Talk:Montoneros

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] About catholic profile

It is not accurate to say that Montoneros was a catholic group. Although most of the founding members considered themselves catholics, this fact is not enough to label the group as "Catholic", even as a community faction. No catholic lemmas, no catholic leaders, flags, goals or social doctrine was ever involved in Montonero's political platform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDCM (talk • contribs) 21:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Montoneros role with Eva Peron's return

Didn't the Montoneros bring Evita's body back from Spain? -- Andrew Parodi 14:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

  • No, they negotiated the return of Aramburu´s body (once again kidnapped from the grave..) for her´s. She was buried in Italy. --San Marcos 19:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
So, they negotiated the return of the body. Andrew Parodi (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The articles is written from a strongly factious POV against Montoneros. No mention of the political context, of Montoneros' rôle under the Argentine Revolution, of the actions of other paramilitary organizations, including the AAA well before 1974, is made; neither are Montoneros' democratic activities during Cámpora's government mentioned. This should be completely rewritten. Taragüí @ 12:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Even though "paramilitary" seems to mean "military organisation beside the state's army" it is popularly (and in political science too) used for defining rightist groups of armed organisations. The Montoneros CANNOT be called paramilitarian. (Sorry, no logged-in user... November 2006)

The article is somewhat simplistic, but is rightly focused on the violent activities of the Monotoneros, who in the 1970s were fighting to create a left-nationalist revolutionary dictatorship. The Montoneros and other guerrilla groups were responsible for killing an estimated 1,500 people. Although they were unable to seize power themselves, the Montoneros contributed to the chaos that served as the pretext for the military's "dirty war" that resulted in the death of 10,000 to 30,000 Argentines, most of whom had no part in the insurgency. -- EGS, 14 December 2005

Ive made some changes. I believe there is no longer a need for the NPOV tag. The AAA is mentioned where and when it should be. If theres additional information, then let someone add it, but I dont think you can say something is NPOV because some facts are not mentioned, the important thing is that value statements (like "Peron was a fascist") are excluded. YoungSpinoza 16:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

There is certainly a need for the tag. The article radically misconstrues Montoneros; the context of their action, both nationally as a part of neoperonism and internationally as one of the antiimperialist movements active in the '60s and '70s, is obscured, thus distorting the intent and scope of their actions. Accusing Montoneros and other revolutionary movements of causing the PRN is historically inaccurate and politically misleading; the Cold War powers' increased control of political deviancy was far more influential than any single activist group's actions, something that the article systematically fails to mention.
As for you, YoungSpinoza, you seem to have thoroughly misunderstood what NPOV means. I've already tried to summarize it for you in the the Spanish version's talk page, so I won't expatiate on the subject again. Failing to mention important facts is as NPOV as you can get, though. Taragüí @ 14:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Assuming more facts are necessary because otherwise other facts will inevitably lead to an extremely negative view of these people, what precise facts do you want to be included? You mentioned AAA activities during the democratic government, its there. The article doesnt say the montoneros and other groups caused the coup, it just says the coup responded to them, which is true and was mentioned by them as one of the their main reasons for the coup. You cannot include the coup as cold war struggle-determined, unless you include it as an hypothesis, which I invite you to do. I dont like writing long sentences so I also invite u to make reference to montoneros' arising in a decade or decades in which similar groups arised not only in Latin America, but also in Europe as a sign of political discontent, if you believe that makes the article more NPOV. I do agree the role of Montoneros in allowing Peron to return to Argentina is too important to be ommitted and is way more important that the sinking of a ship, but I dont believe that adds up to neutrality. Anyways, add that fact too. I dont know what you refer to with "democratic activities", you mean the political branch? Well, then add a sentence saying they had a purely political branch. If the article lacks vital information, or information you believe to be vital, as long as it is true, then add it, you need not discredit the whole article. YoungSpinoza 16:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying that "facts are necessary because otherwise other facts will inevitably lead to an extremely negative view of these people". I am saying that the article is biased and misleading because it leaves out the political context, which induces a mistaken interpretation of the facts. Montoneros and other revolutionary groups were created to a large degree by the official proscription of the Peronist movement, forbidding the legal expression of a Peronist affiliation, electoral participation, the public defense of anything that could be construed as an endorsment of the Peronist regime and even the intellectual discussion of its ideas (I suppose you're aware of the 4161/56 decree to the effect); one should also not fail to mention that politics in the '60s and the '70s was as often carried out with tanks as not, as evidenced by both the repeated actions of both Cold War powers to control their political satellites and other countries and the systematic intervention of the military in political affairs. The idea of armed political intervention was by no means the sole province of far-left extremists, as your interventions seem to imply, but rather a natural part of the political game at the time.
If you do not understand what the political activities of Montoneros were (which included, for example, two ministries in the Cámpora governmente, one of them being Esteban Righi, a close associate of the Montoneros national council), perhaps this isn't an article you can contribute to. Montoneros was mainly and fundamentally a political movement; armed action was a means to political goals throughout its existence, and was discarded when doing so seemed possible.
As to the influence of Cold War politics on the coup, it's no more hypothetical (in any meaningful sense of the word) than its being caused by political unrest. In the real world, every meaningful statement is either a definition or a hypothesis. The question is what intellectual backing it has in either case. I can source my statements, if that is what's troubling you. Taragüí @ 17:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is definitely one-sided. Far for me from supporting any kind of terrorism or violence. However, the "Guerra Sucia" (dirty war) main result was the killing of between 20,000 and 30,000 dissidents and random people "by mere remote association". I also doubt the "7000 supporters of the Montoneros" number in the article. In any case, the state terror lauched by the Videla, Viola, Galtieri juntas was far far worse than the Montoneros terror. I added a comment that of the 30,000 disappeared, most were dissidents unconnected with terrorism. I should know. My uncle was one of them -- The Vanished, Jan 2006.

