I find it difficult to compare the Cuban case to that of Chile given the different circumstances that existed within the two nations. I do think, however, that the varying circumstances that each country faced, ultimately influenced the level of success that each country could experience. In Cuba the revolution was consistently viewed as a movement that would fail, allowing the movement to grow and become successful before there was more complete intervention by the more conservative forces within Cuba. Additionally the revolutonary forces seperation from the urban areas and isolation within the Cuban mountains, prevented the government from being able to fully destroy the Cuban revolutionary forces. The slow, stated, non-violent strategy of the Allende government can be argued presented the neccessary circumstances for the revolution to fail. That’s not to say that it was the cause for its failure, but the conservative forces were given time to respond and the exposure of Allende and his supporters allowed for the military to intervene in a way that was successful in deposing Allende and his supporters from power. Therefore while the response by the military to Allende’s program was not guaranteed, he left his movement extremely vulnerable by not arming a wing of its supporters and being slow to enact any of his proposed reforms.