restricted movement of CIA forces. I seriously doubt the USSR would have taken that route in Chile; it ain't Vietnam/etc. Most likely, the would have aided whatever pro-Allende state forces and some allies in stopping the coup but I doubt they would just hand out guns to every working man and woman; although perhaps some in the Allende government may do that (in a limited scope).

If you want to talk about alliances and aid, Cuba was in a better position to provide that to Chile than the USSR has since they would have many ideological and practical reasons (i.e. matter of latin-american solidarity, latin-american anti-imperialism, potential useful ally in near-by South America, etc) plus at the time they would perhaps been more open to "arming the people" (or more accurately forming pro-Allende Cuban-trained militias). Were they able to? Perhaps not.

[mykittyhasaboner]

A) They didn't win in Afghanistan
B) They were actually somewhat of a progressive influence to Afghanistan.


Uh, I know.



Because Allende didn't prepare a revolutionary army. If the USSR armed the proletariat and peasants of Chile and formed them into militias they would drastically restricted movement of CIA forces.That probably wouldn't have been as easy as you put it. Don't you think so?

[Psy]

And thats the kind of units you think the USSR should have sent?

How would it have been worth it?
Well they are meant for rapid response so it would they could have been deployed in a relatively speedy time table and could then be relived (and sent back home) when forces slower to deploy reach Chile.

We are talking Pinochet forces that was defeated in his previous coup by forces loyal to Allende so they would have been probably been capable of doing the job. The reward would have been preventing a CIA coup in Chile and weakening CIA assets in Chile.

[Psy]

Why not? Here are some reasons I've gathered:

1) Russia is in Europe/Asia, across the ocean and far away from Chile. It's not in a favorable geographic location to Russia as say Afghanistan is (where in that case they did intervene in favor of the pro-USSR left-leaning Afghani government in the 80s)

The USSR still has the ability to deploy forces to Chile and supply them if it had the political will to invest resources towards it.



2) The US considered, from a foreign policy standpoint, Latin-America as their "backyard" and would not happily tolerate the Soviets encroaching in that. See US response to Cuba and responses to other left-wing and/or USSR-leaning Latin-American nations across the 20th century. The US would have intervened and it might have led to a proxy-war.

Yet the USA was unable to overthrow Castro meaning the USSR had a chance of making it impossible for the CIA to bring Chile back into its spear of influence even after USSR forces leave Chile.



3) From my understanding, I don't think Allende approach the USSR to entail having such a strong co-operative bond as say Cuba, etc. It was a left-wing government, but was it a pro-USSR one?

Allende didn't have to be pro-USSR just willing to turn to the USSR for protection.



I doubt it, at least not from a defensive standpoint. Soviet policy was probably more concern in gaining allies and "satellite states" around the USSR and perhaps only sending aid to already formed rebel movements in areas where Russia perhaps had nothing to lose.

The Bolsheviks probably would if they were still in power.



I seriously doubt the USSR would have taken that route in Chile; it ain't Vietnam/etc. Most likely, the would have aided whatever pro-Allende state forces and some allies in stopping the coup but I doubt they would just hand out guns to every working man and woman; although perhaps some in the Allende government may do that (in a limited scope).

The USSR threw arms at many rebel groups so why not at the general population of Chile? Wouldn't the USSR want to crush the CIA in Chile as quickly as possible if was going to go through with deploying a significant military force to Chile?



If you want to talk about alliances and aid, Cuba was in a better position to provide that to Chile than the USSR has since they would have many ideological and practical reasons (i.e. matter of latin-american solidarity, latin-american anti-imperialism, potential useful ally in near-by South America, etc) plus at the time they would perhaps been more open to "arming the people" (or more accurately forming pro-Allende Cuban-trained militias). Were they able to? Perhaps not.
True

[Raúl Duke]

Your exploring a "what-if" scenario which just didn't play out. I'm listing reasons why the what-if never happened.


The USSR still has the ability to deploy forces to Chile and supply them if it had the political will to invest resources towards it.

