![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:António de Oliveira Salazar/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I think there should be a little more detail on the chages that Salazar made in 1933 when he became a dictator. just a brief summing up- bullet points 87.194.57.165 23:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 23:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on António de Oliveira Salazar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll refrain from judging the actual veracity or objectivity of the article because I don't know the subject nearly well enough but some paragraphs are illegible. In particular many run-on sentences abusing comas to the point where you can no longer match the subject with the verb, for instance this beast of a sentence:
The Portuguese consul general in Bordeaux, Aristides de Sousa Mendes, helped several, in appeasement to Hitler, the Portuguese dictator, António de Oliveira Salazar, issued his "Circular 14", decreeing that no Jews or dissidents were to be granted passage to Portugal, after further defying his government, by assisting at the border, Sousa Mendes was ordered to return to Lisbon by a seething and upstaged Salazar who declared him mentally unfit, He was stripped of his diplomatic status, his pension and his right to practise law, his original profession.
I read it several times and I'm still not certain of what it means. It looks like something spewed by a bot. At least I learned that Hitler was a Portuguese dictator.
Given my lack of knowledge in the subject I don't feel capable of rewriting this entire section but frankly it's rather appalling.
-- 82.121.74.176 ( talk) 17:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Uncooperative IP user 177.98.180.44 is temporarily blocked. Carlstak ( talk) 01:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)The RS agree that he was not a fascist....and the article itself is full of details. here are quotes from five reliable sources: 1) Carlos A. Cunha, (2010) states "A comparison of Salazar's dictatorship with German or Italian fascism shows that Portugal was not a fascist state." 2) Bernard Cook, (2001) states "he was not a fascist but rather an authoritarian conservative. " 3) Portuguese Studies Review - Volume 2 - Page 109 (1993) "an authoritarian or clerico-corporatist state not a fascist one." 4) António Costa Pinto - 1991 states "He was not a fascist, but a reactionary" 5) Fascism in Europe, 1919-1945 (Routledge Companions) by Philip Morgan (2002) states: "Lacking the impulse and will for wars of expansion, and the need, then, to organize their populations for war, where reasons why the authoritarian regimes of Salazar and Franco never became totalitarian. p 177. Rjensen ( talk) 06:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
177.134.129.207 ( talk) 20:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
177.134.129.207 ( talk) 04:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
179.182.129.206 ( talk) 01:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. You cannot pretend that the views from a few Portuguese left wing historians is the main stream and then delete the point of view from a overwhelming amount of reputed international scholars. Please seek consensus before editing J Pratas ( talk) 20:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on António de Oliveira Salazar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
In the work “Neutrality by Agreement”, Professor Costa Leite, in order to explain the role of Salazar during WWII felt the need to explain that “It is a temptation to reduce complex phenomena to stereotypes…But if they [stereotypes] are convenient, they may also be extremely misleading. For example, the stereotype of dictatorship suggests that in the context of World War II, a dictator is on the side of the Axis pursuing an anti-Semitic policy. In practice, however, such a stereotype ignores national cultures, geopolitical alignments, and the origin and evolution of political regimes." A few left wing Portuguese scholars, many political activist connected with communist parties, have been labeling Salazar as fascist with the clear intent of trying to connect Salazar with Hitler and Mussolini. Unfortunately the strategy works and anyone trying to come with a balanced perspective on Salazar’s article is immediately accused of being a fascist, a Nazi, or fervent admirer of Salazar, becoming entangled in the stereotype. In this particular case there is an overwhelming amount of sources by reputed scholars that have studied the connection between Salazar and Fascism that coincide in the idea that the regime was not Fascist. A few examples are:
• Costa Pinto, António – “The Blue Shirts Portuguese Fascists and the New Stat”. The book is available online in the authors website. [1] [Costa Pinto is NOT an admirer of Salazar and in his book he explains how Salazar dismantled the fascist movement in Portugal
• Payne, Stanley (1995). – “A History of Fascism, 1914–1945”
• Gallagher, Tom (1990). "Chapter 9: Conservatism, dictatorship and fascism in Portugal, 1914–45". In Blinkhorn, Martin. Fascists and Conservatives. Routledge. pp. 157–173. ISBN 004940086X.
• Kay, Hugh (1970). Salazar and Modern Portugal. New York: Hawthorn Books.
• Wiarda, Howard J. (1977). Corporatism and Development: The Portuguese Experience (First ed.). Univ of Massachusetts Press. ISBN 978-0870232213.
• Carlos A. Cunha, (2010) states "A comparison of Salazar's dictatorship with German or Italian fascism shows that Portugal was not a fascist state.
• Bernard Cook, (2001) states "he was not a fascist but rather an authoritarian conservative. "
• Portuguese Studies Review - Volume 2 - Page 109 (1993) "an authoritarian or clerico-corporatist state not a fascist one."
• Morgan , Philipp – “Fascism in Europe, 1919-1945” (Routledge Companions) by Philip Morgan (2002) states: "Lacking the impulse and will for wars of expansion, and the need, then, to organize their populations for war, where reasons why the authoritarian regimes of Salazar and Franco never became totalitarian. p 177.
• Sánchez Cervelló, Josep - also made a very clear judgement: "It was an authoritarian regime, with some similarities to the generic fascism though it cannot be confused with this one." You can read it using this link: Características del régimen salazarista, for those who cant read Spanish the abstract is translated to English.
• Albright, Madeleine in a recent interview to a Portuguese news paper on the occasion of the publishing of her book "Fascism: A Warning", said "Salazar was not a Fascist" [2]
In all this debate I have not accused any editor of sympathizing with anything or anyone. I have limited myself to the sources. I kindly ask other editors to follow the same path (in particular Carlstalk, an established editor that should know that this is not constructive) I am ok with the article saying that there are a few scholars in Portugal that still label Salazar and his regime as fascist (it is an undeniable fact) but the article should be clear about the fact that their opinion is NOT mainstream (another undeniable fact).-- J Pratas ( talk) 08:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
J Pratas, having looked at the discussion at Talk:Fascism in Europe, I have no appetite to wade into that discussion; I would be surprised if a consensus is reached. The two opposing sides are intransigent, and no one will be convinced by argument. Besides, it is not for Wikipedia, speaking in its own voice, to decide whether the Estado Novo regime or Salazar himself were fascist, nor should it be, and thus it is self-evident to me that neither should be placed in the "fascist" category. I can read Portuguese, but I have no intention of making any value judgements about the relative worth of the arguments made by scholars "for" and "against" calling them fascist. It is a complex matter, no simple "yes" or "no" can do it justice. We all agree that scholarly opinion varies, and that the opposing viewpoints should be described neutrally. I believe that this article needs better representation of the leftist points of view for balance; consequently I will limit my editing to description of what leftist and Marxist sources (who have written mostly in Portuguese) have to say. Carlstak ( talk) 16:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Finding myself in Lisbon, this well-sourced article has been very informative. But I wonder if it needs a brief, Personal life, section? I had to look outside Wikipedia to see that Salazar was unmarried and had no children. Did he have no personal life/interests at all? Where, for example, did he live during his long period in power? KJP1 ( talk) 08:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC) ¨
There is an endless dispute going on the article Fascism in Europe on whether Salazar and the Estado Novo should be labeled fascist or not. I know this has been extensively discussed on this talk page, and the Salazar's article is written according to what was discussed. But there are other articles like Fascism in Europe, National Union (Portugal), National Union etc. where that debate is still on and that debate is leading to inconsistencies among related articles.
