Talk:Portugal and the Holocaust

Circular 14

There has been some confusion on what were the exact procedures defined in Circular 14. The complete text, for those that can read Portuguese can be found here [[1]] This dispatch allowed consuls to continue granting Portuguese transit visas, but established that in the case of "Foreigners of indefinite or contested nationality, the Stateless, Russian Citizens, Holders of a Nansen passport, or Jews expelled from their countries and those alleging to embark from a Portuguese port without a consular visa for their country of destination, or air or sea tickets, or an Embarkation Guarantee from the respective companies, the consuls needed to ask permission in advance of the Foreign Ministry head office in Lisbon. The text also says that the consuls will, however, be very careful not to hinder the arrival in Lisbon, of the passengers that are destined to other countries and especially to the transatlantic air routes or to the east. This can be checked in the primary source but also in secondary sources such as Tom Gallagher's recent biography of Salazar. (Page 126) J Pratas (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Portugal and Nazi Germany

There is a statement in the article saying that "Portugal had been influenced by contemporary dictatorial regimes, including Nazi Germany." This is not backed up by the major biographies on Salazar (Kay, Meneses, Gallagher)

• Salazar based his political philosophy on a close interpretation of the Catholic social doctrine, much like the contemporary regime of Engelbert Dollfuss in Austria.(Meneses|2009|p=162) The economic system, known as corporatism, was based on similar interpretations of the papal encyclicals Rerum novarum (Leo XIII, 1891) (Kay|1970|p=63) and Quadragesimo anno (Pius XI, 1931),(Kay|1970|p=63)
• The new constitution that gave birth to the Estado Novo was discussed in 1932. This was before Hitler arriving to power.
• "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 pp. 43-44
• "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 [[2]]J Pratas (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  The statement in question doesn't claim that the Estado Novo was a fascist or national-socialist state. However, there's plenty of evidence for influence, for example, in aesthetics and policing. It's what the quoted source shows. Also, it's worth noting that corporatism was also a foundational part of both Italian fascism and Francoism. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  In my view the statement does not add much value and can be seen as misleading. In fact most scholars that studied the Estado Novo or that published comparative studies on fascism, classify the Estado Novo as authoritarian and not fascist. Salazar himself criticized both fascism and Nazism. As to the police it has been wrongly said that it has been influenced by Gestapo but PVDE was founded and led by Captain Agostinho Lourenço who was influenced by the British Intelligence Services. Lourenço always kept a good relationship with the MI6, which helped him to later become the head of the international police organization Interpol in 1956. As to aesthetics, it is also an interesting debate. Historian Costa Pinto argues that in order to control and integrate the real fascists (The Blue Shirts and Rolao Preto's followers) the Estado novo ended up creating the "Legião Portuguesa" and "Mocidade Portuguesa" however these institutions were a little more than window dressing and had no political influence. Aesthetics can be very misleading. See for example the example of the American Belamy Salute. It is the same salute used by the Nazis and the Italian Fascists. American kids from 1890s till 1942 used with the Pledge of Allegiance. The aesthetics of a Nazi Salute or a Belamy Salute or a Roman Salute have nothing to do with ideology. The content matters more. J Pratas (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Why talking about other countries is important? J Pratas (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

