Talk:Estado Novo (Portugal)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Portugal (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics / Fascism (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Fascism task force.
 
WikiProject Former countries (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 

Old move request[edit]

  • Oppose. Estado Novo is used as a phrase in English to refer regimes in Portugal and Brazil. (Do an "advanced search" in Google for Estado Novo - English pages only.)

Carnation Revolution[edit]

As a novice to Portuguese history I found the Carnation Revolution article contains a lot of information about Estado Novo polices (eg on overseas territories) that I thought would help improve this article. Tiddy 05:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The above comments refer to a previous move request FROM "Estado Novo (Portugal)" TO "New State (Portugal)." Without regard to the one oppose comment (above), the article was moved to The New State (Portugal). Comment below on whether to support or oppose a move back to Estado Novo (Portugal).

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support. (Comments above). LuiKhuntek 06:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support! This article just never have been moved. The Estado Novo is known as Estado Novo. New State should just be a redirect page. User The russian leader acted without consulting other editor. Move back to Estado Novo (Portugal)! The Ogre 13:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I'm not a portugese history buff nor do I speak the language, however all references I have heard of so far are "Estado Novo". It's kinda like having "Third Reich" not being translatable as "Third Empire" really. I do agree though that this case is not cut and clear, open to further suggestions but until then my vote stands. Gryffindor 22:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the page back to Estado Novo (Portugal). Kusma (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect[edit]

I redirected New State (Portugal) to this artice, since it appeared to be the same article with a different title. Estado Novo is the accepted term even in English. Benami 10:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Estado Novo is Fascist not conservativsim[edit]

I am tired of seeing self-proclaimed anti-Fascists trying to mislead the reader by promoting this system as a "conservative authoritarianism" when it has always been recognised outside and inside Portugal throughout history as a Fascist doctrine following the same regime as Italy and Spain. Piecraft 12:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Strike-through text

Estado Novo not true fascism[edit]

Estado Novo in Portugal or Brazil are not generally characterized by scholars as fascist. They share some common elements and certainly were inspired in part by aspects of fascism but even parts of the New Deal had inspiration from fascist policies. There is a "taxonomical” difficulty in characterizing it as fascism; it is not fascism but at most a “para-fascism”. It is true of both Brazil and Portugal. They are not quite fascist, hence I am removing the template. Mamalujo 18:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a tricky question, since the precise definition of fascism is subject to interpretation. However, even Hobsbawm, an acknowledged communist, and therefore highly critical of the regimes in Portugal and Spain, (e.g. in The Age Of Extremes) does not consider either regimes to be fascist per se (while some movements or currents such as the Spanish Falange certainly were, apparently these were increasingly marginalized within the regimes). Part of the argument against the fascist label is that both were more backward-looking, inherently conservative and reactionary, and ideologically closer to the Catholic church (or their impression of it). Clearly this is an argument that can bounce back and forth depending on a network of definitions, but certainly there is no scholarly consensus that the regime was actually fascist in a technical sense. In the looser everyday sense where the word "fascist" is often used as a (perhaps understandable) insult for far-right regimes then it was perhaps fascist, but this is inexact, and not very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.174.46 (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference to the Vietnam War and Afghanistan[edit]

This seems to be POV as it decries the ideologies of the USA and the USSR. I don't think that the comparisons are reasonable as, for one, the USA still exists, and two, the USSR suppressed protests and the state was replicating its actions in Czechoslavakia and Hungary (i.e. Prague Spring, etc) in trying to oust a government that was moving away from their control. I've rewritten it, please revert if you don't like it. --Wee Jimmy (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Portugal bound by the Treaty of Windsor (1386) to assist the United Kingdom in 1939?[edit]

This article claims the following:

During the Second World War (1939-45), Portugal remained officially neutral. It was bound by the 550-year old Treaty of Windsor, the world's oldest diplomatic alliance, to afford assistance to Britain.

Now, I removed that because I thought it was impossible that a 553 year old treaty signed in the Middle Ages would somehow oblige Portugal to help the United Kingdom (a state inexistent at the time) during World War II. If somehow true, it would mean that the Portuguese ignored this treaty during the previous World War considering that they stayed neutral and it would mean both Portugal and England have a bizarre idea of what constitutes an ally as it's a fact that several wars had been fought between them since 1386 and 1939.