So far what seems to be clear is that scholarly opinion varies on whether the Estado Novo and the National Union should be considered fascist or not. International scholars such as Stanley G. Payne, Thomas Gerard Gallagher, Juan José Linz, António Costa Pinto, Roger Griffin, Robert Paxton and Howard J. Wiarda, prefer to consider the Portuguese Estado Novo (Portugal) as conservative authoritarian rather than fascist. On the other hand a minority of Portuguese left wing scholars like Fernando Rosas, Manuel Villaverde Cabral, Manuel de Lucena and Manuel Loff think that the Estado Novo should be considered fascist. If this list of sources is fairly complete, it looks like the mainstream view of works published in English by independent international scholars says "NO". If you know of additional sources or should you wish to help in the debate please help on the Fascism in Europe talk page and also Estado Novo and National Union J Pratas ( talk) 10:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey everyone! I think it would be nice to add to this page an electoral results section, - like Cavaco Silva's. I do not have the time to do that in the next few weeks, but if someone wants to get started, the Portuguese Wikipedia has the information in pages that can be found in the following categories:
Hey so, I would suggest a few changes to the education section:
All the best!, 178.9.56.196 ( talk) 08:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
There seem to be people in this chat who want to change history. My edit was undone by Cristiano Tomás where i stated that "Further criticisms suggest that his party, the National Union, held extreme far-right and fascist views.". Then I cited with a direct source where salazar himself states his ideology is "fascism". People want to claim he is not which could not be more farther rom the truth. Can I get consensus to revert back my quote? 75.63.30.84 ( talk) 18:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
This has been discussed one year ago. A long list of English speaking scholars saying that Salazar was not a Fascist has already been provided. So if there is no consensus you can not present it as a fact. On top of that another editor, ( Carlstak, already told you that "the points of view expressed by (Portuguese) left-wing scholars belong in the article, but in my opinion it is over-reaching and simplistic to categorize Salazar as fascist.". Another editor, who happens to be an historian, ( Rjensen, said the following: "There is a large polemic literature in Portuguese that is unfortunately spilling over here. It belongs in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Those polemics have not been generally accepted in the wider English language community of specialists on Portugal." J Pratas ( talk) 09:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
1st) Yes there is a consensus. And the consensus is that there are different POVs so you cannot pretende to have a POV presented as a fact. 2nd)Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. [7], 3rd) To label Salazar as fascist has not been generally accepted in the wider English language community of specialists on comparative studies on Fascism. Below a non exhaustive list of sources that say that Salazar's regime was not fascist.
There is no consensus on categorizing Salazar as a fascist. Outside of Portugal the consensus is that Salazar was NOT a fascist, yet some Portuguese scholars, not all of them, think that Salazar was a Fascist. There is also no consensus among Wikipedia editors. In that case it does not matter the status quo ante, what prevails is the fundamental principle of Neutral Point of View. When there is no consensus we need to follow Wikpedia's Neutral Point of view policy and if different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, we need to treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Fundamental principles are non negotiable and are not subject to any status quo ante that violates de fundamental principle. J Pratas ( talk) 16:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Ad hominem is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue.
The point is not what I think or what is my view. The point is what do reliable sources say? A long list of English speaking scholars saying that Salazar was not a Fascist has already been provided. As editor Rjensen already explained, "There is a large polemic literature in Portuguese that is unfortunately spilling over here. It belongs in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Those polemics have not been generally accepted in the wider English language community of specialists on Portugal."
Nevertheless I am perfectly OK with including in the article the POV from some Portuguese scholars. And one must have in mind that even among the Portuguese scholar community there is no consensus. There are many Portuguese with published works on the topic that argue that in their view Salazar was NOT a fascist. (examples: António Costa Pinto, Rui Ramos, Braga da Cruz, etc.) Even the former Portuguese Presidente Mário Soares said that in his view Salazar was not a Fascist.
I am not pushing for any POV to prevail over the other. I am perfectly OK with having both POVs represented. I have already done that in the article on the National Union (Portugal) where I wrote:
Scholarly opinion varies on whether the Estado Novo and the National Union should be considered fascist or not. Salazar himself criticized the "exaltation of youth, the cult of force through direct action, the principle of the superiority of state political power in social life, [and] the propensity for organising masses behind a single leader" as fundamental differences between fascism and the Catholic corporatism of the Estado Novo. Scholars such as Stanley G. Payne, Thomas Gerard Gallagher, Juan José Linz, António Costa Pinto, Roger Griffin, Robert Paxton and Howard J. Wiarda, prefer to consider the Portuguese Estado Novo (Portugal) as conservative authoritarian rather than fascist. On the other hand Portuguese scholars like Fernando Rosas, Manuel Villaverde Cabral, Manuel de Lucena and Manuel Loff think that the Estado Novo should be considered fascist
What does not make sense is to try to impose a POV as a fact, when it clearly is not. J Pratas ( talk) 07:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
. J Pratas ( talk) 09:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I am glad that you are recognizing that there is controversy. Now you just need to accept the policy. "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources"
J Pratas ( talk) 07:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Those interested in the topic might like to read this article from David Gelber [ [11]] as an apetizer for the book: "Salazar the Dictator Who Refused to Die" by Tom Gallagher. According to Gelber Gallagher shows that what really set Salazar apart from the fascist rulers was his attitude to modernity. Hitler and Mussolini embraced new technology and the latest racial and social theories. J Pratas ( talk) 18:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
In a recent article, an author uses a definition of fascism developed by the writer and retired businessman, Laurence Britt. To develop his theory, Britt compared the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, George Papadopoulos and Suharto, all of which he deemed fascist. Can we now accept this new definition and change this article to reflect its findings? Please discuss at WP:RSN#Proud Boys. Note that while the source is used to label the Proud Boys as fascist, it could also be used as a source for other articles if it is deemed reliable. TFD ( talk) 23:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
"Portuguese Estado Novo was not Fascist because fascist has always been revolutionary, anticonservative, anti-bourgeois, etc.. somethin that the Estado Novo never was."
— A. James Gregor - Phoenix: Fascism in Our Time (New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 1999)
"The regime of Salazar where fascism as we characterize it has never taken roots"
Where Franco subjected Spain’s fascist party to his personal control, Salazar abolished outright in July 1934 the nearest thing Portugal had to an authentic fascist movement, Rolão Preto’s blue-shirted National Syndicalists. The Portuguese fascists, Salazar complained, were “always feverish, excited and discontented . . . shouting, faced with the impossible: More! More!” Salazar preferred to control his population through such “organic” institutions traditionally powerful in Portugal as the Church....His regime was not only non-fascist, but “voluntarily non-totalitarian,” preferring to let those of its citizens who kept out of politics “live by habit. (page 150)...The Estado Novo of Portugal differed from fascism even more profoundly than Franco’s Spain (pag 270).