They didn't have this political will because of the reasons listed. There was just not much of a chance of them ever having it at the time. Also, as you mentioned:


The Bolsheviks probably would if they were still in power.

They weren't; the USSR was somewhat "real-politik" (although less than the Chinese, who went and open relations with Nixon) in their stance and since Stalin's time did put high priority towards the defense of USSR's sphere of influence over setting shop somewhere far off that sphere.


Allende didn't have to be pro-USSR just willing to turn to the USSR for protection.

You can't just get help out of thin air, the political capital/momentum for him to take such an action was just not there; especially when the USSR never made such an offer.

[AK]

Why the USSR never did anything about the fascist in Chile and did something about the coup?
The USSR was far from committed to working-class revolution in 1973. It was blatantly capitalist/revisionist then.

[Wanted Man]

Someone mentioned the Cuban Missile Crisis. After that disaster, why would the USSR ever commit to that kind of intervention again?

It's also kind of funny that people here are convinced that the USSR should have acted like an imperialist power, with force projection on a global scale. Maybe they should have added to the already disastrous military spending by building dozens of carriers in order to deploy them all over the world, just like the USA. Yeah. :rolleyes:

[Psy]

Someone mentioned the Cuban Missile Crisis. After that disaster, why would the USSR ever commit to that kind of intervention again?

The Cuban Missie Crisis was a partial victory as it prevented the USA from annexing Cuba by raising the stakes of US invasion of Cuba to full scale nuclear war with the USSR.



It's also kind of funny that people here are convinced that the USSR should have acted like an imperialist power, with force projection on a global scale. Maybe they should have added to the already disastrous military spending by building dozens of carriers in order to deploy them all over the world, just like the USA. Yeah. :rolleyes:
We are talking about the USSR killing CIA forces half way around the world through military means and then going home through some negotiations with the USA (being planned in advanced). Meaning the USSR planning on eventually agreeing to peace talks with USA and leaving Chile just like the Cuban Missie Crisis but by then the CIA being drove out of Chile or slaughtered.


Your exploring a "what-if" scenario which just didn't play out. I'm listing reasons why the what-if never happened.

They didn't have this political will because of the reasons listed. There was just not much of a chance of them ever having it at the time. Also, as you mentioned:

They weren't; the USSR was somewhat "real-politik" (although less than the Chinese, who went and open relations with Nixon) in their stance and since Stalin's time did put high priority towards the defense of USSR's sphere of influence over setting shop somewhere far off that sphere.

That is true but the USSR had the means to attempt to purge Chile of the CIA before they had to withdraw their forces.



You can't just get help out of thin air, the political capital/momentum for him to take such an action was just not there; especially when the USSR never made such an offer.
Well Arbenz did get weapons for Guatemala from the USSR but it was too late. Of course Allende had more time to make use of just being armed by the USSR and could have just made use of even WWII surplus from the USSR to arm a revolutionary army, also the failed coup Roberto Souper should have been reason enough for Allende to take drastic actions to purge Chile of the CIA.

[chegitz guevara]

Actually, the USSR, via Cuba, did do something about it. A ship full of weapons was sent to the Chilean Communist Party to help start a guerrilla war. Unfortunately, it was seized by the Chilean military. This event was used as a pretext for a new crackdown on dissent in the late 70s.

[Red Commissar]

If Chile signed a defense pact with the USSR army then NATO couldn't official intervene as then Chile would have been a official protectorate of the USSR thus could have deployed massive force into Chile legally without breaking UN law thus at worse becoming another Cuban missile crisis.

It wouldn't have prevented a coup from within fermented by western interests however. All this would have done is give a pretext, albeit shoddy



But Allende had support from the masses beside Pinochet forces would have been no match for USSR air borne units.

Allende had support, but not from the entire populace. Unsurprisingly during his time many of his radical ideas were threatening the ruling class, who swiftly went into action.

It is worth noting that Allende himself just barely managed to get into power, and the parties that backed him started to turn against him as pressure from within the ruling class increase.

One would only have to see the mass strikes that were orchestrated by Allende's enemies during his time and their stalemate in parliament to see that Allende was in a precarious spot.

