# data[].attributes.body
Vanessa and Aubrey

The document we chose was Salvador Allenede's Speech to the United Nations. Three things of significance within this document was the U.S. intervention within the government of another country, the exploitation of Chile's resources, and the financial distress that affects the people of the country. The United States, has a way of intervening in other political parties for their own benefit. Within that, foreign policy takes over and disrupts the culture and norms of said people. Not only inflicting financial harm, but emotional distress as well. Some of the source limitations are:

1. The document didn’t list the discussion points of how the U.S. chose to approach the situation with Allende.

2. The document didn’t cover the result of the situation. What method did the U.S. choose to proceed with and what Allende did in response.

A conclusion we can make based on our reading of these documents was that Allende was dedicated to his country and being able to fix the issues of poverty, exploitation, and keeping the US government out.

# data[].attributes.headline
Forrest Anderson, Kaidin McDaniel, Nate McGlade, 2nd doc: white house mem...

# data[].attributes.subject
Forrest Anderson, Kaidin McDaniel, Nate McGlade, 2nd doc: white house mem...

# data[].attributes.body
"we are strongly in support of self-determination and free election" The United states is has to stand for democracy, but they majorly oppose socialism.

"thereby risk letting allende consolidate himself and his ties with cuba and USSR"

There is a fear that cuba and the USSR will join together and the USA will be without influence.

The DOD, CIA, and some State people on the other hand, argue that it is patent that Allende is our enemy"

This document was the first one in the series of provided docs and it shows the start of USA espionage in the Chile situation.

In the next document it highlights the USA plan to bankrupt their nation by no longer only trading with Chile for copper. It is their number one export and essentially embargoing them bankrupts them a points conflict to Allende. The final document is the most recent and shows the affect of their actions with Allende's plea of help while their military moves through their streets.

"The example of a successful elected marxist government in Chile would surely have an impact on other parts of the world" There is a fear that ideas are spreading and this socialist government is seen as a threat

# data[].attributes.headline
James Roberson, Toni N-G, Joshua Fauver, Harsha Malireddy

# data[].attributes.subject
James Roberson, Toni N-G, Joshua Fauver, Harsha Malireddy

# data[].attributes.body
We are choosing document two.

1. Three major things to take into consideration is the importance of this revolt because of the major debt Chile had been accumulating, totaling over 1.5 billion dollars. The US also talks about the potential importance that Chile could have under this new leadership of Allende, to spread the point of subversion all over Latin America. It's also an important thing to include that Allende was legally elected. This made it difficult for the US to say he forced his power; this left them with little reason to act on his election. Unlike other dictators that rose through power in revolution or a revolt. The connection of Cuba with the Chilean government may also be scary for the US because of the scares of the Cuban missile crisis that happened eight years before this. This connection with the USSR would be scary.

2. One source limitation would be Allende's real thoughts and feeling because even though in this document they look at possible moves Allende will make they are lacking the knowledge of his plan.

3. The US was scared and fearsome of Chile branching out his ideas of separation from the US and growth separate from the hand of the USA. This is shown through the US preparations from Allende's rise to power.

# data[].attributes.body
Source #1:

Significant Quotes:

1.) "In the decade of the 70's, after so many agreements and resolutions of the international community, in which the sovereign right of every state to control its natural resources for the benfit of its people..." This is significant because it connects back to the Monroe doctrine and how the U.S always has a second motive in their agreements in countries such as south American countries that are under communism. The United States second motive for Chile was economic as mentioned as copper was important to the US's economy at the time, and Chile had that ability to source it.

2.) "These same firms that exploited Chilean copper for many years made more than US$ 4,000 million in profits in the last 42 years alone..." This quote is significant because it shows how the U.S was taking advantage of other countries natural resources specifically in South American countries.

3.) "We have seen none of these aims ever become a reality. On the contrary, the situation has worsened" This quote is significant because there is a mutual promise when collaborating with the U.S that they would also be developed but clearly they are not helping them to develop.

Source limitations:

1.) The first document only really shows the perspective of Allende, if we included both the first and the third document together than we would be able to compare them together rather than having a singular bias whilst focusing on one document.

Analysis/interpretation:

Depending on what document you read you can have a different bias on the situation. In the perspective of Allende it shows how the U.S. is taking away from Chile rather than helping them and giving them resources. Compared to the third document, from the perspective of the U.S government that shows how they think Allende is the problem and that by cutting ties its going to worsen their own situation, not considering why he might be wanting to.

# data[].attributes.body
Xenia DeLaura, Tucelia Day, Jared Fox, Maggie Gilyard, Sasha Ding, Tina Kladakis,

Dayna Enderlin

1: How the US is trying to stop Chile's government to prevent war/violence without causing conflict between the two; to keep US influence in Chile without being overly invested. He mentions that the head of the government was appointed correctly and well known, and that they cannot "bully" him out of the position as it would cause problems and it wouldn't work out the way that they hoped. It shows the uncertainty of the US with how to "control" Chile because of how the country is run.