"Salazar made clear his rejection of fascist pagan cesarism"
"It is also important to highlight that in the popular discourse Estado Novo is often referred to as fascism. This label does not always receive support in academic circles because although it is considered to have been an authoritarian regime, Estado Novo did not portray all the characteristics of an ideal type of fascism"
"He was not a fascist, rather an authoritarian conservative.His policies emphasized depoliticization"
"Unlike Mussolini or Hitler, throughout his life Salazar shrank from releasing popular energies and he never had the intention to create a party-state. Salazar was against the whole-party concept and in 1930 he created the National Union, a single-party which he marketed as a "non-party", announcing that the National Union would be the antithesis of a political party...While Hitler and Mussolini militarized and fanaticized the masses, Salazar demilitarized the country and depoliticized men"
— Gallagher, Tom (2020). SALAZAR : the dictator who refused to die. C HURST & CO PUB LTD. pp. 43–44. ISBN 978-1787383883.
There are two references in this article about "Lord Mammon" in reference to Portugal's finances. Is there a reason for that? 2.203.238.209 ( talk) 15:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Thorin
I'm a bit concerned for sources being misquoted, such as Hugh Kay's "Salazar and Modern Portugal" (1970). The book clearly states anti-internationalism, communism and socialism — nowhere does it mention anti-fascism. Later on, the article also paints him as anti-nazi, based on a quote criticizing the way Hitler was handling power. So why, then, this blatant effort to paint Salazar as an anti-facist, anti-nazism figure? I ask you to be mindful of biased edits and stay true to the sources. I've sinced then corrected this. 95.94.244.243 ( talk) 12:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Salazar's recent biographers (i.e Tom Gallagher 20202, and Filipe Ribeiro de Meneses 2010) were blunt about Salazar not being a fascist. The majority of Portuguese and foreign historians, sociologists and politologists do not consider Salazar and his regime as fascist. (Torgal 2008). Even former Portuguese president, Mario Soares, who for years presented himself as an anti-fascist fighter, ended up recognizing that Salazar was not a fascist [ [12]]. You can find below a long and heterogeneous list of reliable sources that think that Salazar was not fascist.
"Portuguese Estado Novo was not Fascist because fascist has always been revolutionary, anticonservative, anti-bourgeois, etc.. something that the Estado Novo never was."
— A. James Gregor - Phoenix: Fascism in Our Time (New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 1999)
"The regime of Salazar where fascism as we characterize it has never taken roots"
Where Franco subjected Spain’s fascist party to his personal control, Salazar abolished outright in July 1934 the nearest thing Portugal had to an authentic fascist movement, Rolão Preto’s blue-shirted National Syndicalists. The Portuguese fascists, Salazar complained, were “always feverish, excited and discontented . . . shouting, faced with the impossible: More! More!” Salazar preferred to control his population through such “organic” institutions traditionally powerful in Portugal as the Church....His regime was not only non-fascist, but “voluntarily non-totalitarian,” preferring to let those of its citizens who kept out of politics “live by habit. (page 150)...The Estado Novo of Portugal differed from fascism even more profoundly than Franco’s Spain (pag 270).
"Salazar made clear his rejection of fascist pagan cesarism"
"It is also important to highlight that in the popular discourse Estado Novo is often referred to as fascism. This label does not always receive support in academic circles because although it is considered to have been an authoritarian regime, Estado Novo did not portray all the characteristics of an ideal type of fascism"
"He was not a fascist, rather an authoritarian conservative.His policies emphasized depoliticization"
"Unlike Mussolini or Hitler, throughout his life Salazar shrank from releasing popular energies and he never had the intention to create a party-state. Salazar was against the whole-party concept and in 1930 he created the National Union, a single-party which he marketed as a "non-party", announcing that the National Union would be the antithesis of a political party...While Hitler and Mussolini militarized and fanaticized the masses, Salazar demilitarized the country and depoliticized men"
— Gallagher, Tom (2020). SALAZAR : the dictator who refused to die. C HURST & CO PUB LTD. pp. 43–44. ISBN 978-1787383883.
Although some Portuguese historians recognize the existence of a Portuguese fascist regime, researchers in comparative fascist studies usually label the Portuguese New State as a conservative authoritarian,pseudo-fascist, fascistized or para-fascist regime
"contrary to what the contemporary popular history teaches, Salazar did not share fascist tastes, neither aesthetic nor ethical... Salazar hated turbulence and living with the crowds. He did not appreciate mass choreography, nor did he die of love for the modernist exaltation of mechanical progress."
— José Luis Andrade [ O antifascismo de Salazar
"On the other hand, not having an original party to occupy the State, Salazarism was concerned, essentially with conquering the public administration as it found it, and not with eliminating it or replacing it with the party bureaucracy... Contrary to what was seen in fascism and Nazism, it was not so much the party that invaded and penetrated the State, but the State that created and penetrated the party ... he repudiated the militarization of the regime."
"Salazar was not fascist"
"Was Salazar a fascist? The answer is, historically, no."
— Luís Campos e Cunha [ | Fascismo e salazarismo
[regimes like that of Salazar] "should not be listed as fascist, but considered classic conservative and authoritarian regimes."
— Renzo De Felice, "Il Fenomeno Fascista", Storia contemporanea, anno X, n° 4/5, Ottobre 1979, p. 624.
"fundamentally not fascist, although not immune to occasional fascist influences. These were much more traditional regimes and they lacked mass support and mobilization. They included Poland under Pisuldski, Portugal under Salazar..."
— Stephen J. Lee, The European Dictatorships. 1918-1945, (London: 1988), pp. 18.
"João Medina, after criticizing the "journalistic facility adopted by some hurried pseudo-historians" who define Salazar's dictatorship as a fascist, defends the thesis that Salazar´s regime should not be considered fascist. "
"almost nothing of what has been written about fascism applies to the Portuguese case (...) the differences between Salazarism and that Italian fascism are more profound than the similarities "
— Maria Filomena Monica, Educaçâo e Sociedade no Portugal de Salazar (A escola primària salazarista 1926-1939), (Lisboa: 1978), p. 98.
"Furthest from the Italian Fascist model was the institutionalization of the single-party, which was much closer to the situation in Primo de Rivera’s regime in Spain in 1923. Created from above, with limited access to society and governmental decision-making, the UN had an elitist character "
— Adinolfi, Goffredo & Pinto, António. (2014). Salazar’s ‘New State’: The Paradoxes of Hybridization in the Fascist Era. 10.1057/9781137384416_7.