That said it also compounded the issue of Allende feasibly making his "revolutionary army" because even with those who supported him may have not been comfortable working with the Soviet Union.



Who cares, if the USSR could have purged Chile of CIA paramilitary forces through military occupation the options of Washington would become a moot point as then the USSR could withdraw and not only would the CIA would have lost its assets in Chile.

The USSR and the United States were conscious of what image they were portraying on the international stage. Both the USSR and the United States accused one another of being suspect of supporting dictators and oppressing the masses. Both would accuse the other of backing regimes that did not

I rather doubt the feasibility of an armed intervention in Chile. The most the Soviets could have done is prevented the storming of the presidential palace with their forces. It would have not stopped the inevitable, and would have simply played into propaganda from the military that Allende was not acting in the interest of Chile, but in the interest of Moscow.

In the short term a Soviet intervention may have halted a rapid overthrow, but it would have risked becoming bogged down into a war that would drain the Soviet Union and play into international propaganda against Communism. Like I said earlier it would have also increased the magnitude of Operation Condor in southern cone nations.

Like Chegitz said the Allende regime was getting support in one form or another, and like he said it was used as one of many charges by the military and the US that Allende was a soviet puppet. Even up to the coup itself the Soviets had arms deals with the government. But the Soviets were not able to counter the CIA and other parties operations from within Chile, notably in the economic field, that destabilized the country enough to erode support away from Allende and create the perfect ground for a military coup to "save" the nation.

[Adil3tr]

I kind of wish they had, but I really don't think they gave a shit. I mean, did the KGB ever do anything on the scale of the CIA?

[Psy]

It wouldn't have prevented a coup from within fermented by western interests however. All this would have done is give a pretext, albeit shoddy

True but if the USSR was able to crush CIA assets in Chile before it had to withdraw it would have at least delayed another coup attempt.



Allende had support, but not from the entire populace. Unsurprisingly during his time many of his radical ideas were threatening the ruling class, who swiftly went into action.

It is worth noting that Allende himself just barely managed to get into power, and the parties that backed him started to turn against him as pressure from within the ruling class increase.

One would only have to see the mass strikes that were orchestrated by Allende's enemies during his time and their stalemate in parliament to see that Allende was in a precarious spot.

That said it also compounded the issue of Allende feasibly making his "revolutionary army" because even with those who supported him may have not been comfortable working with the Soviet Union.

That could have easily dealt with by turning to the poor of Chile arming and telling them the USSR forces are just there to help them slaughter their capitalist oppressors.



The USSR and the United States were conscious of what image they were portraying on the international stage. Both the USSR and the United States accused one another of being suspect of supporting dictators and oppressing the masses. Both would accuse the other of backing regimes that did not

Right so why would the USSR care what Washington said about its about intervening in Chile, if it played its cards right the USSRs intervening in Chile could be a huge propaganda boon showing the USSR defending revolutionary nations from US imperialism.



I rather doubt the feasibility of an armed intervention in Chile. The most the Soviets could have done is prevented the storming of the presidential palace with their forces. It would have not stopped the inevitable, and would have simply played into propaganda from the military that Allende was not acting in the interest of Chile, but in the interest of Moscow.

In the short term a Soviet intervention may have halted a rapid overthrow, but it would have risked becoming bogged down into a war that would drain the Soviet Union and play into international propaganda against Communism. Like I said earlier it would have also increased the magnitude of Operation Condor in southern cone nations.

The CIA has yet to overthrow Castro thus it would be possible for the USSR to leave the CIA so badly beaten in Chile that even after the USSR withdraws the CIA would always be much weaker in Chile due most of their agents in Chile being dead or in prisons in the USSR.



Like Chegitz said the Allende regime was getting support in one form or another, and like he said it was used as one of many charges by the military and the US that Allende was a soviet puppet. Even up to the coup itself the Soviets had arms deals with the government. But the Soviets were not able to counter the CIA and other parties operations from within Chile, notably in the economic field, that destabilized the country enough to erode support away from Allende and create the perfect ground for a military coup to "save" the nation.
The USSR could countered this with massive economic aid.