Nevertheless, my edit was reverted with the rationale "the treaty was not always observed but it is a fact". I would like very much for the editor (or any sympathisers) to explain further how this is supposed to work. In the meanwhile I'll remove it again, if only because the claim has (as of yet) no source or reference. Comitus (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The treaty is still in effect (renewed in 1899) The treaty's amazing age has been commented upon by many scholars. (Legally the UK is the successor stated to medieval England) It was not voided by WWI. Portugal was an active Ally in WWI and sent thousands of troops to fight in the British sector of the Western Front. Portugal DID provide aid to Britain in WW2 as explained and cited to Dear & Foot. For example air bases in the Azores. It was a co-belligerent & on that basis was admitted to UN in 1945. What's vague about any of that?? I assume you are not using any sources at all. Rjensen (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Portugal did not join World War I until 1916, two years after the start of the war. Furthermore it was Germany who declared war on Portugal, not the other way around. The 'renewal' of the treaty in 1899 (leaving aside whether it was broken in 1914) is interesting, but it raises the same questions as the Ship of Theseus. That is to say, after 553 years with England having becoming a part of the United Kingdom and Portugal having ceased to be a Kingdom at all ... is it still valid to speak of 'the same' treaty or is it merely a romantic notion? Also, you've ignored my comments about wars between Portugal and England/Great Britain in the years between 1286 and 1939 and how you see this affecting a "553 year old alliance"? Comitus (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I quoted my sources--and a google search will display many refs to the very old treaty still in effect. what sources are you relying upon re the treaty--it sounds like pure speculation???? As for WWI Portugal voted to declare war on 23 Nov 1914 but there was a coup and political chaos for a while. It sold lots of food & supplies to England and none to Germany. In 1916 it seized German ships -- an action that led Germany to declare war. It sent 54,000 soldiers to the Western Front. Is that enough to qualify for helping England? (England of course never went away-- it added Scotland and Ireland and changed its name). Rjensen (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
In the Historical Dictionary of Portugal (page 280) by Douglas L. Wheeler, the following is said: (and I quote)
"Various Anglo-Portuguese treaties bear the name of Windsor. Among others were the treaties of 1386 and 1899. Signed at Windsor , England, on 9 may 1386, the former treaty confirmed the Alliance Treaty between England and Portugal of 1382 and committed both signatories to participate in a "perpetual" league, friendship and confederation. The 1899 Treaty of Windsor (a misnomer since it was signed in London) followed the outbreak of the Anglo-Boer War in South Africa. Portugal pledged to allow the movement of British forces through its east-African colony of Mozambique to South Africa and prevent arms from reaching the Boers through the same colony. At the same time, there was a reaffirmation of the ancient Anglo-Portuguese Alliance, as spelled out in articles of the 1642 and 1661 Anglo-Portuguese treaties, thus signifying a mutual defense treaty for both countries."
This would mean that there is no continuation of the Treaty of Windsor (1386) and the Treaty of London (1899). Rather, there is continuation in the sense that the 1642 (which makes sense, as Portugal and England fought each other in the Dutch-Portuguese War until 1640) and 1661 treaties were reaffirmed. Now according to the source quoted above, the treaty's intention encompassed mutual defense. The key word there being mutual. In chapter 2 of The Oldest Ally: Britain and the Portuguese Connection by Glyn Stone, the nature of those treaties is explained: (and I quote again)
"British governments had consistently interpreted their commitments to Portugal in terms of their own interests, notably strategic and economic ones, and had reserved their position when called on to render assistance to their oldest ally. In 1873, for example, they had not unconditionally guaranteed Portugal’s integrity and independence when she had been faced with a possible invasion by Spanish Republican forces, nor in 1877, when the Portuguese had asked for assistance in defending their Indian colony of Goa. The alliance also did not prevent the British from engaging in discussions with Germany over the fate of the Portuguese colonies in 1898-1899 and 1911-1914, with only the outbreak of the First World War rendering them null and void."
In other words: those treaties were 'alliances' in name alone, at least on the part of the British, and were not considered in any way binding. Now that only leaves the following conclusion: (1) There is no continuation between the 1386 and 1899 treaties (2) Portugal was not obliged to help the UK based on a treaty from 1386, and (3) the 1899 can hardly be seen (or was seen at the time) as a binding alliance. Comitus (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Only you claim the treaties " were not considered in any way binding". Only you claim there was a problem in WWI. It has never been violated. It does NOT require a declaration of war (only assistance in wartime) The 1386 treaty was repeatedly reaffirmed (in 1642 1654 1661 and 1899). Winslett says: "The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance is the longest standing alliance in the world. From the alliances inception in 1386, Britain and Portugal have cooperated in an unprecedented way." [Winslett p 10] he goes on to say "it "has been the cornerstone of both nations relations with each other ever since. This is particularly true in regards to the Portuguese. The various treaties that followed built upon the promises made Windsor and never abrogate its terms, especially in the case of guarantees of territorial defense and military eight." Winslett The Nadir of Alliance (2008) p 14. Rjensen (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
No offence, but I think it is you who is misreading these texts. As cited in the Historical Dictionary of Portugal the 1386 Treaty stated the intent for Portugal and England to "participate in a perpetual league, friendship and confederation." We've already seen that this could not have been the case as the English fought the Portuguese during the Dutch-Portuguese War (1588–1640). It is therefore unsurprising that your source (a book about prayers not international diplomacy, by the way) refers (page 41) to the Treaty signed in 1661 as the one invoked by Churchill in 1943! In effect, your book states that the 1661 treaty is the treaty that was repeatedly invoked, not the 1386 one. Your book supports a (form of) continuation from 1661 onwards, not from 1386 which would require specific conclusive sources detailing the evolution of those treaties without 300-year gaps and with further explanations on the position of the interceding wars between England and Portugal in respect to the supposed continuous alliance between them. Do you have these sources? If not, I would like to put this discussion in with a request for comment. Comitus (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