"The obstacles in twinning the New State with fascism are self evident. Among other one can pick out the lack of mass mobilization, the moderate nature of Portuguese Nationalism, the careful and apolitical selection of the narrow elite that ran the country, the lack of powerful working class and the rejection of violence as a mean of transforming society. To include Salazar, given his background, his trajectory, is faith and his general disposition in the broad fascist family is at first sight to stretch fascism to a point where it becomes meaningless. "
— Meneses - Salazar: A Political Biography [ [13]
"Salazar did not allow all to compete (liberalism) but neither did he have a totalitarian ideology like fascism; he espoused Catholic "corporatism": state imposed collaboration of the social classes.(...)In their essential design and purpose, while the regimes very much resembled each other, the Portuguese regime never relied, either in its foundation or development, on anything remotely like the Italian Fascist movement, which later became a party.(...) Salazar did take strong action against real Fascist."
"Although Salazar introduced radical social reforms in some areas (the Estado Novo/New State) and emulated ‘fascist’ organizational elements (militia, secret police, etc.), the raison d’être of the regime was the preservation of conservative and Catholic values, as well as the defense of the existing system against radical alternative conceptions of domestic organizations.(...) Although in subsequent years Salazar accentuated his commitment to a mimetic ‘fascist’ model of domestic organization, this remained confined to the articulation of form and style rather than extending into the sphere of political substance. His regime remained an essentially pro-system pattern of conservative-authoritarian government whose ‘fascist’ elements of style were duly shed in the 1940s."
— Kallis AA. The ‘Regime-Model’ of Fascism: A Typology. European History Quarterly. 2000;30(1):77-104. doi:10.1177/026569140003000104
"It was an authoritarian regime, with some similarities to generic fascism although it cannot be confused with it"
Rui Ramos is part of a 'large number of historians' who refute the fascist character of the regime. I myself reject this classification, I only consider this perspective of analysis between 1933 and 1945
"In the Iberian Latin context the "fascist" label has served often to obscure rather than assist our understanding of these systems, especially as the term implies a blanket condemnation." (p.5) "Iberian Latin model, here termed corporatist, conforms to neither the liberal-pluralist nor the "fascist"or totalitarian model....Fitting neither the liberal framework nor the fascist-totalitarian one, far more dynamic and change-oriented than often thought, the Iberic Latin model is a distinct type with its own philosophic traditions, characteristics..."
— Howard Wiarda "Corporatism and Development: The Portuguese Experience
"In Portugal, Goffredo Adinolfi argues, Italian fascism was one of the principal sources of inspiration for the Estado Novo, particularly in the conception of the “ethical state” and among other features, its corporatist organization. However, the limits of this inspiration were evident both in the ideological and the constitutional field. Wholly antidemocratic, the regime's “constitution” located its ideological roots in the most right-wing form of liberalism, Lusitanian Integralismo and Catholicism. Equally, Salazar himself was far from committed to a totalitarian state. Nor would fascism become a hegemonic force in Spain, although the process of fascistization there went considerably further than in Portugal..."
— Saz I., Box Z., Morant T., Sanz J. (2019) Introduction. In: Saz I., Box Z., Morant T., Sanz J. (eds) Reactionary Nationalists, Fascists and Dictatorships in the Twentieth Century. Palgrave Studies in Political History. p 19, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22411-0_1
However, on the other hand there are some Portuguese scholars that think the opposite, they think that Salazar should be labeled as fascist. Examples:
But even Luis Reis Torgal recognizes that he defends a minority point of view. This is what Torgal said
we can observe that the majority of Portuguese and foreign historians, sociologists and politologists (René Rémond, Pierre Milza, Stanley Payne ...) either go beyond the question of the characterization of the Estado Novo or recognize its own originality or singularity, not to be confused with the system named, in a generic sense, “fascism”
— In the original, in Portuguese : verificarmos que a maioria dos historiadores, sociólogos e politólogos portugueses e estrangeiros (René Rémond, Pierre Milza, Stanley Payne…) ou ultrapassa a questão da caracterização do Estado Novo ou reconhece-lhe uma “originalidade” ou “singularidade” própria, não confundível com o sistema nomeado, em sentido genérico, de “fascismo”, [ [14]
J Pratas ( talk) 10:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
A few years ago there was a discussion about whether Salazar's regime should be considered fascist or not, eventually it was decided to maintain the status quo since no consensus was reached, and the status quo was that he was a fascist:
So I'm just restoring the status quo, just wanted to clarify this in order to avoid edit warring. -- 2804:248:fb44:4300:d86a:797d:b827:58f6 ( talk) 03:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I think this is an excellent article, but I'm a little but concerned about its neutrality. For example, the evaluation section seems to me to consist almost entirely of positive comments. Perhaps these could be balanced by some more negative assessments. Cleisthenes2 ( talk) 05:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree. I don't know enough about Salazar to evaluate, but the opening paragraphs of the articel seem alarmingly enthusiastic, and I am afraid it is biased. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2A01:36D:119:4267:1874:4633:7C86:B940 (
talk)
17:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
If anything that is an understatement. No way does this even come close to being neutral. It's a hagiography.
This is about a man widely regarded as a dictator, openly opposed to democracy, who was installed in power by a military coup, ruled through a murderous secret police and remained neutral in the face of the Nazis, and it barely mentions that not everybody thinks of him as an "accomplished wizard".
86.13.184.107 (
talk)
18:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
This article is obviously biased. There is no need to begin with the debate about whether or not he was a Fascist, certainly Salazar was no Hitler or Mussolini, etc., but there is also no need to pretend that he was some benevolent ruler... The Estado Novo was an authoritarian dictatorship that pursued policies of overt political repression. Censorship of the press, which had already been introduced after the military coup d’état in 1926 and subsequent military dictatorship, prevented freedom of expression, with a ban on strikes and restricted freedom of assembly (which this article describes as "depoliticization of society"). All remaining political parties were banned in 1932. Dissidents were driven into exile, imprisoned, murdered or silenced by the PiDE Secret Police (Polcia Internacional e de Defesa do Estado). I imagine it will be difficult to make the requisite changes in this article--it appears that many of the editors have "axes to grind" and a relatively neutral appraisal of this highly conflicted period in Portugal's history will not be possible. -- Quigley david ( talk) 12:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree, this article is completely biased in favor of Salazar and it requires editing. R. J. Dockery ( talk) 04:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Very much agreed, the first paragraph, specifically, is very enthusiastic even though it is stated all along in the article that he was in fact a dictator. As stated by Quigley david even if Salazar wasn't as bad as other dictators he was a dictator nonetheless. This fact is not even a debatable one in my opinion because again it is stated and proved with sources furthermore into the article so it's a bit concerning that is omitted in the first paragraph and infobox. Shexantidote ( talk) 23:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Ban evasion by User:HarveyCarter. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It is misleading to claim Salazar's regime only helped the Allies during World War II. He also supplied the Axis with wolfram, without which Germany's war effort would have collapsed in 1940: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/94297/1/2000-08.pdf ( 86.151.111.198 ( talk) 18:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC))
|
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:António de Oliveira Salazar/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I think there should be a little more detail on the chages that Salazar made in 1933 when he became a dictator. just a brief summing up- bullet points 87.194.57.165 23:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 23:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on António de Oliveira Salazar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll refrain from judging the actual veracity or objectivity of the article because I don't know the subject nearly well enough but some paragraphs are illegible. In particular many run-on sentences abusing comas to the point where you can no longer match the subject with the verb, for instance this beast of a sentence:
The Portuguese consul general in Bordeaux, Aristides de Sousa Mendes, helped several, in appeasement to Hitler, the Portuguese dictator, António de Oliveira Salazar, issued his "Circular 14", decreeing that no Jews or dissidents were to be granted passage to Portugal, after further defying his government, by assisting at the border, Sousa Mendes was ordered to return to Lisbon by a seething and upstaged Salazar who declared him mentally unfit, He was stripped of his diplomatic status, his pension and his right to practise law, his original profession.
