Talk:António de Oliveira Salazar

Neutrality

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)

Very much agree - reading this leaves one thinking that nary a soul in the world ever questioned the nobility of staying neutral in WWII. 2001:8A0:E974:F400:692A:3B06:D91D:4E81 (talk) 10:36, 13 October 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)

Salazar was a fascist

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)

The IP has misrepresented the source he cites. He says, "[S]alazar himself states his ideology is "fascism" ", but the journal article On Salazar and Salazarism by Michael Sanfey says no such thing. Rather, it says:

• "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 Fascists."

Carlstak (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Carlstak. Most scholars do not classify Salazar as fascist.

• Stanley G. Payne thinks that Salazar' system might best be described as one of Authoritarian Corporatism or even authoritarian corporative liberalism. - (Payne, Stanley (1995). A History of Fascism, 1914–1945 (1 ed.). University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 9780299148744.)
• Historian Juan José Linz says that fascism never took roots in Salazar' Portugal - (Linz, Juan José (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes (1 ed.). Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 226. ISBN 9781555878900. -
• Robert Paxton says that "The Estado Novo of Portugal differed from fascism even more profoundly than Franco’s Spain. Salazar was, in effect, the dictator of Portugal, but he preferred a passive public and a limited state where social power remained in the hands of the Church, the army, and the big landowners." see (Paxton, Robert O. (2004). The Anatomy Of Fascism. NY: Alfred A. Knopf. p. 217. ISBN 1400040949.)J Pratas (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Madeleine Albright has recently publishd a book titled Fascism: A Warning" and in an intreview with a Portuguese journalist she said "Salazar was not a" Fascist" [[1]]J Pratas (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Gonna cite some of the same sources which I cited on the other discussion:

1) Jorge Pais de Sousa - O Estado Novo de Salazar como um Fascismo de Cátedra

2) Manuel de Lucena - Interpretações do Salazarismo

3) Manuel Loff - O Nosso Século é Fascista. O Mundo visto por Salazar e Franco

4) Manuel de Lucena - A Evolução do Sistema Corporativo Português: O Salazarismo

5) Hermínio Martins, S. Woolf - European Fascism, pp. 302-336 -- 177.19.122.50 (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2020 (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)

The problem is that the status quo on Wikipedia is that Salazar and the Estado Novo were considered Fascists, and since no consensus was reached, thus it was agreed to maintain the status quo, dismissing Portuguese sources as "polemic" seems to be very biased Those polemics have not been generally accepted in the wider English language community of specialists on Portugal besides why do English speaking scholars have more value than Portuguese ones who have access to better information? This makes no sense. -- 179.180.141.189 (talk) 21:55, 11 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. [2], 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.

• 1) Paxton, Robert O. 2004. The Anatomy of Fascism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Paxton says that: "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!”9 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)
• 2) Manuel Braga da Cruz explains how the Estado Novo and the Portuguese 1933 Constitution is fundamentally different from Fascism [[3]]
• 3) Roger Griffin, The Nature of Fascism (London: Routledge, 1993); page 266 - The National Union is classified "Conservative Right"
• 4) Costa Pinto, "Salazar’s Dictatorship and European Fascism: Problems of Interpretation" (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996) Costa Pinto explains that The National Union is more a bureaucratic apparatus than a political party.
• 5) Costa Pinto, António – “The Blue Shirts Portuguese Fascists and the New Stat”. The book is available online in the authors website. [4] [Costa Pinto is NOT an admirer of Salazar and in his book he explains how Salazar dismantled the fascist movement in Portugal
• 6) A. James Gregor, Phoenix: Fascism in Our Time (New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 1999); - Author says that Portuguese Estado Novo was not Fascist because fascist has always been revolutionary, anticonservative, anti-bourgeois, etc.. somethin that the Estado Novo never was.
• 7) Juan J. Linz, Authoritarian and Totalitarian Regimes (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2000); Michael Mann, Fascists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, - On page 226 Author says that Fascism has never taken roots in the Portugal of Salazar.
• 8) Roger Eatwell, ‘Introduction: New Styles of Dictatorship and Leadership in Interwar Europe,’ Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 7, no. 2 (2006): 127–137;
• 9) Payne, Stanley (1995). – “A History of Fascism, 1914–1945”
• 10) 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.
• 11) Kay, Hugh (1970). Salazar and Modern Portugal. New York: Hawthorn Books.
• 12) Wiarda, Howard J. (1977). Corporatism and Development: The Portuguese Experience (First ed.). Univ of Massachusetts Press. ISBN 978-0870232213.
• 13) Carlos A. Cunha, ‎(2010) states "A comparison of Salazar's dictatorship with German or Italian fascism shows that Portugal was not a fascist state.
• 14) Bernard Cook, (2001) states "he was not a fascist but rather an authoritarian conservative. "
• 15) Portuguese Studies Review - Volume 2 - Page 109 (1993) "an authoritarian or clerico-corporatist state not a fascist one."
• 16) 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.
• 17) 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.
• 18) Albright, Madeleine in a recent interview to a Portuguese newspaper on the occasion of the publishing of her book "Fascism: A Warning", said "Salazar was not a Fascist"[5]J Pratas (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