3O[edit]

Hi, I'd like to try to help resolve this issue. I have a very limited knowledge of Portuguese history, so it would be good to reach some clarity around the underlying issue, as there seems to be a fair bit of what looks to me like WP:OR going on! So first, is there a source that says Portugal "was bound by the 550-year old Treaty of Windsor...to afford assistance to Britain" during WWII? I think this is a pivotal question on the issue, and it will make resolution of the disagreement much easier if we have crystal clarity on which WP:RS's we have. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The main points of the 1386 treaty were repeated in numerous newer treaties, esp one in 1899. So the deal was 40 years old rather than 550. A standard recent diplomatic history states: "Salazar could not move far from London; the alliance with Britain (the old alliance of 1386 had been renewed in the Treaty of Windsor in 1899) was central to Portugal's independence and Salazar's position. see Steiner, Zara (2011). The Triumph of the Dark: European International History 1933-1939. Oxford UP. p. 7.  Rjensen (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen. I'm not sure I understand that quote fully - which makes me think it isn't plainly saying that Portugal was bound by the Treaty to assist Britain during WWII. In that quote we seem to have to work out for ourselves what it would mean for Salazar to move far from London... Am I wrong? Is there another source that says it more directly rather than by implication? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
countries can always ignore a treaty: there is no one to force compliance with any treaty. but Salazar really wanted to honor it because Britain was Portugal's best friend in a very dangerous world. There were serious fears (until June 1944) that Hitler would invade Spain and Portugal at any time (in order to get Gibralter). Rjensen (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC))
Interesting Rjensen. Although it does sound a bit like you are now arguing that Portugal wasn't bound by the treaty per se in that it wasn't enforceable. If you mean that it was morally obliged, or viewed it as politically expedient to be bound, that's a different issue and we would need a source that explicitly makes that point - otherwise it would seem reasonable to remove the assertion per the reverted edit, no? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I think we're lost in the language. Both Portugal and UK in 1939 wanted to follow the terms of the treaty, and both did so. Both explicitly mentioned it by name, and so have historians ever since. So what's the issue? The problem came up because Comitus came up with four incorrect objections: 1) he suggested the treaty was dead in 1939 because it was too old to be meaningful (wrong: it had been renewed in 1899); 2) that it had somehow been revoked by WWI (mo one says that; both sides abided the treaty in WWI); 3) that Britsin interpreted it for Britain's advantage (true) and therefore it no longer was good (the therefore part is nonsense and not based on any sources. Businessmen look for ways to interpret a contract to their advantage and so do diplomats). 4) the treaty obliged a declaration of war (that is simply incorrect and no RS says that). Historians like Steiner explicitly mention the treaty re 1939 -- something historians do not do with irrelevant treaties. Rjensen (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree, I think we are a little lost in the language! That is why I am suggesting that having sources for the sentence in question will resolve matters. The argument you make above may be correct, but it constitutes WP:OR without WP:RS, so lends no clarity to the matter. To me this seems reasonably straight forward - if there is a WP:RS that states Portugal was bound by the Treaty to assist Britain during WWII, then all is solved. However, until that WP:RS is forthcoming, then it shouldn't be in the article, or be rephrased so as to match whichever WP:RS's we do have. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I've done a little digging - is this a reasonable version?

During the Second World War (1939-45), Portugal remained officially neutral. Although bound by the 550-year old Treaty of Windsor (the world's oldest diplomatic alliance) to afford assistance to Britain, Salazar did not allow it to be invoked by the Allies until 1943.Maxwell, Kenneth (1997). The Making of Portuguese Democracy. Cambridge UP. p. 17.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Here's [[1]] which says something similar on pg 103. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes I agree! good detective work. Rjensen (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, so perhaps it's safe enough to make that edit citing those two sources, and see if Comitus is happy - I'm fractionally troubled that they called for the 3O but haven't been involved in this discussion so far... Cheers, Blippy (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
No I'm not happy, because it is still called a 550-year old treaty (again, wars were fought between the UK/England and Portugal during this timeframe) and there is still no evidence how a treaty from the Middle Ages would bind either party in the 20th century. Comitus (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)