[Red Commissar]

True but if the USSR was able to crush CIA assets in Chile before it had to withdraw it would have at least delayed another coup attempt.

What about the CIA operations in the rest of the continent? Within the Chilean populace itself? It's more complicated than a matter of getting rid of the big bad CIA.



That could have easily dealt with by turning to the poor of Chile arming and telling them the USSR forces are just there to help them slaughter their capitalist oppressors. If it was this simple the Soviet Union would have been vastly more successful in real life.

It's ignoring the way the populace worked. Many were still with the old order and did not care much for Allende. Working class support was divided. We see a similar story with other left-wing figures in South America, like Juan Torres of Bolivia or Juan Velasco of Peru.


Right so why would the USSR care what Washington said about its about intervening in Chile, if it played its cards right the USSRs intervening in Chile could be a huge propaganda boon showing the USSR defending revolutionary nations from US imperialism. Again you're ignoring facts. Allende did not have unanimous support. Soviet intervention could have easily been projected as an act of keeping up a puppet.

American policy worked much in the same way with the Soviet war in Afghanistan. And guess which way world opinion unfortunately turned?



The CIA has yet to overthrow Castro thus it would be possible for the USSR to leave the CIA so badly beaten in Chile that even after the USSR withdraws the CIA would always be much weaker in Chile due most of their agents in Chile being dead or in prisons in the USSR.You can't compare Chile and Cuba. Cuba's current regime secured itself through a revolution and liquidated counter-revolutionary elements.

President Allende was elected in a bourgeoisie country that was firmly in place at the time, and had its own sway over the people. They were able to get people striking on the streets and a number to join the military's coup and then turn against Allende's supporters. They were doomed from the beginning unfortunately.



The USSR could countered this with massive economic aid.Lets get back to reality. You really think it's easy to keep a country up with just "massive economic aid" and hope things go from there? What the United States was doing to Chile's economy broke it beyond any amount of aid could have alleviated. It would have not changed the loyalties of the military to the old order either, much less the hostility of Chile's neighbors to Allende's presidency.

What happened in Chile was part of a larger effort by the United States in Latin America, what we now know as Operation Condor, to assert its sphere of influence. The Soviet Union, being a world power, weighed its options and did not see it feasible to intervene. We got to remember by this point that the Soviet Union wasn't white knighting around the world for the cause of workers' rights.

[enrici]

The USSR was an imperialist state. They just weren't as imperialist as the USA, but that's not saying much. Do you think that the Chilean working class would habe been better off wuith Soviet tanks patrolling the streets? I dunno, would you trade Pinochet for Soviet dictatorship?

[chegitz guevara]

Like Chegitz said the Allende regime was getting support in one form or another,

Actually, the example I mentioned was a post-coup event.

As to why the USSR didn't do more, it's because they recognized Latin America as the U.S.'s domain, and knew that too much interference would result in renewed hostilities. The USSR was pursuing détente at the time, as the Cold War was beginning to put a real strain on them.

[Red Commissar]

Actually, the example I mentioned was a post-coup event.

Yeah, I misread there. The Soviet Union was however providing some aid to the Allende regime, but not so much that it would get the United States furious. It was really just routine trade between two nations. Like you said in this post the USSR was pursuing detente and would have rather not interfered in the US's sphere of influence, especially in a scenario which would have not ended favorably for them anyways.

[Psy]

What about the CIA operations in the rest of the continent? Within the Chilean populace itself? It's more complicated than a matter of getting rid of the big bad CIA.

If USSR ground troops can capture high ranking CIA officers they can black mail them to get names of officers in the rest of the continent. For example telling CIA officers that refuse to cooperate they are free to go but the USSR will go public with incriminating documentation and of course the USSR is far too busy to protect them from angry mobs.



If it was this simple the Soviet Union would have been vastly more successful in real life.

It's ignoring the way the populace worked. Many were still with the old order and did not care much for Allende. Working class support was divided. We see a similar story with other left-wing figures in South America, like Juan Torres of Bolivia or Juan Velasco of Peru.

