Libyan leader Gaddafi files motion to partition Switzerland at UN

[The Minsky Moment]

Pretty much identical to the case of Mossadiq, by the way.  There, again, the CIA is commonly given credit for a successful coup that they themselves didn't cause and had little influence over.

That's because Kermit Roosevelt wanted to talk himself up and wrote a silly book claiming "credit" for the coup.

[Pat]

Joan, did you also read the after-word to the chapter on Chile, which quotes more recently declassified documents?

You try to make it sound as if the CIA provided tear gas and little more. From a de-classified memo, in the CIA's own words:

"CIA was working with three different groups of plotters. All three groups made it clear that any coup would require the kidnapping of Army Commander René Schneider, who felt deeply that the Constitution required that the Army allowed Allende to assume power. CIA agreed with that assessment. Although the CIA provided weapons to one of the groups, we have found no information that the plotters' or CIA's intention was for the general to be killed. Contact with one group of plotters was dropped early on because of it's extremist tendencies. CIA provided tear gas, submachine guns and ammunition to the second group, mortally wounding him in the attack. CIA had previously encouraged this group to launch a coup but withdrew support four days before the attack because, in CIA's assessment, the group could not carry it out successfully."

I don't believe the euphemism of "kidnap" instead of "kill" is fooling anyone, but lest there is any doubt, the memo goes on to say that the Viaux group was given a large sum of money after the killing. Not as a reward for the killing, but for "humanitarian" reasons, among others. Surely you will not insult the intelligence of the people on this forum by suggesting that we take these euphemisms and thinly veiled attempts of deniability at face value?

And as for direct complicity in the 1973 coup, please allow me to quote from the text:

[Kissinger] falsely assured the Foreign Relations Committe that the United States government had played no part in the coup. From a thesaurus of hard information to the contrary, one might select Situation Report #2, from the Navy Section of the United States Military Group in Chile, and written by the US Naval Attaché, Patrick Ryan. Ryan describes his close relationship with the officers engaged in overthrowing the government, hails 11 September 1973 as "our D-Day" and observes with satisfaction that "Chile's coup de etat [sic] was close to perfect".

Now, of course every move of coup was not carefully orchestrated by the CIA. Nor have I said anything of that kind. But the CIA is without a single doubt complicit in the over-throw of Allende, so yes, the CIA did overthrow Allende. So say that the CIA did not overthrow Allende, but merely provided support and funding, is indeed a distinction without a difference.

And we do not know, of course, whether the coup would have happened without the backing of this great power, without the paid tools of the CIA murdering those loyal to the constitution.

[Berkut]

We do not know, of course, whether the invasion of North Africa, Greece, Yugoslavia, France, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the USSR, and Norway would have happened without the backing of Sweden and the ore that was vital to the Nazi war machine.

But Sweden is without a single doubt complicit in the conquest of most of Europe and the extermination of the Jews and others, so yes, Sweden did kill all those people.

Good for the goose and all...

If you like, I can probably find some books and such detailing Swedish cooperation and aid to Nazi Germany during WW2.

[grumbler]

Now, of course every move of coup was not carefully orchestrated by the CIA. Nor have I said anything of that kind. But the CIA is without a single doubt complicit in the over-throw of Allende, so yes, the CIA did overthrow Allende. So say that the CIA did not overthrow Allende, but merely provided support and funding, is indeed a distinction without a difference.

Yes, if we use the term "overthrow" loosely enough, one can say this.  However, to argue that the nation of Chile didn't overthrow Allende is also to make a distinction without a difference, and so the CIA's role is fairly meaningless given that the country involved overthrew their president.

And we do not know, of course, whether the coup would have happened without the backing of this great power, without the paid tools of the CIA murdering those loyal to the constitution.

Indeed, we don't know whether the those who killed Schneider were "paid tools of the CIA" or not, nor whether Schneider would have lived until 1973 even had he not been attacked.

[Valmy]

Now, of course every move of coup was not carefully orchestrated by the CIA. Nor have I said anything of that kind. But the CIA is without a single doubt complicit in the over-throw of Allende, so yes, the CIA did overthrow Allende. So say that the CIA did not overthrow Allende, but merely provided support and funding, is indeed a distinction without a difference.

And we do not know, of course, whether the coup would have happened without the backing of this great power, without the paid tools of the CIA murdering those loyal to the constitution.

Wow the CIA goes from complicit (I mean clearly we were glad Allende got overthrown) to doing it themselves to having CIA agents running around murdering anybody who liked the Chilean Constitution.

[Barrister]

You guys are totally missing the point.

That in order to hold with tradition, the only country in Europe that should be partitioned is Poland?

I dunno - a good case can be made for dividing Germany.

[The Minsky Moment]

Joan, did you also read the after-word to the chapter on Chile, which quotes more recently declassified documents?

You try to make it sound as if the CIA provided tear gas and little more. From a de-classified memo, in the CIA's own words:

"CIA was working with three different groups of plotters. All three groups made it clear that any coup would require the kidnapping of Army Commander René Schneider, who felt deeply that the Constitution required that the Army allowed Allende to assume power. CIA agreed with that assessment. Although the CIA provided weapons to one of the groups, we have found no information that the plotters' or CIA's intention was for the general to be killed. Contact with one group of plotters was dropped early on because of it's extremist tendencies. CIA provided tear gas, submachine guns and ammunition to the second group, mortally wounding him in the attack. CIA had previously encouraged this group to launch a coup but withdrew support four days before the attack because, in CIA's assessment, the group could not carry it out successfully." 