There was no consensus at all, you can clearly see on the result of the discussion which I linked, because of this it was decided that the status quo would be maintained, and the status quo was that the Estado Novo was Fascist, you're just distorting things to promote your agenda, Portuguese sources have better access to information than non-Portuguese ones, so they tend to have better quality in this case, while you mention some great sources, some of them, like Madeleine Albright, are not of equal or better quality, Madeleine Albright for instance, is not even an authority on Fascism or the Estado Novo or Portugal, she probably doesn't even know much about those subjects. -- 179.179.173.15 (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The consensus is that there is no consensus. 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, and we need to treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. It seems that on Feb 2nd 2017 an IP from Venezuela categorized Salazar as a Fascist Ruler without using the talk page, without providing any explanation and against all that had been debated it the article's talk page. It does not make any sense to try to hold on to this sneaky addition from the Venezuelan IP, that has gone unnoticed, calling it "status quo ante". The categorization of Salazar as a fascist is a minority view. J Pratas (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The Estado Novo and Salazar were considered Fascist in Wikipedia way before 2017:

* Jun 2008

* Oct 2008,

* Nov 2009,

* Nov 2010,

* Aug 2011,

* Nov 2012,

* Aug 2013,

* Feb 2014,

* Nov 2015,

* Oct 2016,

* Dec 2017,

* Feb 2018,

* Feb 2019, -- 179.183.231.92 (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear IP. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies. 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, and we need to treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.J Pratas (talk) 07:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

You were stating that an IP from Venezuela categorized Salazar as Fascist ruler and that this was just an sneaky addition by that IP, then I showed you that Salazar was considered a Fascist here way before that, and now you come up with this? Again, since no consensus was reached, the status quo was maintained, and as you can see the status quo is that Salazar and the Estado Novo were Fascist. -- 186.213.22.136 (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

You have no proof that Salazar not being Fascist is the majority view among scholars, and your attempt to discard Portuguese scholars is completely ridiculous, and besides, how does classifying Salazar as a Fascist violate NPOV? If anything, your edits are far more POV, in fact, all your disruptive edits since April last year have been about imposing POV. -- 186.213.22.136 (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Portuguese history is not my specialism and I’m not competent to judge whether the weight of reliable sources does so describe him or not. That said, looking both at the article and the Talkpage, it is pretty clear, to me at least, that JPratas is determined that Salazar should not be described as a fascist, irrespective of the sources. As to their NPoV argument, I see on their own user page; “António de Oliveira Salazar - A man who was being unfairly accused of being anti-Semit(sic) and Pro-Hitler“. That looks rather like a POV to me. KJP1 (talk) 22:27, 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)

There's no ad hominem here, I'm just calling a spade a spade, your edits since April last year have clearly been disruptive and the purpose of them is to impose a POV, no reason to pretend otherwise, your attacks on Portuguese scholars are actual ad hominems, and how are you not pushing a POV over the other? You attack Portuguese scholars as biased and also you attempt to discard them for some reason, there's no reason to treat non-Portuguese scholars as superior especially when this is a subject about Portugal. -- 177.19.68.90 (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear IP the ad hominem side comment was not for you, but for the other user who decided to step in not to discuss substance but to try to jump into conclusion based on my attributes as an editor. As to your point, the only person that is pushing for a POV is you. You are the only person here wanting to categorize Salazar as a fascist and wanting to present it as a fact. What I have said over and over again is that there is no consensus on weather Salazar was Fascist or not. In this case, if we want to respect the NPOV policy then we are supposed to "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) 09:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