I see your point, and the article shoud almost completely rewriten. But let's do it right, and bring references for controversial points. Hope you can understand. Mariano(t/c) 10:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Supporters of montoneros may certainly be above 100 thousands, but "supporters" is a vague idea. Active members is a different thing. Richard Gillespie, author of "soldiers of peron-argentina's montoneros" estimates 5000 members, of which 3000 where part of the military apparatus. María Moyano in "La patrulla perdida" estimates 3500 members. 7000 seems to be clearly above estimates, but it is not outrageous. Rather the 30 thousands disappeared is outrageous, given the fact that no investigation ever shed that number. YoungSpinoza 02:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you think if we say something like The number of active Montoneros is estimated between 3500 and 7000 members, and for the disappeared: Even though most investigations, including that of the CONADEP, yeld a number of dissapeared around 10,000 persons, it is populary believed that this number might be closer to 30,000..
Please, do the edits yourself, since I don't have to proper sources. Thx, Mariano(t/c) 08:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that even the number of 10.000 is more than it really was. The CONADEP report established the number of 8.965 missing persons, what you call populary believed is in fact, what the left wing political parties and groups as try to establish as the true.

[edit] For a new explanation of those years in Argentina

First of all, sorry for my english.

Most of the historic explanations of that time in Argentina and the dictatorship act´s always get around the guerrilla´s and the militar actions, deaths, etc. But the accounts of that years, from the militar organizations and from de Human Rights organizations, don´t explain or can´t explain the deep reasons of that conflict. At all, it looks like some "sheriff vs guerrilla" tale, that only take a look in the represion, kills and paramilitar acts from the dictatorship.

We can determinate three different accounts: - The most righty (fascist) sector tells that the kills and the dissapearences were absolutly necessary to exterminate the guerrillas, some crazy marxist no-god groups. - Other holds that in the 70´s and the dictatorship period, there were "Two Demons": the extreme left and the extreme right, involved in an "irrational" fight. Here, in some way, the dictatorship is justified in its early and apparent purposes (exterminate the guerrillas)but condemne in its real results and repressive-murders policy. - The last account, presents the dictatorship actions just like a totalitarian government (thing that really was) but only take look on its repressive acts, acts that are just the product of military forces and a kind of sadistic men. This is the point of view of most of the Human Rights orgs.