2: The documents didn't specify if the US was trying to overtake Chile. It doesn't exactly state the truth, but both perspectives of the countries. Allende says that the country is falling apart, and that the US wasn't going to let it happen. It is also excluded what countries around Chile would support the US, or what allies that they could potentially have for their cause. They also did not talk about the successor or the people of Latin America who were also involved in the situation.

3: In the beginning when the US are talking about the Chilean government, they are uncertain and aren't trying to start conflict and/or war, and are trying to go a peaceful route instead. They were weaponizing their power to threaten and weaken the Chilean governments power.

# data[].attributes.headline
Simon Cameron, Aaron Nance, Najwa Moazin

# data[].attributes.subject
Simon Cameron, Aaron Nance, Najwa Moazin

# data[].attributes.body
Allende's speech to the UN

1.

A) Allende describes Chile as a democratic country with political freedoms. This is significant because during the Cold War, these countries were not seen as legitimate governments by the US. Allende's description of Chile as a democratic country means that opposition to his government from foreign powers is opposition to democratic self-determination and freedom.

B) Allende states that foreign economic pressure is not a neutral policy, but an intervention in Chile's internal affairs. This illustrates how leaders in Latin America saw the US's influence as imperialism. This was a non-violent way for the US to control smaller countries' economic power and politics.

C) Allende argues that after his election, Chile faced international economic pressure. This demonstrated that many conflicts during the Cold War were indirect and aimed to make socialist countries struggle economically.

2. The document doesn't tell us any results of Allende's speech. The US's response is unknown, and the reactions of other countries in the UN are unknown, too.

3. Allende was very aware that the US was trying to collapse his country's economy and undermine his presidency. He knew that economic hardship would weaken his support and allow the US to help overthrow his government.

# data[].attributes.body
Austin R., Jeremiah L., Caden W., Ben P.,

The first thing that is important is the fact that the Henry Kissinger called Allende a "tough, dedicated Marxist" although he was a democratically elect president the U.S. still saw him as a Dedicated Marxist. The reason Kissinger is saying this is because he is trying to paint him as a Marxist and a incapable leader so they have reason to intervene to stop them from being a successful country. Our Second point is 'they are taking a form that is making it extremely difficult for us to deal with'. Allende was elected legally so the U.S. and Kissinger are stressing their concern for how it would be difficult for them to intervene without a real true reason so they aren't trying to push the narrative that they are really bad. Our Third point is "non avert pressure, cold correct approach' this is relevant because the U.S. is trying to be a hero on the global scale by fighting the Marxist ideas and is against the ideology of the free people. Source limitations, They didn't actually care about their government and want the territory and wanted to profit off of them. Our conclusions is in light of the Monroe Doctrine the U.S. thinks they have a right to control the western Hemisphere.

# data[].attributes.body
Noah, Bryan, Jobe, Aiden

Q1: We are using sources #2. When the author is talking about the pros and cons of acting against Chile, it's imported as it talks about all the negatives with attacking Chile right away as they are viewed as a threat. When the author talks about the pros later on, and leaving them alone, it allows them to stay around and not start any wars while still pushing the US's ideals by preaching against them. The third part was when the author talks about how it was important to at least attack Chile a little to threaten other South American countries form turning to chilies government style.

Q2: The source doesn't talk about the people involved in the document and the document is bias towards the US as it is written by them and is mostly speculation for how the future could unfold with for the US and Chile.

Q3: We can determine that the US was scared of Chile and really didn't want them to spread. This aligns with what we know of the time as the US was mid cold war and wanted to make sure Russia didn't spread there ideology around the world.

# data[].attributes.headline
Source 3: National Security Council Directive

# data[].attributes.subject
Source 3: National Security Council Directive

# data[].attributes.body
Carol Torres, JR Reyes-Pacheco, Jackson Severs, and Eric Dickerson

1.) One significant thing in this document was the president's decision to hold a "correct but cool" position towards Chile. We think this is significant because it shows that they are worried about any impacts on the reputation of the US or on this government. We also think it is significant that the president calls for a study on the predicted effects of this conflict on the copper economy because it kind of shows that this is where the priority lies. We also think it is significant that the author of this document constantly shows that he does not want Allende in power, but does not give sufficient evidence as for why.

2.) This document does not mention Allende's true ideology and the exact promises and goals he hopes to achieve in Chile, and we would see him as a danger if we had not read his speech to the United Nations.

3.) We can conclude from this document that Kissinger is really against socialism and doesn't want any form of it to happen near the United States.