1. They are scared of a Marxist country in their proximity (Latin America). That would close the physical gap that the US currently has with Russia and China. This is historically significant because it reflects the policies of containment of the time, which were ramped up after Cuba became independent.

2. They didn't want to contradict themselves and take down a country/politician who followed their rules of fair election. This is significant because it impacts their international reputation but also is a part of their role of international policeman in the West.

3. Also scared of losing money when American companies would be pushed out of Chile (investments, contracts). This is important because American companies had been raking in huge profits from foreign investments into Chilean resources.

Source Limitations: This document is very U.S. centric, so it does not consider what will happen in Chile due to U.S. intervention. How will Chile respond?

Analysis:

Both sides protecting their interests but US wins because of power and wealth (first-world vs. third-world country).

1. The first significant thing we found was the quote "Imperialism, and its cruelty have a long and ominous history in Latin America". This is significant because of the historical context, because it gives an alternate opinion on imperialism in third-world countries. The second piece we found is "I simply share the same opinion. The words are those of John F. Kennedy". This is significant because it was showing alliance and ideas with the U.S to get help or support from them. Lastly, we found the quote "In my country, history, land and man are united in great national feeling". This is significant because he shows pride to Chile and shows other nations why they should support Chile.

2. A source limitation could be how any of the representatives in the UN received this. Another one could be what happened after this excerpt was published.

3. We can conclude that the US was very powerful, and having an alliance with the US helped other countries economically. However, powerful countries seem to thrive from ruining third-world countries' economies.

The right of the people needs to be respected. people need more right's that protect them.

There are a lot of people with high infant mortality due to their job situation.

Chile has had external foreign country issues that have effected their financial situation.

2. 
   

   What specifically was the US doing in all of this.

   What was the US's true reaction to Chile's new leader.

3. The article goes into Chile's history as a country. It talks about how they are a happy country yet are struggling and want to improve. External foreign countries limit the countries potential due to financial factors.

2.) One thing that this document does not tell us is what Allendes true intentions were and if his descriptions of the country were true or if he was over-exagerating and trying to gain sympathy. He does not state is stance on Marxism just that he is fighting for autonomy of his country. It does not tell us much about his background or who he is and we don't really know anything about his leading abilities.

3.) We personally feel like these documents lead us to feel as if each side has hidden agendas that are not clearly being stated. These documents also illuminate the fear these nations felt and how that drove their decisions, especially the US.

1. a) "No regime, to government has been able to solve the great deficit in housing, labor, food and health". We think this is significant because Allende calls out how no country can solve all these issues and stay constant with it. It shows that these issues are not just Chile's problem but a global issue as a whole. b) "The nationalization of basic resources continuous an historic demand. Our economy could no longer tolerate the subordination implied by having more than 80% of it's exports in the hands of a small group of large foreign companies that have always put their interest before those of the countries in which they make profits." This is significant because Allende explains that Chile's actions were not out of aggression but for justice. Aiming towards economic sovereignty. c) "This is the drama of underdevelopment and of the countries which have no stood up for their rights." This is significant because Allende argues how many new and developing countries were out through different and significant challenges after World War II. These challenges made them believe they needed to be depended on larger and more developed countries around them.

2. Due to the fact this is Allende's speech to the United Nations, we can't really take his word for it or get the full story on Chile's situation. We struggle to understand the tone and urgency Allende has on Chile's situation.

3. We can conclude from all the documents that the US's final decision is to keep in contact with Chile, managing their market and goods, so they can keep an eye on the promises Allende made in his speech. This way if things do start to go sideways, they will be able to defuse the situation.

1: a) "Allende was elected legally" is important because Kissinger acknowledged the legitimacy of Allende's presidency, yet still decided to persuade President Nixon to orchestrate a government overthrow. This demonstrates the hypocritical nature of Henry Kissinger.

b) "Chile has the means and capacity to maintain power." Kissinger fears that the U.S is losing power in Chile. While this may or may not be true, the fear of loosing power leads Kissinger to argue in favor of a violent overthrow of the Chilean government.

c) "The cold correct approach" is how the United States ultimately decided to act in the region. Rather than invading the country outright, pressure was applied on the Chilean economy to eliminate socialist ties and policies.

2: I think the source is biased due to how Kissinger uses fear and paranoia to back his arguments in favor of a government overthrow. Kissinger does not acknowledge that Allende is not interested in becoming a dictator, only that Allende might potentially not become one. Kissinger does not mention that Allende is generally non-violent in nature, only that he is 'very likely' to become violent.

3: My conclusion is that Kissinger is biased towards perusing his own agenda. Rather than providing fair evidence to support both sides of the argument equally, Kissinger uses fear, hypotheticals, and worst-case scenarios to argue why overthrowing the Chilean government is the better course of action than to wait. Kissinger does not legitimately and whole-heartedly support the argument in favor of waiting, he only supports the argument of action.

1) That is the situation of a branch of the kennecott copper corporation, witch is the same period of time, made an average of 52.8 per cent profits a year in chile and in some years it made really incredible profits like 106 per cent in 1967,…”

• Chile is being exploited and this could be the reason why Allende was elected.

“The democratic will of our people has taken upon itself the challenges of giving a boos to the revolutionary process”

• In this context, change by will of people not by force, significant because other socialist countries came through to make change.

“Chile buys at high prices and sells at low prices.”

• This is significant because it shows how Chile has essentially acquired their debt

2)

- Mentions and economic blockade

- He's talking to global powers, not concerned about people but rather people as a whole.

3) In conclusion, us had specific goals for chill and want economically ruin them, and they don't want socialism to be perceived as democratic.