Talk:Getúlio Vargas

Birthday: 1882 or 1883?

Could someone knowledgeable find out what is correct year of birth? Googling shows both. Thanks. Pavel Vozenilek 15:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The Dicionário Histórico-Biográfico Brasileiro pós-1930 (Rio de Janeiro: Editora Fundação Getúlio Vargas, 2001) and Presidentes do Brasil (São Paulo: Editora Cultura, 2002) state that Vargas was born in 1882. According to the latter source:

"Getúlio Vargas became a soldier in São Borja in 1898. The following year, he passed the examination to become a sergeant and matriculated in the Preparatory School of Tactics in Rio Pardo. From this time came the alteration of his birth year to 1883, corresponding to the minimum age to enter the Military School and therefore present in the majority of his biographies" (p. 335, my translation).

— Diamantina 08:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is that not an argument for the other way around? Born in 1883, he would have been too young to enter the school. So his birth year was changed to 1882, to make him a year older and such passing the minimum age. Aloist (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Salgado's Hitler Mustache

Salgado did at some point have a mustache similar to Hitler. http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/projetovip/0122.htm I am putting the sentence back in, but someone who knows more about him may want to reword it.

Kamikaze Highlander 05:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn't relevant to Vargas, so it shouldn't be mentioned in the article anymore, but it is a fact nonetheless.

Kamikaze Highlander 06:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words? I just did some grammatical patching and would like to know what constitutes a weasel word tag. The article needs some more Americanizing mainly in style. Fascias in Italy in the 1890s were populist workmen's associations not all that different in ideology from the stuff Edward Bellamy was circulating at the time--if newspaper reports are any indication. I will be back to fiddle with some more grammar and would like to see a weasel word up close so as to better recognize the species. translator (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Olga Benário

Just one thing about Olga Benário,

Being completly against antisemitism (being myself jewish), I dislike the fact she was deported to Germany. However, Olga was no Angel: She was a communist partizan and was involved in the plot to establish a communist regime in Brazil. And since Vargas was attempting to be in good terms with the Axis at that time, and since Olga was wanted by the Nazis, he depoted her without thinking twice. --Pinnecco 13:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The Olga stuff is more interesting regarding Prestes, who supported Vargas in 1945 -- after being ordered to do so by Moscow. I think the issue of anti-semitism isn't really all that important (I am Jewish too), but if one wants a good example of it I think the so-called Cohen Plan speaks more to demonizing Jews than Olga's deportation.

Actually it was Filinto Muller that deported Olga to Germany. Idontknow610^TM 14:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Murdered?

"many historians say that vargas may have been murdered" who are these historians and where did they write it? i'm deleting this sentence until someone can find some sort of citation. --Cptbuck 01:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Gosh. This is the subject of a popular novel in Brazil, by Jô Soares, who may not qualify as a historian. I have recently begun to wonder about Warren Harding's timely death. Dates of his food poisoning, visit to Canada and transportation to California are amazingly difficult to pin down. Gaston Means wrote suggesting he'd been poisoned deliberately and other books heatedly deny the suggestion. Yet the GOP was relieved of a lot of trouble by his demise as the scandals emerged. Should the possibility of foul play simply be elided down a memory hole? The fact that these concerns exist may prompt the gathering of new data. In closing let me add that I know nothing of the details of Vargas' death, and have no stake in any version. I do not believe the official story of the JFK assassination, but have no idea what the real story was. I only wish someone would find out. translator (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is silliness. Vargas committed suicide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWWolfe (talk • contribs) 22:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Excessive focus on fascism and not enough on facts

I do not know whether this has already been discussed and is already being fixed, but I found this article to be unconsistent with the critical view most commonly adopted of Vargas' government. If I may, I'm going to give a few suggestions on the directions that I believe the corrections should be taken. They are, of course, just suggestions based on the historical knowledge I have, so it's all up to the editors.