As Milgram says "Portugal’s marginality as a welcome country for immigrants was such that the Portuguese were not even invited to take part in Evian Conference in July 1938". Jews in general were not interested in moving to Portugal on a permanent basis, they became interested in Portugal as an escape route because other countries started to close their borders. And when the US in June 1940 tightened their policies for granting visas this created a problem for all those wanting to use Portugal as a transit country because it became virtually impossible to get an American visa, leaving visas to Latin America as the only legal way out of Europe. In addition, all those that already had visas to the US and were allowed to enter Portugal because they had those visas, got stuck in Portugal and had to be moved to permanent residence villages (Caldas da Rainha, Ericeira, Curia, etc..).J Pratas (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a curiosity to better understand Salazar's thinking on Britain's policies. There is a very interesting telegram from Armindo Monteiro, the Portuguese Ambassador in London, to Salazar, asking him to grant Visas of Poles of "pure race" (meaning non-Jews). Salazar replied that those are exactly the ones we don't want. This telegrams have been used by several historians to show that their was no prejudice against jews from Salazar. On top Salazar also mentioned that for him it was hard to understand w why Britain was closing the borders to Poles if it had started a war to defend Poland. It is important to understand the context J Pratas (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for missing this comment but I'd urge you to read WP:OR. For the record, I'd fully support the creation of United Kingdom and the Holocaust or the expansion of United States and the Holocaust, but this article is clearly not the place for a discussion of these themes - and especially lengthy quotations from primary sources. Although the Salazar regime was certainly less overtly discriminatory than many other neutrals, there is a danger in exaggerating its tolerance too. I'm also not sure what you mean by "Jews in general were not interested in moving to Portugal on a permanent basis" - I have seen no evidence that they were never offered the chance! —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• 1) Brigade Piron I have already accepted your point on not expanding too much the text on the policies adopted by other countries such as the US and the UK. I just think that things must be put into context. You see, in 1940, as Hitler's victorious armies approached Paris, panic gripped the city and the roads heading south filled with millions of people. It was the biggest exodus ever in European History. An estimated 6 million people left their homes and headed South. (book: "Fleeing Hitler") . According to some accounts the Portuguese Government had received an estimated 2,000,000 applications for visas, permanent or transit. How can a poor country desperately seeking neutrality, with a population of 7 million, open the doors to millions of people in a few days? Milgram is clear: "Portugal was not in a position to absorb masses of immigrants" sic. Have in mind that those people still needed a Spanish Visa and cross Spain (Because Spain did not want them). Nevertheless Salazar orders were clear: "the consuls will, however, be very careful not to hinder the arrival in Lisbon, of the passengers that are destined to other countries and especially to the transatlantic air routes.
• 2) I am very much aware of the policies on NO Original Research and intend to follow them. Sometimes when a secondary reliable source goes against popular culture, it is a good idea to add the primary source, so that the reader can check for himself and make his own judgement. But I only provide the primary source, as a reference, if there is a secondary one. If that has not been the case, just point me to where you think the problem is and I will try to fix it. I have no intention of not being compliant with the wiki policy.
• 3) As to the statement "Jews in general were not interested in moving to Portugal on a permanent basis", I have sourced it from Milgram. Milgram says. Maybe we can rephrase it. Milgram's exact words are the following.

  • "Portugal did not attract Jewish immigrants from Germany and Eastern Europe in the 1930s. Western Europe, the United States, South America, and even Palestine under the British Mandate were more attractive than Portugal in economic terms, professional advantages, capacity for absorption, and possibilities for socio-cultural adaptation. "

    — Milgram 1999)

    J Pratas (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm having some concerns as well about SYNTH and OR. I'm also seeing the potential of a RIGHTGREATWRONGS effort on behalf of a dictator. -Indy beetle (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Gibraltar

The most recent biography on Salazar, when it comes to Holocaust, starts with the following: " The majority of Jews who crossed the Franco-Spanish frontier in the early summer of 1940 to eventually reach Portugal did so undoubtedly owing to his [Sousa Mendes] intervention on their behalf. But it is perhaps equally fair to contend that it was Portugal’s flinty leader who employed state power to save a much greater number of Jews and other refugees. At the outset of the war, he permitted 200 Gibraltar Jews, along with the rest of the British territory’s civilian population, to be resettled on the island of Madeira. In June 1940 he gave his approval for the Europe office of HIAS-HICEM, the main Jewish relief organisation, to be transferred from Paris to Lisbon. ". All this events according to the author are connected and are important to understand the context. J Pratas (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it clearly doesn't merit a paragraph of its own. Gibraltar was a British colony and clearly never affected by the Holocaust. The fact that there were some Jews among a wider civilian refugee population is not particularly relevant. Although it might be worth a mention in a book on the subject, I personally don't think there is a good rationale for including it here. There may be other articles which are more appropriate. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

"was considered more sympathetic to the Allies than neighbouring Francoist Spain"

I think that this section should be clarified or removed. As it stands, it could be read as one of two things. Either A: That Portugal was under more allied influence then Spain was, or B: That Portugal had closer relationships with the Allied Powers then it did to Spain. Either way, it should be clarified. Does anyone know which was the initial editor's intent? If we cannot figure it out, I recommend we remove the phrase rather then potentally confuse readers.

ThanksTheAmericanWarlord (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the phrase is pretty clear to me and it definitely means: Spain had colder relations with the Allies and closer relations with the Axis compared with Portugal's relations with the Allies and Axis. (t · c) buidhe 17:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

How reliable is this NY times article?