True it not that simple but it would have been possible to polarize to classes in Chile to cause the working class to be gravitied to a strong revolutionary movement.



Again you're ignoring facts. Allende did not have unanimous support. Soviet intervention could have easily been projected as an act of keeping up a puppet.

American policy worked much in the same way with the Soviet war in Afghanistan. And guess which way world opinion unfortunately turned?

The USSR could have debunked that by armed the entire working class of Chile and showing video of USSR troops getting along with a large revolutionary army. Of course this would be dangerus to the USSR as it would be exposing their troops to a revolutionary movement risking they too would be caugth up in it and demand more when they got back to the USSR.



You can't compare Chile and Cuba. Cuba's current regime secured itself through a revolution and liquidated counter-revolutionary elements.

President Allende was elected in a bourgeoisie country that was firmly in place at the time, and had its own sway over the people. They were able to get people striking on the streets and a number to join the military's coup and then turn against Allende's supporters. They were doomed from the beginning unfortunately.

Lets get back to reality. You really think it's easy to keep a country up with just "massive economic aid" and hope things go from there? What the United States was doing to Chile's economy broke it beyond any amount of aid could have alleviated. It would have not changed the loyalties of the military to the old order either, much less the hostility of Chile's neighbors to Allende's presidency.

The idea would be the old military being broken by USSR forces since odds are most of the military would go AWOL shortly after the USSR starts engaging Pinochet's forces.

Massive economic aid could win over the hearts and minds of proletariat of Chile. If the USSR could deliver Allende full employment and rising living standards it would have brought the proletariat into Allende's camp at least temporarily. It would have meant once Chile was self-sufficient they could look after Cuba and the USSR could stop looking after it.




What happened in Chile was part of a larger effort by the United States in Latin America, what we now know as Operation Condor, to assert its sphere of influence. The Soviet Union, being a world power, weighed its options and did not see it feasible to intervene. We got to remember by this point that the Soviet Union wasn't white knighting around the world for the cause of workers' rights.
It could have intervened, it did it before in Cuba it just meant the USSR would have had a time limit, its forces would have had to steam roll over Pinochet forces before the USA could threaten nuclear retaliation then agree to a time table to pull out that by then hopefully Chile would be strong enough to stand on its own.

[Red Commissar]

If USSR ground troops can capture high ranking CIA officers they can black mail them to get names of officers in the rest of the continent. For example telling CIA officers that refuse to cooperate they are free to go but the USSR will go public with incriminating documentation and of course the USSR is far too busy to protect them from angry mobs.

Come back to reality. If it was that simple history would have


True it not that simple but it would have been possible to polarize to classes in Chile to cause the working class to be gravitied to a strong revolutionary movement.

Chile didn't provide this possibility though. Allende was faced with the restraints of working through bourgeoisie institutions and more importantly, a deeply entrenched bourgeoisie.



The USSR could have debunked that by armed the entire working class of Chile and showing video of USSR troops getting along with a large revolutionary army. Of course this would be dangerus to the USSR as it would be exposing their troops to a revolutionary movement risking they too would be caugth up in it and demand more when they got back to the USSR.

This was argued with soviet intervention in Afghanistan. It isn't that simple.


The idea would be the old military being broken by USSR forces since odds are most of the military would go AWOL shortly after the USSR starts engaging Pinochet's forces.

Come back to reality- would the soviet union have been willing to cause an international incident over this, one that could have caused World War, over an embattled president?



Massive economic aid could win over the hearts and minds of proletariat of Chile.

Again, if things only were this simple! Plus the Soviet Union didn't have fun money they could through around all the time.



If the USSR could deliver Allende full employment and rising living standards it would have brought the proletariat into Allende's camp at least temporarily. It would have meant once Chile was self-sufficient they could look after Cuba and the USSR could stop looking after it.

Then you just ignore the complexities of economy. What you are suggesting would have been the eqiuvelant of having Chile being virtually subordinated in economic control to the Soviet Union. Which would have not played out very well




It could have intervened, it did it before in Cuba it just meant the USSR would have had a time limit, its forces would have had to steam roll over Pinochet forces before the USA could threaten nuclear retaliation then agree to a time table to pull out that by then hopefully Chile would be strong enough to stand on its own.