The article continuously refers to and implies a supposed strong association of Vargas with fascism and does not let it clear enough that he is widely considered to be the father of State populism in Brasil. In fact, populist practice became so strong after Vargas that it would go on until it stopped working as it should; that is, it stopped keeping the masses under control (which is in the best interest of the industrious elite, not against it) during João Goulart's government, which prompted the coup of 64, which was widely supported by 'burguesy'(sp?) and the middle class.

The supposed fascism so constantly mentioned by the article is blown completly out of proportion. To say that the constitution of 1934 had direct fascist influence is just plain wrong; that constitution was created because of the instability that having an unconstitutional government was creating, to quell the 'democratical' movements that were arising. Vargas' continuous delay to implement a constitution from 1930-33, when his government was supposed to be only provisory, even caused a reactionary movement in the state of São Paulo, orchestrated by the paulist oligarchies who were the dominant force in the political scenario before the 1930 coup. Although it was already supported by various sectors of the society (including the industry, represented by FIESP, because the industry was, at that point, mostly a 'sidekick' also controled by the coffee exporters) it gained social spread after 3 students and a 'curious' were killed during protest. The state was eventually sieged and defeated, but Vargas, being a skilled politician, decided for light punishment of the rebellious to try and gain the support of the coffee sector, still the wealthiest economical sector in Brasil, despite all the crisis it went through during much of the twentieth century's beginning. The constitution was soon elaborated by a 'Constituitional Assembly' (is that the expression in english?), with populist orientation. Also, the 'assembly' had classist representation (that is to say, one member who would represent each class in society, such as one for medics, one for lawyers, one for the operaries etc.), which was, in fact, a tool implanted by Vargas to keep himself in power, as the representation were his pelegos, the people used by the government to keep the class fighting to a minimum, and the fact that it was stated that the first president after the promulgation of the constitution would be elected by the 'assembly's' vote, and it just happened to be him.

The constitution of 1937, however, does have a clear fascist orientation. However, that was more so because it was in Vargas' interest, now that a dictatorial government had been installed, that his personal power was 'justified' in the constitution. In fact, it (the constitution) was nicknamed "a Polaca", a derogatory term for prostitute. The Axis orientation that his international policy took was more of a reflection of the will of many of his ministers and high class military than his own; while he was, in fact, not at all strictly against fascism, his aim was always to strengthen himself. Thus, after the Integralists realized that Vargas was not going to put them in a position of power, they tried a desperate 'intentona' with a few members, invading the Catete. The offenders were caught, tortured, and killed, the Integralist party was banned (up to then, it was the only party that still existed in Estado Novo) and Plínio Salgado was exiled.

Regarding his shift in his support to the allies, this was due to a few reasons, but the most prominent of them being that the U.S., looking forward to being able to build aircraft bases in the northeastern coast of Brasil, namely for the Africa campaign and after that as a landing point for bombers from the Europe campaign, gave massive loans for the construction of the CSN (Companhia Siderúrgica Nacional) in Volta Redonda, which was an investment that Brasil's still feeble private industrial capital was not prepared to make due to the long term commitment and volume of resources needed which the private capital could not and would not make, which was fundamental in the development of the brasilian 'heavy industry' and a turning point in our industrial capabilities. The construction of this industry, which was apparently also disputed by the german Krupp, was effectively the coin in getting Vargas to support the Allies and declare war on Germany. In this time period, german submarines also sunk brasilian ships, but I can't recall if it was before or after the war declaration.

Also, regarding his suicide, I think it is highly worthy of at least mention the fact that, following the revealing of his letter to the public, there was a mass revolt, namely in Rio de Janeiro, capital at the time; everything that had opposed Vargas was trampled, turned over and burned down. Carlos Lacerda's news, the Tribuna da Imprensa, was essentialy demolished (Lacerda would return time and again to criticize whoever was government for still quite a bit of time in brasilian history, sometimes even assaulting with his publications people he had helped put on power, such as the military after 64). This was the response from the masses, the only 'force' that still supported Vargas, after 15 years and then some of populist practices; the strenght of the revolt was such that the ones who had intended to take the power by a coup, such as Lacerda and the 'airforce' higher class, realized that they simply couldn't with the situation at hand.