I read it several times and I'm still not certain of what it means. It looks like something spewed by a bot. At least I learned that Hitler was a Portuguese dictator.
Given my lack of knowledge in the subject I don't feel capable of rewriting this entire section but frankly it's rather appalling.
-- 82.121.74.176 ( talk) 17:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Uncooperative IP user 177.98.180.44 is temporarily blocked. Carlstak ( talk) 01:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)The RS agree that he was not a fascist....and the article itself is full of details. here are quotes from five reliable sources: 1) Carlos A. Cunha, (2010) states "A comparison of Salazar's dictatorship with German or Italian fascism shows that Portugal was not a fascist state." 2) Bernard Cook, (2001) states "he was not a fascist but rather an authoritarian conservative. " 3) Portuguese Studies Review - Volume 2 - Page 109 (1993) "an authoritarian or clerico-corporatist state not a fascist one." 4) António Costa Pinto - 1991 states "He was not a fascist, but a reactionary" 5) Fascism in Europe, 1919-1945 (Routledge Companions) by Philip Morgan (2002) states: "Lacking the impulse and will for wars of expansion, and the need, then, to organize their populations for war, where reasons why the authoritarian regimes of Salazar and Franco never became totalitarian. p 177. Rjensen ( talk) 06:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
177.134.129.207 ( talk) 20:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
177.134.129.207 ( talk) 04:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
179.182.129.206 ( talk) 01:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. You cannot pretend that the views from a few Portuguese left wing historians is the main stream and then delete the point of view from a overwhelming amount of reputed international scholars. Please seek consensus before editing J Pratas ( talk) 20:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on António de Oliveira Salazar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
In the work “Neutrality by Agreement”, Professor Costa Leite, in order to explain the role of Salazar during WWII felt the need to explain that “It is a temptation to reduce complex phenomena to stereotypes…But if they [stereotypes] are convenient, they may also be extremely misleading. For example, the stereotype of dictatorship suggests that in the context of World War II, a dictator is on the side of the Axis pursuing an anti-Semitic policy. In practice, however, such a stereotype ignores national cultures, geopolitical alignments, and the origin and evolution of political regimes." A few left wing Portuguese scholars, many political activist connected with communist parties, have been labeling Salazar as fascist with the clear intent of trying to connect Salazar with Hitler and Mussolini. Unfortunately the strategy works and anyone trying to come with a balanced perspective on Salazar’s article is immediately accused of being a fascist, a Nazi, or fervent admirer of Salazar, becoming entangled in the stereotype. In this particular case there is an overwhelming amount of sources by reputed scholars that have studied the connection between Salazar and Fascism that coincide in the idea that the regime was not Fascist. A few examples are:
• Costa Pinto, António – “The Blue Shirts Portuguese Fascists and the New Stat”. The book is available online in the authors website. [1] [Costa Pinto is NOT an admirer of Salazar and in his book he explains how Salazar dismantled the fascist movement in Portugal
• Payne, Stanley (1995). – “A History of Fascism, 1914–1945”
• Gallagher, Tom (1990). "Chapter 9: Conservatism, dictatorship and fascism in Portugal, 1914–45". In Blinkhorn, Martin. Fascists and Conservatives. Routledge. pp. 157–173. ISBN 004940086X.
• Kay, Hugh (1970). Salazar and Modern Portugal. New York: Hawthorn Books.
• Wiarda, Howard J. (1977). Corporatism and Development: The Portuguese Experience (First ed.). Univ of Massachusetts Press. ISBN 978-0870232213.
• Carlos A. Cunha, (2010) states "A comparison of Salazar's dictatorship with German or Italian fascism shows that Portugal was not a fascist state.
• Bernard Cook, (2001) states "he was not a fascist but rather an authoritarian conservative. "
• Portuguese Studies Review - Volume 2 - Page 109 (1993) "an authoritarian or clerico-corporatist state not a fascist one."
• Morgan , Philipp – “Fascism in Europe, 1919-1945” (Routledge Companions) by Philip Morgan (2002) states: "Lacking the impulse and will for wars of expansion, and the need, then, to organize their populations for war, where reasons why the authoritarian regimes of Salazar and Franco never became totalitarian. p 177.
• Sánchez Cervelló, Josep - also made a very clear judgement: "It was an authoritarian regime, with some similarities to the generic fascism though it cannot be confused with this one." You can read it using this link: Características del régimen salazarista, for those who cant read Spanish the abstract is translated to English.
• Albright, Madeleine in a recent interview to a Portuguese news paper on the occasion of the publishing of her book "Fascism: A Warning", said "Salazar was not a Fascist" [2]
In all this debate I have not accused any editor of sympathizing with anything or anyone. I have limited myself to the sources. I kindly ask other editors to follow the same path (in particular Carlstalk, an established editor that should know that this is not constructive) I am ok with the article saying that there are a few scholars in Portugal that still label Salazar and his regime as fascist (it is an undeniable fact) but the article should be clear about the fact that their opinion is NOT mainstream (another undeniable fact).-- J Pratas ( talk) 08:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
J Pratas, having looked at the discussion at Talk:Fascism in Europe, I have no appetite to wade into that discussion; I would be surprised if a consensus is reached. The two opposing sides are intransigent, and no one will be convinced by argument. Besides, it is not for Wikipedia, speaking in its own voice, to decide whether the Estado Novo regime or Salazar himself were fascist, nor should it be, and thus it is self-evident to me that neither should be placed in the "fascist" category. I can read Portuguese, but I have no intention of making any value judgements about the relative worth of the arguments made by scholars "for" and "against" calling them fascist. It is a complex matter, no simple "yes" or "no" can do it justice. We all agree that scholarly opinion varies, and that the opposing viewpoints should be described neutrally. I believe that this article needs better representation of the leftist points of view for balance; consequently I will limit my editing to description of what leftist and Marxist sources (who have written mostly in Portuguese) have to say. Carlstak ( talk) 16:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Finding myself in Lisbon, this well-sourced article has been very informative. But I wonder if it needs a brief, Personal life, section? I had to look outside Wikipedia to see that Salazar was unmarried and had no children. Did he have no personal life/interests at all? Where, for example, did he live during his long period in power? KJP1 ( talk) 08:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC) ¨
There is an endless dispute going on the article Fascism in Europe on whether Salazar and the Estado Novo should be labeled fascist or not. I know this has been extensively discussed on this talk page, and the Salazar's article is written according to what was discussed. But there are other articles like Fascism in Europe, National Union (Portugal), National Union etc. where that debate is still on and that debate is leading to inconsistencies among related articles.
