Jump to content

Talk:Estado Novo (Portugal)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Moves

Old move request

  • 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.)

Requested move

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 ~~~~

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

Redirect

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)

Carnation Revolution

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)

Estado Novo is not...

...conservativsim

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

I am not sure what references you have, but a conservative and Catholic regime is not in any way fascist.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Benito Mussolini's system in Italy is a reference for fascist regims and it was catholic and conservative regime[1]. Since you present no sources I'm not sure were did you get that idea, but it is not correct. BrunoGCoutinho (talk) 01:25, 04 Jlly 2015 (UTC).
It is a matter of definition. In Portugal we learn that it was a fascist regime in school, but we also learn that it was more moderate than other fascist regime. A more sophisticated designation might be proto-fasicst or something in those lines "taxonomical” difficulty in characterizing it as fascism; it is not fascism but at most a “para-fascism”. Nevertheless, we should add a section about it. Pretending that there is no connection between Estado Novo and fascism is just wrong. BrunoGCoutinho (talk) 01:28, 04 Jlly 2015 (UTC),

References

  1. ^ Emanuele Mastrangelo, I canti del littorio: storia del fascismo attraverso le canzoni, Lo Scarabeo, 2006; Giacomo De Marzi, I canti di Salò, Fratelli Frilli, 2005

...true fascism

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)

It was not fascist at all. Conservative and Catholic is the antithesis of fascism.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Benito Mussolini's system in Italy isthea reference for fascist regims and it was catholic and conservative regime[1]. Since you present no sources I'm not sure were did you get that idea, but it is not correct. BrunoGCoutinho (talk) 01:06, 04 Jlly 2015 (UTC).
It is definitely a matter of definition. In Portugal we learn that it was a fascist regime in school, but we also learn that it was more moderate than other fascist regime. A more sophisticated designation might call it pro-fasicst or something in those lines. Nevertheless, we should add a section about it. Pretending that there is no connection between Estado Novo and fascism is just wrong. Your own source supports my point"taxonomical” difficulty in characterizing it as fascism; it is not fascism but at most a “para-fascism”. In that same book Estado Novo is considered to be in the spectrum of fascist regimes. In the main text I changed"The Estado Novo was an authoritarian regime with an integralist orientation, which differed greatly from fascist regimes by its lack of expansionism, lack of a fanatical leader, lack of dogmatic party structure, and more moderate use of state force.[8]" to "The Estado Novo was an authoritarian regime with an integralist orientation, which differed greatly from other fascist regimes by its lack of expansionism, lack of a fanatical leader, lack of dogmatic party structure, and more moderate use of state force.[8]". Reference [8] supports the claim that Estado Novo was in the spectrum of fascist regimes but it was not exactly the typical fascist regime. BrunoGCoutinho (talk) 01:18, 04 Jlly 2015 (UTC),
I decided to add "often considered to be a fascist regime [1]" in the beginning of the main article. An entire section explaining the similarities and differences between other fascist regimes and Estado Novo would be nice. I don't think that I know enough about it to do it. BrunoGCoutinho (talk) 02:20, 04 Jlly 2015 (UTC),

References

  1. ^ Emanuele Mastrangelo, I canti del littorio: storia del fascismo attraverso le canzoni, Lo Scarabeo, 2006; Giacomo De Marzi, I canti di Salò, Fratelli Frilli, 2005

...considered to be fascist by most scholars

There is an overwhelming amount of sources, in English, from 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

• 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)

• 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. --J Pratas (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Reference to the Vietnam War and Afghanistan

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?