The Soviets didn't do a full military intervention in Cuba, and again Cuba and Chile's situations were vastly different. Cuba had a revolutionary government in place. Chile had a socialist president embattled by bourgeoisie. And again we must weigh the cost of this action, which would have been unfavorable to the Soviet Union, and the political realities of that time that saw the Soviet Union taking a more reserved approach to international approach. What little they were willing to extend at that time was being used in Indochina and Africa.

We can all live in utopian fantasies and see the Soviet Union as a red knight going out for good with infinite resources at its disposal, but it was never that simple.

[Psy]

Come back to reality. If it was that simple history would have

But the USSR did not have access to military documents of the Pinochet's forces that it would have fallen into the hands of the USSR as the USSR took temporary position of Pinochet's bases and Pinochet's men hopefully Pinochet himself.



Chile didn't provide this possibility though. Allende was faced with the restraints of working through bourgeoisie institutions and more importantly, a deeply entrenched bourgeoisie.

USSR intervention would have dealt with bourgeoisie as most would flee as soon as word gets out the USSR is sending combat forces.



This was argued with soviet intervention in Afghanistan. It isn't that simple.

The difference here is the CIA not being expecting to be up against USSR forces and by the time they can adapt the USSR declares victory and starts withdrawing leaving an heavily armed working class in Chile.



Come back to reality- would the soviet union have been willing to cause an international incident over this, one that could have caused World War, over an embattled president?

Would the USA be willing to start World War 3 over Chile if the USSR shortly after crushing Pinochet is willing to negotiate a withdrawal of their forces? What would be the point of the USA forcing the USSR to leave if they agreed to leave anyway? How would the USA sell risking nuclear war to get the USSR out of Chile a bit faster?



Again, if things only were this simple! Plus the Soviet Union didn't have fun money they could through around all the time.

If the USSR had the political will it could have allocated significant resources to Chile's development as while the USSR didn't have much capital it did have significant commodities with utility.



Then you just ignore the complexities of economy. What you are suggesting would have been the eqiuvelant of having Chile being virtually subordinated in economic control to the Soviet Union. Which would have not played out very well

No it is the USSR throwing resources at Chile for it to rapidly develop. If Chile wants for example auto factories the USSR sends engineers, blue prints, equipment and flies their engineers to the USSR to see car factories in the USSR, basically what ever industries Chile wants to develop the USSR aids them the best they can.



The Soviets didn't do a full military intervention in Cuba, and again Cuba and Chile's situations were vastly different. Cuba had a revolutionary government in place. Chile had a socialist president embattled by bourgeoisie. And again we must weigh the cost of this action, which would have been unfavorable to the Soviet Union, and the political realities of that time that saw the Soviet Union taking a more reserved approach to international approach. What little they were willing to extend at that time was being used in Indochina and Africa.

The USSR intervened more in Cuba then in Chile.

[Red Commissar]

Meh, it's pointless. I swear you keep bringing up the same points. Go live in your fantasy world where anything is possible. Seriously, it's like you think the Soviet Union had some epic hax that would have let it do anything it wanted and ignore political reality.

[Kléber]

Meh, it's pointless. I swear you keep bringing up the same points. Go live in your fantasy world where anything is possible. Seriously, it's like you think the Soviet Union had some epic hax that would have let it do anything it wanted and ignore political reality.
There was an old Soviet theory called "special mobility" from the 1920's, which held that the Red Army would be able to outmaneuver enemy armies outside its own borders due to its innate organizational and morale superiority as a progressive proletarian army fighting against decrepit bourgeois armies, its roots in the international proletariat who would feed its soldiers and guide them, etc.

[Psy]

Meh, it's pointless. I swear you keep bringing up the same points. Go live in your fantasy world where anything is possible. Seriously, it's like you think the Soviet Union had some epic hax that would have let it do anything it wanted and ignore political reality.
What makes you think the USA could do anything it wanted and ignore political reality?