So far what seems to be clear is that scholarly opinion varies on whether the Estado Novo and the National Union should be considered fascist or not. International scholars such as Stanley G. Payne, Thomas Gerard Gallagher, Juan José Linz, António Costa Pinto, Roger Griffin, Robert Paxton and Howard J. Wiarda, prefer to consider the Portuguese Estado Novo (Portugal) as conservative authoritarian rather than fascist. On the other hand a minority of Portuguese left wing scholars like Fernando Rosas, Manuel Villaverde Cabral, Manuel de Lucena and Manuel Loff think that the Estado Novo should be considered fascist. If this list of sources is fairly complete, it looks like the mainstream view of works published in English by independent international scholars says "NO". If you know of additional sources or should you wish to help in the debate please help on the Fascism in Europe talk page and also Estado Novo and National Union J Pratas ( talk) 10:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey everyone! I think it would be nice to add to this page an electoral results section, - like Cavaco Silva's. I do not have the time to do that in the next few weeks, but if someone wants to get started, the Portuguese Wikipedia has the information in pages that can be found in the following categories:
Hey so, I would suggest a few changes to the education section:
All the best!, 178.9.56.196 ( talk) 08:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
There seem to be people in this chat who want to change history. My edit was undone by Cristiano Tomás where i stated that "Further criticisms suggest that his party, the National Union, held extreme far-right and fascist views.". Then I cited with a direct source where salazar himself states his ideology is "fascism". People want to claim he is not which could not be more farther rom the truth. Can I get consensus to revert back my quote? 75.63.30.84 ( talk) 18:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
This has been discussed one year ago. A long list of English speaking scholars saying that Salazar was not a Fascist has already been provided. So if there is no consensus you can not present it as a fact. On top of that another editor, ( Carlstak, already told you that "the points of view expressed by (Portuguese) left-wing scholars belong in the article, but in my opinion it is over-reaching and simplistic to categorize Salazar as fascist.". Another editor, who happens to be an historian, ( Rjensen, said the following: "There is a large polemic literature in Portuguese that is unfortunately spilling over here. It belongs in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Those polemics have not been generally accepted in the wider English language community of specialists on Portugal." J Pratas ( talk) 09:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
1st) Yes there is a consensus. And the consensus is that there are different POVs so you cannot pretende to have a POV presented as a fact. 2nd)Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. [7], 3rd) To label Salazar as fascist has not been generally accepted in the wider English language community of specialists on comparative studies on Fascism. Below a non exhaustive list of sources that say that Salazar's regime was not fascist.
There is no consensus on categorizing Salazar as a fascist. Outside of Portugal the consensus is that Salazar was NOT a fascist, yet some Portuguese scholars, not all of them, think that Salazar was a Fascist. There is also no consensus among Wikipedia editors. In that case it does not matter the status quo ante, what prevails is the fundamental principle of Neutral Point of View. When there is no consensus we need to follow Wikpedia's Neutral Point of view policy and if different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, we need to treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Fundamental principles are non negotiable and are not subject to any status quo ante that violates de fundamental principle. J Pratas ( talk) 16:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Ad hominem is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue.
The point is not what I think or what is my view. The point is what do reliable sources say? A long list of English speaking scholars saying that Salazar was not a Fascist has already been provided. As editor Rjensen already explained, "There is a large polemic literature in Portuguese that is unfortunately spilling over here. It belongs in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Those polemics have not been generally accepted in the wider English language community of specialists on Portugal."
Nevertheless I am perfectly OK with including in the article the POV from some Portuguese scholars. And one must have in mind that even among the Portuguese scholar community there is no consensus. There are many Portuguese with published works on the topic that argue that in their view Salazar was NOT a fascist. (examples: António Costa Pinto, Rui Ramos, Braga da Cruz, etc.) Even the former Portuguese Presidente Mário Soares said that in his view Salazar was not a Fascist.
I am not pushing for any POV to prevail over the other. I am perfectly OK with having both POVs represented. I have already done that in the article on the National Union (Portugal) where I wrote:
Scholarly opinion varies on whether the Estado Novo and the National Union should be considered fascist or not. Salazar himself criticized the "exaltation of youth, the cult of force through direct action, the principle of the superiority of state political power in social life, [and] the propensity for organising masses behind a single leader" as fundamental differences between fascism and the Catholic corporatism of the Estado Novo. Scholars such as Stanley G. Payne, Thomas Gerard Gallagher, Juan José Linz, António Costa Pinto, Roger Griffin, Robert Paxton and Howard J. Wiarda, prefer to consider the Portuguese Estado Novo (Portugal) as conservative authoritarian rather than fascist. On the other hand Portuguese scholars like Fernando Rosas, Manuel Villaverde Cabral, Manuel de Lucena and Manuel Loff think that the Estado Novo should be considered fascist
What does not make sense is to try to impose a POV as a fact, when it clearly is not. J Pratas ( talk) 07:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
. J Pratas ( talk) 09:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I am glad that you are recognizing that there is controversy. Now you just need to accept the policy. "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources"
J Pratas ( talk) 07:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Those interested in the topic might like to read this article from David Gelber [ [11]] as an apetizer for the book: "Salazar the Dictator Who Refused to Die" by Tom Gallagher. According to Gelber Gallagher shows that what really set Salazar apart from the fascist rulers was his attitude to modernity. Hitler and Mussolini embraced new technology and the latest racial and social theories. J Pratas ( talk) 18:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
In a recent article, an author uses a definition of fascism developed by the writer and retired businessman, Laurence Britt. To develop his theory, Britt compared the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, George Papadopoulos and Suharto, all of which he deemed fascist. Can we now accept this new definition and change this article to reflect its findings? Please discuss at WP:RSN#Proud Boys. Note that while the source is used to label the Proud Boys as fascist, it could also be used as a source for other articles if it is deemed reliable. TFD ( talk) 23:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
"Portuguese Estado Novo was not Fascist because fascist has always been revolutionary, anticonservative, anti-bourgeois, etc.. somethin that the Estado Novo never was."
— A. James Gregor - Phoenix: Fascism in Our Time (New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 1999)
"The regime of Salazar where fascism as we characterize it has never taken roots"
Where Franco subjected Spain’s fascist party to his personal control, Salazar abolished outright in July 1934 the nearest thing Portugal had to an authentic fascist movement, Rolão Preto’s blue-shirted National Syndicalists. The Portuguese fascists, Salazar complained, were “always feverish, excited and discontented . . . shouting, faced with the impossible: More! More!” Salazar preferred to control his population through such “organic” institutions traditionally powerful in Portugal as the Church....His regime was not only non-fascist, but “voluntarily non-totalitarian,” preferring to let those of its citizens who kept out of politics “live by habit. (page 150)...The Estado Novo of Portugal differed from fascism even more profoundly than Franco’s Spain (pag 270).