The memo you refer to was the product of an "internal inquiry" authored in the year 2000, i.e. almost 30 years after the events it narrates.  It is neither contemporaneous nor a primary source; purports to be (and is) merely a summary.  Unfortunately, the drafting of the summary was done rather poorly .   It first says that "the CIA provided weapons to one of the groups", i.e. the Valenzuela group.  It then says "contact with one group of plotters [ie Viaux] was dropped early on because of it's extremist tendencies".  The next line is not a sentence at all and appears to have accidentally left out language.  What it appears to be saying is that the CIA had provided weapons in the Viaux group in the past (ie before "contact was dropped early on") and this group was the one that ultimately carried out the fatal attack.  It then clarifies again the CIA had withdrawn their support for this group.

To the extent this memo says anything concrete is does not support your position.  Rather it points out:
+ "We have found no information that the plotters' or CIA's intention was for the general to be killed."
+ The CIA did not support the Viaux group in its actions.

These conclusions of course dovetail with the principal contemperaneous primary source that Hitchens cites in his book: the October 15 cable recounting the conclusions of the meeting at which Kissenger and Webb were present.  At that meeting, not only did the principals agree that Viaux had little chance of success, Kissinger personally intervened to point out all the negative ramifications that would likely result.  As a consequence, the cable clearly states that the principals ordered the CIA to direct Viaux to stand down. 

But the most interesting thing about the memo Hitchens cites in his afterward is the part of the memo he carefully chose not to include in his book.  That is the part of the memo that directly addresses CIA involvement in the 1973 coup.  It reads as follows:

Awareness of Coup Plotting in 1973.  Although CIA did not instigate the coup that ended Allende's government on 11 September 1973, it was aware of coup-plotting by the military, had ongoing intelligence collection relationships with some plotters, and—because CIA did not discourage the takeover and had sought to instigate a coup in 1970—probably appeared to condone it.  There was no way that anyone, including CIA, could have known that Allende would refuse the putchists' offer of safe passage out of the country and that instead—with La Monedam Palace under bombardment from tanks and airplanes and in flames—would take his own life.

Not surprisingly, Hitchens somehow "forgot" to point out that part of the memo.

I don't believe the euphemism of "kidnap" instead of "kill" is fooling anyone

Kidnap is not a euphemsism.  It is a word in the English language that has a particular meaning, and that meaning does not happen to be "kill'.

but lest there is any doubt, the memo goes on to say that the Viaux group was given a large sum of money after the killing.

Actually, the memo goes onto the say the following:

and during meetings on 17 18 October [a CIA officer told a member of the Viaux group, that CIA would not entertain their request for support.  The officer warned them that any coup action on their part would be premature.  The Viaux representative said the coup was planned for 21-22 October, and the first step would be to kidnap General Schneider.  The Station doubted the plan because CIA had no corroborative intelligence and Viaux's group had a record of false starts.  On 22 October the Viaux group, acting independently of the CIA at that time, carried out an attempted abduction against General Schneider that resulted in his death. 

It then goes on to say that one month later the CIA paid a member of the group $35,000 of what was basically "hush money" to make sure he didn't spill the beans about the CIA's embarrassing earlier conacts with the group.  An understandable move given the risk of what Hitchens-like conspiracy nuts might do with such information.  I would not consider 35K in this context to be "a large mount of money" even in 1973.

And as for direct complicity in the 1973 coup, please allow me to quote from the text:

[Kissinger] falsely assured the Foreign Relations Committe that the United States government had played no part in the coup. From a thesaurus of hard information to the contrary, one might select Situation Report #2, from the Navy Section of the United States Military Group in Chile, and written by the US Naval Attaché, Patrick Ryan. Ryan describes his close relationship with the officers engaged in overthrowing the government, hails 11 September 1973 as "our D-Day" and observes with satisfaction that "Chile's coup de etat [sic] was close to perfect".

So an American naval attache expressed his support of the coup after the fact.  That is not evidence of CIA involvement.

[MadImmortalMan]

The Chilean coup topic is like a dog-whistle for goofballs.

[Ed Anger]

The Chilean coup topic is like a dog-whistle for goofballs.

And Swedes. GODDAMN FUCKING NORDICS.

[jimmy olsen]

The Chilean coup topic is like a dog-whistle for goofballs.

And Swedes. GODDAMN FUCKING NORDICS.

No shit, do they teach about it in High School there as the text book example of AMERIKKKAN Imperialism?

[Valmy]

This suddenly has me starting to wonder about the extent of our involvements in the Guatemala and Iran coups also.  I always just took it for granted we had caused those.

[Ed Anger]

The Chilean coup topic is like a dog-whistle for goofballs.

And Swedes. GODDAMN FUCKING NORDICS.

No shit, do they teach about it in High School there as the text book example of AMERIKKKAN Imperialism?

I think Seefor watched only documentaries. That was why he kept flapping his gums over alleged American crimes.

[Caliga]

This suddenly has me starting to wonder about the extent of our involvements in the Guatemala and Iran coups also.  I always just took it for granted we had caused those.

I'm not aware of any dispute over whether or not we ousted Arbenz.... in fact hasn't the US gov't subsequently admitted to it?

[Jaron]

I remember on Paradox my original name "Jaron Pinochet" used to piss so many Euros off.

[Ed Anger]

I remember on Paradox my original name "Jaron Pinochet" used to piss so many Euros off.

It was: Awesome.