While there is controversy over whether Salazar was Fascist or not, the same thing is true for pretty much every leader considered Fascist except for Mussolini, even Hitler sometimes is not considered Fascist, so many people would have to be removed, now, you are the only one who is pushing a POV, many of your edits on articles related to the Estado Novo or Salazar show that, and they are not just about whether the regime was Fascist either, and again, since no consensus was found, the status quo was to be maintained, and the status quo is that Salazar was Fascist, but you ignored this to push your POV. -- 177.206.210.197 (talk) 21:53, 21 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)

Oh but I never denied that there was controversy, but again, the same is true for pretty much every leader considered to be Fascist except Mussolini, and of course, no consensus was found, so it was agreed that the status quo would be maintained, you ignored this of course, typical of you. Frankly I'm not going to continue this "discussion", it's a waste of time, you don't have any interest in discussing anything, I'm not going to do this ever again, I hope though that one day you will be held accountable for your disruptive behavior. -- 179.176.25.78 (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The status quo ante is what the article says, and the article says that:

• The corporatist state had some similarities to Benito Mussolini's Italian fascism, but considerable differences in its moral approach to governing. Although Salazar admired Mussolini and was influenced by his Labour Charter of 1927, he distanced himself from fascist dictatorship, which he considered a pagan Caesarist political system that recognised neither legal nor moral limits.
• Unlike Mussolini or Hitler, Salazar 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
• The National Union was set up to control and restrain public opinion rather than to mobilize it, the goal was to strengthen and preserve traditional values rather than to induce a new social order. At no stage did it appear that Salazar wished it to fulfill the central role the Fascist Party had acquired in Mussolini´s Italy, in fact it was meant to be a platform of conservatism, not a revolutionary vanguard.(Gallagher 2020 - Salazar the dictator who refused to die)
• In 1934, Salazar exiled Francisco Rolão Preto as a part of a purge of the leadership of the Portuguese National Syndicalists, also known as the camisas azuis ("Blue Shirts"). Salazar denounced the National Syndicalists as "inspired by certain foreign models" (meaning German Nazism) and condemned their "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.J Pratas (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

So the status quo ante is a bunch of POV edits you copy and pasted on several articles? LOL give me a break.

• Oh, so he was inspired by Fascism in a lot of things but he had some differences from Italian Fascism, that doesn't mean he wasn't one, Fascist leaders, movements and regimes had many differences between each other.
• The National Union was the official party of the regime, and was the only party allowed under the regime, it doesn't matter if Salazar wanted to created it as a "non-party", didn't want to call it a party, or whatever, it was a party in practice and was the official party of the regime, no different than the NSDAP in Germany, or the PNF in Italy, or the FET y de las JONS in Spain, etc.
• Public mobilization is something superficial, now the regime was more conservative compared to Mussolini's one, that is true, but then again, the Estado Novo was born out of the 1926 Revolution, this is definitely revolutionary, and strenghtening and preserving traditional values is also something Fascists support, in fact this is a core tenet of Fascist ideology.
• So what? Is Hitler not a Fascist too because he purged the SA in the Night of the Long Knives?

But like I said, this "discussion" is a waste of time, you only want to impose your POV, that's all, again, I hope you will be held accountable for your disruptive behavior. -- 191.33.113.107 (talk) 07:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Those interested in the topic might like to read this article from David Gelber [[6]] 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)

The first arguments used by Gallagher seems to focus on superficial characteristics, though Gallagher forgets about the Portuguese Legion, which was very similar to the paramilitary groups of other Fascist movements, or the Portuguese Youth, which was very similar to the youth groups of other Fascist movements, if he wants to talk about aesthetics he should at least have mentioned this, next he talks about expansionism, which is also a superficial characteristic, Nazi Germany mostly annexed areas which previously belonged to Germany or was majority ethnic German, and before the war, the only expansionist war Fascist Italy engaged in was Ethiopia, but Italy already attempted to control Ethiopia way before Fascism, and attitudes to modernity and technology also varied between different Fascists, some of them embraced it more while others not so much, and Mussolini only embraced racial theories and laws after being pressured by Hitler in 1938. Those who do not consider Salazar a Fascist usually base their arguments on superficial characteristics and sometimes, funnily, even on left-wing propaganda about Fascism, those who do consider him Fascist seem to have much better arguments, at least so far this is what I've seen. -- 177.207.11.63 (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

You are free to think that Robert Paxton, Tom Gallagher, António Costa Pinto, Stanley G. Payne, Madeleine Albright, Juan José Linz, Howard J. Wiarda, Raymond Aron, Philip D. Morgan, Roger Eatwell etc... are all ridiculous and wrong, but this is the Wikipedia not a personal blog. So we have to stick to the sources.