"Salazar made clear his rejection of fascist pagan cesarism"
"It is also important to highlight that in the popular discourse Estado Novo is often referred to as fascism. This label does not always receive support in academic circles because although it is considered to have been an authoritarian regime, Estado Novo did not portray all the characteristics of an ideal type of fascism"
"He was not a fascist, rather an authoritarian conservative.His policies emphasized depoliticization"
"Unlike Mussolini or Hitler, throughout his life Salazar shrank from releasing popular energies and he never had the intention to create a party-state. Salazar was against the whole-party concept and in 1930 he created the National Union, a single-party which he marketed as a "non-party", announcing that the National Union would be the antithesis of a political party...While Hitler and Mussolini militarized and fanaticized the masses, Salazar demilitarized the country and depoliticized men"
— Gallagher, Tom (2020). SALAZAR : the dictator who refused to die. C HURST & CO PUB LTD. pp. 43–44. ISBN 978-1787383883.
There are two references in this article about "Lord Mammon" in reference to Portugal's finances. Is there a reason for that? 2.203.238.209 ( talk) 15:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Thorin
I'm a bit concerned for sources being misquoted, such as Hugh Kay's "Salazar and Modern Portugal" (1970). The book clearly states anti-internationalism, communism and socialism — nowhere does it mention anti-fascism. Later on, the article also paints him as anti-nazi, based on a quote criticizing the way Hitler was handling power. So why, then, this blatant effort to paint Salazar as an anti-facist, anti-nazism figure? I ask you to be mindful of biased edits and stay true to the sources. I've sinced then corrected this. 95.94.244.243 ( talk) 12:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Salazar's recent biographers (i.e Tom Gallagher 20202, and Filipe Ribeiro de Meneses 2010) were blunt about Salazar not being a fascist. The majority of Portuguese and foreign historians, sociologists and politologists do not consider Salazar and his regime as fascist. (Torgal 2008). Even former Portuguese president, Mario Soares, who for years presented himself as an anti-fascist fighter, ended up recognizing that Salazar was not a fascist [ [12]]. You can find below a long and heterogeneous list of reliable sources that think that Salazar was not fascist.
"Portuguese Estado Novo was not Fascist because fascist has always been revolutionary, anticonservative, anti-bourgeois, etc.. something that the Estado Novo never was."
— A. James Gregor - Phoenix: Fascism in Our Time (New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 1999)
"The regime of Salazar where fascism as we characterize it has never taken roots"
Where Franco subjected Spain’s fascist party to his personal control, Salazar abolished outright in July 1934 the nearest thing Portugal had to an authentic fascist movement, Rolão Preto’s blue-shirted National Syndicalists. The Portuguese fascists, Salazar complained, were “always feverish, excited and discontented . . . shouting, faced with the impossible: More! More!” Salazar preferred to control his population through such “organic” institutions traditionally powerful in Portugal as the Church....His regime was not only non-fascist, but “voluntarily non-totalitarian,” preferring to let those of its citizens who kept out of politics “live by habit. (page 150)...The Estado Novo of Portugal differed from fascism even more profoundly than Franco’s Spain (pag 270).
"Salazar made clear his rejection of fascist pagan cesarism"
"It is also important to highlight that in the popular discourse Estado Novo is often referred to as fascism. This label does not always receive support in academic circles because although it is considered to have been an authoritarian regime, Estado Novo did not portray all the characteristics of an ideal type of fascism"
"He was not a fascist, rather an authoritarian conservative.His policies emphasized depoliticization"
"Unlike Mussolini or Hitler, throughout his life Salazar shrank from releasing popular energies and he never had the intention to create a party-state. Salazar was against the whole-party concept and in 1930 he created the National Union, a single-party which he marketed as a "non-party", announcing that the National Union would be the antithesis of a political party...While Hitler and Mussolini militarized and fanaticized the masses, Salazar demilitarized the country and depoliticized men"
— Gallagher, Tom (2020). SALAZAR : the dictator who refused to die. C HURST & CO PUB LTD. pp. 43–44. ISBN 978-1787383883.
Although some Portuguese historians recognize the existence of a Portuguese fascist regime, researchers in comparative fascist studies usually label the Portuguese New State as a conservative authoritarian,pseudo-fascist, fascistized or para-fascist regime
"contrary to what the contemporary popular history teaches, Salazar did not share fascist tastes, neither aesthetic nor ethical... Salazar hated turbulence and living with the crowds. He did not appreciate mass choreography, nor did he die of love for the modernist exaltation of mechanical progress."
— José Luis Andrade [ O antifascismo de Salazar
"On the other hand, not having an original party to occupy the State, Salazarism was concerned, essentially with conquering the public administration as it found it, and not with eliminating it or replacing it with the party bureaucracy... Contrary to what was seen in fascism and Nazism, it was not so much the party that invaded and penetrated the State, but the State that created and penetrated the party ... he repudiated the militarization of the regime."
"Salazar was not fascist"
"Was Salazar a fascist? The answer is, historically, no."
— Luís Campos e Cunha [ | Fascismo e salazarismo
[regimes like that of Salazar] "should not be listed as fascist, but considered classic conservative and authoritarian regimes."
— Renzo De Felice, "Il Fenomeno Fascista", Storia contemporanea, anno X, n° 4/5, Ottobre 1979, p. 624.
"fundamentally not fascist, although not immune to occasional fascist influences. These were much more traditional regimes and they lacked mass support and mobilization. They included Poland under Pisuldski, Portugal under Salazar..."
— Stephen J. Lee, The European Dictatorships. 1918-1945, (London: 1988), pp. 18.
"João Medina, after criticizing the "journalistic facility adopted by some hurried pseudo-historians" who define Salazar's dictatorship as a fascist, defends the thesis that Salazar´s regime should not be considered fascist. "
"almost nothing of what has been written about fascism applies to the Portuguese case (...) the differences between Salazarism and that Italian fascism are more profound than the similarities "
— Maria Filomena Monica, Educaçâo e Sociedade no Portugal de Salazar (A escola primària salazarista 1926-1939), (Lisboa: 1978), p. 98.
"Furthest from the Italian Fascist model was the institutionalization of the single-party, which was much closer to the situation in Primo de Rivera’s regime in Spain in 1923. Created from above, with limited access to society and governmental decision-making, the UN had an elitist character "
— Adinolfi, Goffredo & Pinto, António. (2014). Salazar’s ‘New State’: The Paradoxes of Hybridization in the Fascist Era. 10.1057/9781137384416_7.