Once again, just suggestions based on what I know of the time in which Vargas was dominant. Hope it was any help at all. VictorGBS 04:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Anti-USA bias

There seems to be an anti-American bias in this topic; I wouldn't object if there was some veracity to it. But almost all of the sections that seem anti-American (see particularly the Second Presidency section) have no relevant citation to defend the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F470:6:4009:547:2899:1E39:F216 (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Getúlio Vargas. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150110142857/http://www.aimeedeheeren.com:80/ to http://www.aimeedeheeren.com

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"Father of the poor"

In the lead, would it be appropriate to say he was nicknamed "the Father of the Poor"? I suppose so, but I am just wondering if there is any reason it shouldn't be included. FredModulars (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Clarification: I meant next to his date of birth rather than at the latter half of the first paragraph. FredModulars (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@FredModulars: Honestly, I don't think the way it's used here is appropriate at all. The full quote from the Britannica article cited for this states:

Although denounced by some as an unprincipled dictator, Vargas was revered by his followers as the “Father of the Poor,” for his battle against big business and large landowners.

That it was his supporters that called him this is not mentioned here, instead using Wikivoice to imply that he was more widely known by this name. At the very least this needs to be properly attributed, but I don't think it even has enough behind it to justify putting this "nickname" in the very first sentence of the article. I think, if it must remain in the article, it should be moved somewhere else, such as the "Legacy" section. -- Grnrchst (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I've just moved it to the "Legacy" section with attribution. Let me know if you have any objections or other thoughts. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: That's fine. This post is a year-and-a-half old anyway, so I don't think anyone else will provide input.

I asked for community input in the first place because, at the time, I was unsure if Vargas's nickname was well-known enough to merit its place in the lead. Since then, I have consulted more English (and Portuguese) literature, and it appears the nickname is certainly well-known enough. I did not consider viewing the nickname from a neutrality issue, however, as its use to describe Vargas is so prevalent among historians. FredModulars (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

He was widely known as Father of the Poor, and is still known to this day. Please return the sentence to the lead. Knoterification (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Improving the article

This article is among the ones of great value to Brazilian history (and, by extension, culture). Pres. Vargas was the longest serving president of Brazil, influenced by politicians and thinkers who lived in the eras preceding his and influencing, if not outright building, the careers of the people who succeeded him. This is not even mentioning his role in bringing the oligarchic Old Republic to a halt, introducing massive labor and social reforms, and ushering in a new era of Brazilian politics. One historian labeled his power as greater than any head of state which preceded him, be it Emp. Pedro II or Pres. Peixoto (note that it was published before the military dictatorship).

Enough prelude. I am calling on all those who care enough to help improve this article. I tried a while back and failed. This period in Brazilian history, and also the immediate preceding and succeding periods of the Old Republic and the early Fourth/Liberal Republic, have been underserved by Wikipedia. To accurately record Vargas and his era's history on Wikipedia, as well as that of the Old and early Liberal Republics, perhaps alike to how well-documented Pedro II and the Empire's stories are, would require a great collaboration of many people. General articles, coups, rebellions, wars, battles, revolutions, politicians, intellectuals, and culture, economy, and government pages of the Vargas Era and the other periods would have to be started from scratch. Most of the work already done is superficial, unsourced, or both.

Rome was not built in a day, and neither will the work ahead of us be finished with stealth. I am calling upon all those interested to join me in this adventure, to better record this history which has long been forgotten by Wikipedia. We must first work on improving this article, and possibly offshoots of the article, and, hopefully, it will be the catalyst for a change in the quality of many articles.

Whatever your opinion may be of him, he is too vital to history to not be remembered. It will require extensive researching, writing, revising, editing, and navigating through a bureaucratic nightmare until, finally, we may honor this article, and possibly others, with the highest designation Wikipedia may bestow: Featured article.

If you are interested, please reply here. Once a few editors are on board with this initiative, we may begin to plan and write.

It is up to us, because since 21 December 2002, nothing has been done. FredModulars (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)