The common matter in the three accounts is to get an eye on the problem only in the repression acts, without getting focus in the international context, in the economic questions and in the POLITIC deep problem. But when we analize and take into those account of facts, we discover that neither the dictatorship government acts can be understanded just by the guerrillas question and neither the guerrillas acts can explain really the arrive of the militar forces to the government.

As we know, the capitalism in the 70´s had to do a dramatic adjuste to get over its own crisis. The working class position in the capitalist countries was a big hindance for the profits of the biggest economic groups, in the national and global context (because of that, the Plan Condor, and Kissinger or Reagan international politics against the popular or lefties movements all over the world, etc) The results of all of those matters are what we are experiencing today and are vulgary known like "Globalization". Liberization of capital movements, restructuration of all the production process, miserable salaries, end of the indirect salaries (represented in the Welfare State protection services), opening of new enviroments to the capital´s logic (privatizations, etc), dissolution of inner markets and reorientation of the production to the global market, etc. To make real all of those things it was necessary to disciplinate and attack the working class organizations and its historic conquests.

- During his stay in Spain, Peron get involved with a really large arc of politics organizations, from the right and the burocratic working class organizations to lefties movements and organizations like Montoneros, self-define like "peronistas". - Finally arrived, Peron can´t contain so many opposite movements on his wing (because all the situation were deeper than his political cleverness and any politic one´s). Finally (and I would say Obviusly)he decided take place with the rightest sector (economic groups and burocratic trade-unions) and persecute the lefties and independent organizations and trade-unions. The AAA (Anticomunist Argentinean Alliance) was necessary supported by Peron. - Once Peron´s dead, the crisis got more accuse. In 1975 a savage economic plan called The Rodrigazo, started a new period in the Argentina´s economic history that marks that readjust of the global capitalism and the neoliberals policies. All those policies are gonna be implemented during the dictatorship (and in fact are gonna be the explanation of ALL the dictatorship facts), using all the means necessaries. But, in the case of The Rodrigazo, a big devaluation that attacks working class position, the opposition of the working class movement presented a very big problem to the economic groups and make their government and their needs of economic readjustes fair. - The working class power got in scene and made big deale for the dominant class in the Cordobazo in 1969. Peron himself couldn´t discipline it, once he came back. - The two most important guerrillas were practically disallowed before the coup. The ERP (guevarist) was eliminated in 1975. Montoneros (nationalist and some lefty) had much less power in that moment, it was very weak to represent a real menace to the imperant order. Their elimination, no doubt, could be completed with a democratic government. The AAA also made some terror acts and attribute them to "the left", for justifie the future coup. Even most of the Montonero´s leaders use to had contacts with some sectors of the army and the right arc, because of its "nationalist ideology". The ideology of the Montoneros organization was a little bite contradictory, their sources were nationalist and catholic ideas but then it gets a cloudy build that take opposite figures like Peron (nationalist and capitalist) and Guevara (a marxist leader). One of the most common historic errors is to take it like, practically, the only opposite power in that years, when the opposite arc was really much more powerfull and wide than this organization. In the facts Montoneros never has enough power to question by itself the dominant powers. No big guerrilla lasts such a few years, Montoneros wasn´t an organization comparable with Sendero Luminoso o FARC. - The coup toke place only nine months before the new president elections. But a new democratic president hadn´t could make all the things that the economic power thinks necessary for its hegemony. - Montoneros and ERP were just two armed groups in a constelation of hundred of working class organizations. The biggest problems weren´t the guerrillas, the biggest problems were the lefties working class organizations like the basist and independent trade-unions that had a big power in the plants and didn´t let the economic groups (or the State in their name or even the CGT) take decisions that could touch their conquests, necessary decisions in the new context for the dominant class. - The biggest part of the dictatorship´s victims were workers and syndicalist leaders, not guerrilla men, not artists. - In a historic, balance the repressive acts of the military Junta must be include in this context. The extermination of the guerrillas was almost done in 1976, the intentions of the dictatorship in fact were destroy as soon as possible any power of the working class to make the readjuste to the new parameters of the new capitalism stage and help the dominant class to keep in power and increase it power. - The guerrilla´s question was just, and only just, a little part of the problem, and so a very poor, and efective, excuse to justifie all the future acts. - No one of those three accounts of that time could explain in a good way the real nature of the dictatorship in a complete articulation. - The persecution and kill of workers (even those who were colaborating with the AAA before 1976),independent or opposite militants, etc are only explainable taking in the other hand the external debt growth, the salaries freezing for years, the prohibition of any syndicalist activity, the liberalization of the economomy, the growth of poverty and inequality, etc. The two faces of the same coin.