So, supposedly, Portugal got gold from Nazi Germany during the WW2, according to https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/10/world/nazi-gold-and-portugal-s-murky-role.html, written by Marlise Simons. Who is she? This article is not accessible unless we pay a subscription. Any alternative? What's the proof of this claim, or are we just hypothesizing and so trying to write hypothesized history?

• You clearly haven't read the rest of the Wikipedia article, which explains this. The New York Times is one of the most-respected American newspapers, but that's beside the point. From what I've read (and added with sources here) the US government made the allegation, which was then investigated by a Portuguese commission of inquiry. The commission did not dispute that the gold may have been stolen from Holocaust victims, it only said that the Portuguese government was not fully aware of this possibility when it received the gold during WWII. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing

Brigade Piron More than 3 weeks ago I have replaced some text on the apparentlly uncontroversial fact that Salazar considered Nazi racial ideology to be inconsistent with Catholicism and Portuguese nationalism was not explicitly grounded in race. I thought, as some historians also did (e.g. Pimentel, Gallagher, etc.) that it is relevant that not only Salazar thought that way, furthermore he published a book and he also sent a telegram to his Ambassador in Berlin. He took a stand, which is something different than just a thought. After 3 weeks this editing was reverted, without using the talk page and on the grounds of "apparently for POV reasons" and also "We do not cite WP:PRIMARY like Dez anos de politica externa". I fail to see any POV here because the content is well sourced and sourced from two different reputed historians. Why shoud we deny the reader the possibility to know the important fact that Salazar published a book? Or that he gave specific instructions to the portuguese legation in Berlin? Where is the POV here? As to the use of primary sources....I guess we could keep them so that a more educated user knows where to find them, but we can also live without them, because we have plenty of reliabel secondary sources.

Last but not least, I had corrected that the portuguese jewish communniyt was small but not less that 1,000 as the article is stating. According to the website of the community the size was about 3,000 and was integrated in society, many of them practicing liberal professions such as medicine and law.J Pratas (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this to talk. I think there are several issues here so let's deal with them in turn.

• Primary sources: I do not think this is seriously up for debate. WP:REPUTABLE states 'Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.' This is, in fact, a foundational principle of Wikipedia and closely tied to WP:NOR. In the case of Dez anos de politica externa, we are dealing with a curated selection of archival documents produced (at least for most of its volumes) by the Salazar regime in the post-war years. There are obvious difficulties for using it to form an objective view of Portuguese policy during the period - especially in a contentious historical subject like the Holocaust.
• Restating the same point: I agree that in principle there is no problem with any of the information per se and the article already makes it clear that "Salazar himself considered Nazi racial ideology to be inconsistent with Catholicism and Portuguese nationalism was not explicitly grounded in race" among other things. The problem is, in my view, an issue of WP:UNDUE in making the same point again and again. Consider, for example, the the 2-lines devoted to the issue by one leading scholar's study of our article's theme.

This is, of course, my view alone. Pinging @Indy beetle: and @Buidhe: for comments too. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Brigade Piron, First point. I fail to see the problem you are raising. The policy also says that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." and that "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". In this case it is simple, a reliable secondary source, Tom Gallagher, says that Salazar sent a telegram, and Gallagher is being cited. So far so good, I guess no objections. Then, I added the primary source as quoted by Tom Gallagher Dez anos de politica externa. This way I think any educated person will know where to find the telegram that Tom Gallagher mentions. What is exactly the problem?
• As I have explained before, the act of publishing a book and the act of sending a telegram is taking a stand. It is more than "consider"ing. So if we want to have less text we should choose what is more relevant. On top of that, Pimentel, the same auhtor you are quoting decided it was relevant enough to include it in two of her books. Tom Gallagher in Salazar's biography dedicated five pages pages to the holocaust and thought it was relevant enough. There is absolutely no WP:UNDUE here. Salazar wrote a book and sent a telegram, period. Both Pimentel and many other sources say that and I dont know of any other source saying the opposite. This is not contentious.J Pratas (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Brigade Piron. I think that his version of the article gets across the key info in a more concise way. (t · c) buidhe 20:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

It does seem that the most relevant info—that Salazar did not subscribe to Nazi racial ideology—is already covered as is. But the point that Salazar instructed his diplomats to tell the Germans to refrain from discriminating against Portuguese Jews is a slightly different point. I think it's fine for inclusion (possibly in the "Repatriation of Portuguese Jews" section) as long as it is appropriately sourced. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)