Like being able to go war with the USSR over Chile after the USSR declares victory and starts pulling out? Or that the bourgeoisie of Chile could instantly rebound from fleeing Chile, Pinochet being crushed and the proletariat armed? Or maybe you think Pinochet's forces had any hope of slowing down down USSR forces long enough for the USSR to have to withdrawal without being able to crush them?

[chegitz guevara]

The political reality was the the United States was willing and ready to use nukes on several occasions.

[Psy]

The political reality was the the United States was willing and ready to use nukes on several occasions.
The political reality was at the time the USA just lost Vietnam and most with most of its combat forces being militant due to Vietnam, on the other hand the USSR had at that point had yet to disillusion its military forces to the extent the US did in Vietnam. So the US would risk sending militant forces (that shot their officers in Vietnam and joined the anti-war movement) to stop a revolution in Chile defended by USSR troops? Give me one reason why the US troops would not go on strike like British troops in 1946 when they are told they are going from Vietnam to Chile to fight in another hopeless war with no exit strategy?

As for being ready to use nukes the USA didn't nuke the USSR over Cuba, they almost over putting missiles on Cuba but not over the USSR backing Cuba so I fail to see why the USA would consider using nukes over the USSR simply defending a nation friendly to it within the US's spear of influence.

[chegitz guevara]

In 1973, the United States was still fighting in Vietnam. We did not leave Vietnam until 1974. The U.S. went to full nuclear alert in October of 1973 because of the Yom Kippur War, when it was reported that the USSR was moving troops towards the region (because the Israelis were about to capture Cairo).

You are correct that the U.S. did not nuke the USSR over Cuba ... because the USSR backed down. The U.S. was preparing to go to war.

[Psy]

In 1973, the United States was still fighting in Vietnam. We did not leave Vietnam until 1974.

The USA was already starting to withdraw from Vietnam in 1973, 1973 was when US troop moral totally collapsed as troops understood the war was over but they were still fighting.

So the US sending troops to Chile would have to faced sending mostly apathetic troops that had no interest in victory just survival, by then US troops probably rather go on strike then fight in Chile. Thus why wouldn't this lead to the US facing striking troops like the British did in 1946? This could have backfired on the USA big time if its troops they sent to Chile went on strike like British troops in 1946, i.e carrying large red flags in their strike marches while singing the Internationale.



The U.S. went to full nuclear alert in October of 1973 because of the Yom Kippur War, when it was reported that the USSR was moving troops towards the region (because the Israelis were about to capture Cairo).

There is a difference between going to full nuclear alert and actually committing to all out nuclear war.



You are correct that the U.S. did not nuke the USSR over Cuba ... because the USSR backed down. The U.S. was preparing to go to war.
Not completely, the USA also backed down as it didn't get to invade Cuba that it wanted to do before the USSR even go involved.

[∞]

'Socialism in one country' thats why...

[black magick hustla]

i swear to god, a bunch of dopey internet kids giving specialized geopolitical advise is the funniest shit ever

[RedTrackWorker]

I think that the USSR was a capitalist state in the 70's and that's why it didn't intervene and their relationship to that struggle is just another example of that. But what's left unsaid in this discussion so far (that I've noticed) is the question of Allende's politics. The standard story is that he had nice ideas and the U.S. overthrew him. Some know he himself appointed Pinochet to his post. Fewer know that Allende signed a gun control law and allowed the army to use it to disarm the workers! And through all of this the Chilean Communist Party supported him! The Chilean workers had shown in action that they were willing and able to sweep away their capitalist rules and start building a new society--but wherever they turned for leadership, they did not find on the international left a set of revolutionary ideas that matched their courage of action or what they needed to take their struggle forward.

[Dimentio]

Geography, and it could have triggered WW3 since it would have violated the Monroe doctrine.

[∞]

i swear to god, a bunch of dopey internet kids giving specialized geopolitical advise is the funniest shit ever

This is RevLeft...



Geography, and it could have triggered WW3 since it would have violated the Monroe doctrine.

The Doctrine the US failed to follow?