I think this way of explaine that period is more realist and fruitful that others, that only rest in repressive acts, whitout taking care necessary deeper questions for explaine all, I say all, the dictatorship acts. And brings better tools to explain similar cuestions, even in countries with no important guerrillas or even with a lefty government like Chile with Allende. --Esteban 1982 10:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


I've seen the article has an extremely peronist statement, wich is, logically, not neutral (and by the way, false)
"The Junta responded to guerrilla groups with a Dirty War to counter terrorism. Up to 30,000 people died ..."
I wasn't born by those days, but as far as I know, the AAA (Asociación Anticomunista Argentina) was created during Isabel Peron's presidency, so it is hard to me to beelive that the militars started everything.
With this I don't mean that killing everyone was a good thing, but please, while "making your point of view more prominent" try to cite sources to support yourself, because those books were NOT used to write the article, we all know this, dont we?. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 00:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that everyone is arguing numbers and how many disappeared dring this period. The reports of the disappeared were written in 1984 (Nunca Mas)CONADEP. This was immediately following the end of the repression which CONADEP admits that their facts were only a fraction of what may have occurred during those years. If you check CIA documents that were released as far back as 1977, you will also note that documentation exists in 1978 where Argentinians had signed petitions of over 17,000 signatures from people whose family members had gone missing, begging for US interference, to find out what had happened to them. For all we know, the numbers could surpass the estimated 30,000...

[edit] POV check

The POV check tag has been in place for a long time now, and there seems to be no discussion. What do we do about it? I'd like to hear opinions. If the article is biased, it must be corrected; if not, I'm going to remove the tag. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is horrendously biased. I don't have the sources with me (nor the time) to undertake a major rewrite, sadly. Taragüí @ 12:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll say that I think words like "terrorist" would count as weasel words and thus shouldn't be in the intro.--Jersey Devil 00:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There should not be a discussion as to the nature of Montonero's terrorism in the 1970's. There is no good and bad terrorism, it is what it is. You place bombs under other people's beds because you disagree with what they do and that would most likely fall under the category of terrorism. Montonero's have been romanticizes much in the same way the IRA was in the early 80's late 70's. I agree with the label of terrorist organization should stand and not be removed. Otherwise the same should be done for ETA and Red Brifades in Italy which used similar forms of struggle.--SetvenKaplan (talk) 07:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number of victims under Videla

I changed the number of 'Videla-victims' to 10.000. The figure of 30.000 deaths under the Videla junta is most probably too high. Dutch anthropologist Anton Robben thoroughly researched the Dirty War of the 1970's, and came to the conclusion that about 8500 deaths have been confirmed, with another 1000 still missing. The maximum number of victims should therefore be set to 10.000. Origins of the figure of 30.000 are not quite clear: Robben and several other researchers state that this was probably introduced by oppositional forces such as the PRT and Montoneros to create more international sympathy for their cause. Human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch state the same: 10.000 is the correct number. JayGuevara

If Robben's opinion says that, then say it's Robben's opinion. I've changed the "up to 10,000" to "at least 9,000", an approximate number; the CONADEP report says literally:
With regards to the first list, which results in a figure of 8,961 disappeared, it is --inevitably-- an open list. [...] We know... that many disappearances have not been denounced, because the victims had no relatives, because these chose to remain silent, or because they lived in locations far away from urban centers... [M]any relatives of disappeared [in the interior of the country] told [CONADEP] that in past years they did not know where to go. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish version

The spanish version of this page has a more neutral tone. The article looks biased from the first line: "Argentine radical terrorist leftist nationalist catholic guerrilla group". The spanish version defines it as "armed organisation", without all the other adjectives that are questionable if not inacurate. I wouldn't remove the POV check - there's a lot of work to the in the article.