New definition of Fascism

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"

  — [Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes - Originally a chapter in the "Handbook of Political Science,"]

• 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).

  — [|THE ANATOMY OF FASCISM. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.]

• "Salazar made clear his rejection of fascist pagan cesarism"

  — [Payne - A History of Fascism, 1914–1945]

• "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"

  — [Silva R, Ferreira AS. The Post-Dictatorship Memory Politics in Portugal Which Erased Political Violence from the Collective Memory. Integr Psychol Behav Sci. 2019;53(1):24-43. doi:10.1007/s12124-018-9452-8]

• "He was not a fascist, rather an authoritarian conservative.His policies emphasized depoliticization"

  — [|Cook, Bernard - Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia, Volume 2 pag 1027]

• "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.

Lord Mammon?

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 think it was some kind of joke. I've deleted it.J Pratas (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality concern

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)

On Salazar being labeled or not fascist.

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 [[7]]. 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"

  — [Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes - Originally a chapter in the "Handbook of Political Science,"]

• 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).

  — [|Rober Paxton - THE ANATOMY OF FASCISM. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.]

• "Salazar made clear his rejection of fascist pagan cesarism"

  — [Payne - A History of Fascism, 1914–1945]

• "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"

  — [Silva R, Ferreira AS. The Post-Dictatorship Memory Politics in Portugal Which Erased Political Violence from the Collective Memory. Integr Psychol Behav Sci. 2019;53(1):24-43. doi:10.1007/s12124-018-9452-8]

• "He was not a fascist, rather an authoritarian conservative.His policies emphasized depoliticization"

  — [|Cook, Bernard - Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia, Volume 2 pag 1027]

• "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

  — Rita Alemeida Carvalho [Ideology and Architecture in the Portuguese ‘Estado Novo’: Cultural Innovation within a Para-Fascist State (1932–1945)]

• "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."

  — [CRUZ, Manuel Braga da. Notas para uma caracterização política do salazarismo. Análise Social: Revista do Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, v. 18, n. 72-74, p. 773-794, 1982-83.]

• "Salazar was not fascist"

  — Albright, Madeleine ["Salazar não era fascista"]

• "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. "

  — [De Lucena, Manuel. “Entre Lucidez e Paixão.” Análise Social, vol. 36, no. 160, 2001, pp. 925–938.]

• "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 [[8]]

• "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."

  — [Sanfey “On Salazar and Salazarism.” Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, vol. 92, no. 368, 2003, pp. 405–411. JSTOR]

• "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"

  — Sánchez Cervelló, Josep, [Características del régimen salazarista, Stud. hist., H.ª cont., 21, 2005, pp. 115-136, Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca]

• 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

  — [| Manuel Loff in Público Newspaper "A História de Rui Ramos desculpabiliza o Estado Novo?"]

• "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:

1) Jorge Pais de Sousa - O Estado Novo de Salazar como um Fascismo de Cátedra

2) Manuel de Lucena - Interpretações do Salazarismo

3) Manuel Loff - O Nosso Século é Fascista. O Mundo visto por Salazar e Franco

4) Manuel de Lucena - A Evolução do Sistema Corporativo Português: O Salazarismo

5) Hermínio Martins, S. Woolf - European Fascism, pp. 302-336

6) Luis Reis Torgal - España-Portugal: Estudios de historia contemporánea, pp. 87

7) Fernando Rosas - O salazarismo e o homem novo: ensaio sobre o Estado Novo e a questão do totalitarismo

8) Manuel Villaverde Cabral - Sobre o Fascismo, pp. 914

9) Eduardo Lourenço - O fascismo nunca existiu, pp. 229

10) João Paulo Avelãs Nunes - Tipologias de regimes políticos. Para uma leitura neomoderna do Estado Novo e do Nuevo Estado

11) D.L. Raby - Fascism and Resistance in Portugal: Communists, liberals, and military dissidents in the opposition to Salazar, 1941-74 -

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”, [[9]]

J Pratas (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Misleading lede

It has been argued that Salazar's regime was fascist, and while he aided the Allies in some ways he also provided all the wolfram that enabled Nazi Germany to wage war. (Westerhaley (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC))

Fascism

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fascism_in_Europe#Should_the_Estado_Novo_regime_in_Portugal_be_considered_a_Fascist_regime?

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)

Well no -- one one anonymous editor (who was on Wikipedia only two days) favoured the "fascist" label. Most editors and most sources rejected the label for the regime and for Salazar (who abolished the fascist movement). Rjensen (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Wolfram

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))