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

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 [[2]] 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)

Education section

Hey all!,

I've started working on the education section, which I think for the moment needs some work. Here are the main issues I identified:

JPratas has fixed this, - thanks!
  • The section does not compare the development of Portugal with other European countries which is patent in the cited paper (in Quadro 1). In fact, the paper's Quadro 1 shows that Greece and Russia, among others, had at least a similar (if not better) increase in literacy between 1920 and 1950 than Portugal. Yet, I don't think the paper explicitly compares Portugal with other countries (it does state that the Table speaks for itself), so I'm unsure whether this would be original research (see the previous point). It would be nice to add a source that compares Portugal with other countries explicitly and contextualizes Estado Novo's literacy campaigns with others at the time.
  • The section could use some more detail on the specific campaigns and policies that were implemented, providing a clear chronological sequence. As of now, this is only done with 1952's campaign, but even that one is not cited clearly. The paper http://www.scielo.mec.pt/pdf/aps/v17n1/v17n1a17.pdf, which is cited at the end of the 1952 campaign paragraph, does not mention a campaign in 1952.
Found a paper that talks about the reforms of 1952 more clearly, added that to the section (it also allowed me to insert information on compulsory education). I have also altered the previous text, because it talked about the aim of the 1952 reform being to end child illiteracy, but the paper I read talks about ending adolescent and adult illiteracy, which is consistent with the data cited in the paper, as child illiteracy was under 20% in 1952.
  • What is the point of mentioning Adriano Moreira, a Minister of the Overseas Provinces (not Education)? Was he actively involved in the creation of the Mozambique and Angola Universities?
Did a little digging and found it, citations were added.
  • As it stands, the point of mentioning Egas Moniz is lost. Did the State do anything to promote Egas Moniz's work or his Nobel Prize? From Egas Moniz' page, he finished his Medicine degree in 1899, became a Professor in the University of Lisbon in 1911 and dedicated himself to research in 1926, aged 51 (Estado Novo begins in 1933). Thus, it is necessary to provide more information so one can understand why Egas Moniz's name is mentioned in the education section of Estado Novo.

CriMen1 (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Estado Novo is not considered fascist by the academia

Below a non exhaustive list of academics that think that Salazar´s Estado Novo 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 [[3]]

  • "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 defence 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..."

    — 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


Again, there are many sources who say the Estado Novo was Fascist as well, there is no proof that the Estado Novo not being Fascist is consensus as you claim it is, and plus it is also the status quo, so technically, you should be the one who should get consensus to make such changes, and not the other way around, I'm so tired of this honestly, I'm not going to waste my time anymore. -- 177.207.65.132 (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I am not claiming and never did claim that there is a consensus around the Portuguese Estado Novo being fascist, what I am claiming is simply that we should follow Wikipedia's policies and guideline, namely:
  • "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. "
  • While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.
  • Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance.
For over a year you've been trying to change articles related with the Portuguese Estado Novo claiming that the Estado Novo was fascist as if that claim is "the truth", ignoring the very loooonnnng list of academics that claim it wasn't. And that is just not acceptable and becaus of you articles had to be protected preventing good faith IPs from editing. The NPOV policy is not up for discussion. J Pratas (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
LOL, the Estado Novo was considered Fascist on Wikipedia for years, you're the one who is trying to change that, you're the one imposing POV edits, you tried to seek consensus for this, and failed, that should've been the end of it, again, you don't have any proof that the Estado Novo not being Fascist is the prevailing view among academics, Portuguese sources shouldn't be discredited just because of their nationality (especially since this is a subject about Portugal), lastly there is controversy for every regime considered Fascist, except Fascist Italy, unless only Fascist Italy should be considered Fascist by Wikipedia, then there is no reason for the Estado Novo to be excluded, indeed, what you've been doing for over a year is completely unacceptable. -- 177.207.65.132 (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

So what is exactly your point? Simply ignore all the sources that are listed above? J Pratas (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No, but that's not reason to delete content about the Estado Novo being Fascist either, that doesn't mean I don't support adding information about those sources to articles about the Estado Novo, quite the contrary, I do, but for reasons I mentioned above, I don't think you should've removed the content you did, at least not without gaining consensus, which again, you previously tried to and failed. -- 177.207.65.132 (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I've only deleted content recently added, that was labeling the Portuguese Estado Novo as being "Clerical Fascism" as if there is a consensus about that very precise labeling I am perfectly fine with adding to the article that there different views in proportion to their prominence and describe both points of view and work for balance. Can you please add the list of reliable sources that label the Estado Novo as clerical fascist? (Note: English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available) J Pratas (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Estado_Novo_(Portugal)/Archive_1&oldid=1175816076"