"The obstacles in twinning the New State with fascism are self evident. Among other one can pick out the lack of mass mobilization, the moderate nature of Portuguese Nationalism, the careful and apolitical selection of the narrow elite that ran the country, the lack of powerful working class and the rejection of violence as a mean of transforming society. To include Salazar, given his background, his trajectory, is faith and his general disposition in the broad fascist family is at first sight to stretch fascism to a point where it becomes meaningless. "
— Meneses - Salazar: A Political Biography [ [13]
"Salazar did not allow all to compete (liberalism) but neither did he have a totalitarian ideology like fascism; he espoused Catholic "corporatism": state imposed collaboration of the social classes.(...)In their essential design and purpose, while the regimes very much resembled each other, the Portuguese regime never relied, either in its foundation or development, on anything remotely like the Italian Fascist movement, which later became a party.(...) Salazar did take strong action against real Fascist."
"Although Salazar introduced radical social reforms in some areas (the Estado Novo/New State) and emulated ‘fascist’ organizational elements (militia, secret police, etc.), the raison d’être of the regime was the preservation of conservative and Catholic values, as well as the defense of the existing system against radical alternative conceptions of domestic organizations.(...) Although in subsequent years Salazar accentuated his commitment to a mimetic ‘fascist’ model of domestic organization, this remained confined to the articulation of form and style rather than extending into the sphere of political substance. His regime remained an essentially pro-system pattern of conservative-authoritarian government whose ‘fascist’ elements of style were duly shed in the 1940s."
— Kallis AA. The ‘Regime-Model’ of Fascism: A Typology. European History Quarterly. 2000;30(1):77-104. doi:10.1177/026569140003000104
"It was an authoritarian regime, with some similarities to generic fascism although it cannot be confused with it"
Rui Ramos is part of a 'large number of historians' who refute the fascist character of the regime. I myself reject this classification, I only consider this perspective of analysis between 1933 and 1945
"In the Iberian Latin context the "fascist" label has served often to obscure rather than assist our understanding of these systems, especially as the term implies a blanket condemnation." (p.5) "Iberian Latin model, here termed corporatist, conforms to neither the liberal-pluralist nor the "fascist"or totalitarian model....Fitting neither the liberal framework nor the fascist-totalitarian one, far more dynamic and change-oriented than often thought, the Iberic Latin model is a distinct type with its own philosophic traditions, characteristics..."
— Howard Wiarda "Corporatism and Development: The Portuguese Experience
"In Portugal, Goffredo Adinolfi argues, Italian fascism was one of the principal sources of inspiration for the Estado Novo, particularly in the conception of the “ethical state” and among other features, its corporatist organization. However, the limits of this inspiration were evident both in the ideological and the constitutional field. Wholly antidemocratic, the regime's “constitution” located its ideological roots in the most right-wing form of liberalism, Lusitanian Integralismo and Catholicism. Equally, Salazar himself was far from committed to a totalitarian state. Nor would fascism become a hegemonic force in Spain, although the process of fascistization there went considerably further than in Portugal..."
— Saz I., Box Z., Morant T., Sanz J. (2019) Introduction. In: Saz I., Box Z., Morant T., Sanz J. (eds) Reactionary Nationalists, Fascists and Dictatorships in the Twentieth Century. Palgrave Studies in Political History. p 19, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22411-0_1
However, on the other hand there are some Portuguese scholars that think the opposite, they think that Salazar should be labeled as fascist. Examples:
But even Luis Reis Torgal recognizes that he defends a minority point of view. This is what Torgal said
we can observe that the majority of Portuguese and foreign historians, sociologists and politologists (René Rémond, Pierre Milza, Stanley Payne ...) either go beyond the question of the characterization of the Estado Novo or recognize its own originality or singularity, not to be confused with the system named, in a generic sense, “fascism”
— In the original, in Portuguese : verificarmos que a maioria dos historiadores, sociólogos e politólogos portugueses e estrangeiros (René Rémond, Pierre Milza, Stanley Payne…) ou ultrapassa a questão da caracterização do Estado Novo ou reconhece-lhe uma “originalidade” ou “singularidade” própria, não confundível com o sistema nomeado, em sentido genérico, de “fascismo”, [ [14]
J Pratas ( talk) 10:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
A few years ago there was a discussion about whether Salazar's regime should be considered fascist or not, eventually it was decided to maintain the status quo since no consensus was reached, and the status quo was that he was a fascist:
So I'm just restoring the status quo, just wanted to clarify this in order to avoid edit warring. -- 2804:248:fb44:4300:d86a:797d:b827:58f6 ( talk) 03:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I think this is an excellent article, but I'm a little but concerned about its neutrality. For example, the evaluation section seems to me to consist almost entirely of positive comments. Perhaps these could be balanced by some more negative assessments. Cleisthenes2 ( talk) 05:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree. I don't know enough about Salazar to evaluate, but the opening paragraphs of the articel seem alarmingly enthusiastic, and I am afraid it is biased. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2A01:36D:119:4267:1874:4633:7C86:B940 (
talk)
17:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
If anything that is an understatement. No way does this even come close to being neutral. It's a hagiography.
This is about a man widely regarded as a dictator, openly opposed to democracy, who was installed in power by a military coup, ruled through a murderous secret police and remained neutral in the face of the Nazis, and it barely mentions that not everybody thinks of him as an "accomplished wizard".
86.13.184.107 (
talk)
18:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
This article is obviously biased. There is no need to begin with the debate about whether or not he was a Fascist, certainly Salazar was no Hitler or Mussolini, etc., but there is also no need to pretend that he was some benevolent ruler... The Estado Novo was an authoritarian dictatorship that pursued policies of overt political repression. Censorship of the press, which had already been introduced after the military coup d’état in 1926 and subsequent military dictatorship, prevented freedom of expression, with a ban on strikes and restricted freedom of assembly (which this article describes as "depoliticization of society"). All remaining political parties were banned in 1932. Dissidents were driven into exile, imprisoned, murdered or silenced by the PiDE Secret Police (Polcia Internacional e de Defesa do Estado). I imagine it will be difficult to make the requisite changes in this article--it appears that many of the editors have "axes to grind" and a relatively neutral appraisal of this highly conflicted period in Portugal's history will not be possible. -- Quigley david ( talk) 12:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree, this article is completely biased in favor of Salazar and it requires editing. R. J. Dockery ( talk) 04:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Very much agreed, the first paragraph, specifically, is very enthusiastic even though it is stated all along in the article that he was in fact a dictator. As stated by Quigley david even if Salazar wasn't as bad as other dictators he was a dictator nonetheless. This fact is not even a debatable one in my opinion because again it is stated and proved with sources furthermore into the article so it's a bit concerning that is omitted in the first paragraph and infobox. Shexantidote ( talk) 23:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Ban evasion by User:HarveyCarter. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It is misleading to claim Salazar's regime only helped the Allies during World War II. He also supplied the Axis with wolfram, without which Germany's war effort would have collapsed in 1940: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/94297/1/2000-08.pdf ( 86.151.111.198 ( talk) 18:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC))
|