The Open Bar Chatroom

Claudio NVKP wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

Either way, the Portuguese military slaughtered tens of thousands of civilians. You can’t really debate that regardless of your viewpoint.

The Government didn't preside on who wouldget shot in a war. Also, the warcrimes were after salazar.

“With the Estado Novo enabling him to exercise vast political powers, Salazar used censorship and the PIDE secret police to quell opposition. One opposition leader, Humberto Delgado, who openly challenged Salazar's regime in the 1958 presidential election, was first exiled and then killed by Salazar's secret police.“

Oppression and murder.

“Salazar briefly served as minister of colonies before assuming the premiership, and in that capacity he prepared the Colonial Act of 1930,^[112]which centralised the administration of the colonies in his own system and proclaimed the need to bring indigenous peoples into western civilization and the Portuguese nation.”

This is pretty disgusting. Bringing in people to your culture, who you exploited for hundreds of years? What makes your culture inherently superior to theirs? Crazy.

“Assimilation was the main objective, except for the Atlantic colony of Cape Verde (which was seen as an extension of Portugal), the Indian colonies, and Macau (which were seen as having their own forms of "civilization"). As it had been before Salazar's tenure in the office, a clear legal distinction continued to be made between indigenous peoples and other citizens – the latter mostly Europeans, some Creole elites, and a few black Africans. A special statute was given to native communities to accommodate their tribal traditions. In theory, it established a framework that would allow natives to be gradually assimilated into Portuguese culture and citizenship, while in reality the percentage of assimilated African population never reached one per cent.^[113]“

Don’t know what to make of this…

“In 1947, Captain Henrique Galvão, a Portuguese parliamentarian, submitted a report disclosing the situation of forced labor and precarious health services in the Portuguese colonies of Africa. The natives, it said, were simply regarded as beasts of burden. Galvão's courageous report eventually led to his downfall, and in 1952, he was arrested for subversive activities.^[114] Although the Estatuto do Indigenato ('Indigenous Statute') set standards for indigenes to obtain Portuguese citizenship until it was abolished in 1961, the conditions of the native populations of the colonies were still harsh, and they suffered inferior legal status under its policies.^[115][116] Under the Colonial Act, African Natives could be forced to work. By requiring all African men to pay a tax in Portuguese currency, the government created a situation in which a large percentage of men in any given year could only earn the specie needed to pay the tax by going to work for a colonial employer. In practice, this enabled settlers to use forced labor on a massive scale, frequently leading to horrific abuses.^[“

Forced labor under Salazar, which was covered up.

“Religions other than the Catholic faith had little or no expression in Portugal. Throughout the period of Salazar's Estado Novo there was no question of discrimination against the Jewish and Protestant minorities, and the ecumenical movement flourished.^[147]“

Of course, good old anti-semitism.

Overall, not a good person.

You're literally contradicting yourself in the last point. Delete it. It's written there's no question of discrimination between the minorities.

I did accept the fact that 1 person was killed. Yes.

Also, i love how he presided on torture, mutilation, and executions happened after he died.

Also, the thought of bringing indigenous people to a mordern civilization, giving them education in the 1930's isn't disgusting. They were hunter gatherers. I don't see how this makes you a bad person for so. Of course they have their own culture and such. Assimilation wasn't forced either, it was gradual.

Also, I do not prefer he discussion to drag, so we can end it.

Claudio NVKP wrote:

You're literally contradicting yourself in the last point. Delete it. It's written there's no question of discrimination between the minorities.

I did accept the fact that 1 person was killed. Yes.

Also, i love how he presided on torture, mutilation, and executions happened after he died.

Also, the thought of bringing indigenous people to a mordern civilization, giving them education in the 1930's isn't disgusting. They were hunter gatherers. I don't see how this makes you a bad person for so. Of course they have their own culture and such. Assimilation wasn't forced either, it was gradual.

Also, I do not prefer he discussion to drag, so we can end it.

That was just an example. There were others, I believe there was another political opponent. Either way, even one murder is still murder, and he deserves no good will for it.

That was all in the 50’s and 60’s, are you even reading?

They had quite advanced civilizations before the Europeans, actually. At least medieval level, and even equal to the Europeans in West Africa for a while. The Portuguese took much of that, including independent kingdoms away. I don’t see how forced labor “civilizes” people, though. There are more effective ways to help others than taking their land, working them to death, and then crying about the white man’s burden.

You can end it sure, but either way, you’re wrong; Salazar was a dictator and waste of space.

No question of discrimination against yes. It means there's no chance of it happening.... english skills? So I'd prefer you delete it. You said the Portuguese army presided over the torture multilation, etc. There was no war in the 50s. The warcrines happened in the early 70s.

However, i don't want to argue further. It's my perspective and opinion, that may not match with yours, that's fine. But I don't support the posting of wrong content to prove an arguement though... Salazar was a good person, and a dictator.

Internet debates never end well, everyone has their opinions.

Are you joking rn?

“Religions other than the Catholic faith had little or no expression in Portugal.“

Yeah, definitely.

There was forced labor, and people trying to avoid it. Guess what happened to them?

Dictator and good person is an oxymoron.

You are wrong on the religious discrimination part, how are you still arguing after the line you quoted contradicted yourself?

Also:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal_and_the_Holocaust

"Portugal continued to trade with Nazi Germany throughout the conflict and may have received gold looted in the Holocaust in exchange."

From the exact article you sent.

Even if Portugal did help a little, it doesn't at all excuse everything else that they did.

"However, Irene Flunser Pimentel argues "Portugal fell very short of what it could have done, only saving a tiny part of those who were threatened to be killed by the Nazis, and knowing that was their fate" and noted that repatriation of Portuguese Jews from German-occupied Europe was dependent on "rigorous proof of their nationality".[30] Tom Gallagher, Salazar's biographer, wrote that there is no doubt that far more people could have been rescued and saved if Salazar had had more time at his disposal to focus on the peril which European Jews had been cast into"

Also from the article you sent.

I do not wish to continue this.

Hey russ, according to you, there were about 80 million horrible people in Germany in 1937 or even 1941 because everyone (some fringe groups aside) supported Hitler.

Same is true for Putin today; the vast majority of Russians support him.

Were you in Portugal at any particular point in time? Ah yeah, that Algarve resort were you spent a fornight on vacation... no, I mean, actually been there? Do you know anything about the situation at all? Or did you just hear someone say that he was a dictator, so you must yell like three times in a row now that anyone supporting him must automatically be a "horrible person"?

And don't say it is about time and hindsight; Napoleon was a dictator in many ways yet most French people see him as the greatest Frenchman who ever lived. They're all "horrible" (whatever that means) to you as well?

Everyone is either a saint or a demon to you, right? Nicely black and white, don't even have to digest any information, you can just copy the hymn of the day, eat popcorn on the grandstand and yell "Boo"? Truth is, complicated matters are never black and white... I'm sure he did many bad things, but he also took the country from a medieval society all the way to a modern and prosperous nation, and only a few decades later, an equal partner in the EU. When you achieve that, yeah, you're sure to get your hands dirty somewhere along the way as well.

Carking the 6th wrote:

“Salazar briefly served as minister of colonies before assuming the premiership, and in that capacity he prepared the Colonial Act of 1930,[112]which centralised the administration of the colonies in his own system and proclaimed the need to bring indigenous peoples into western civilization and the Portuguese nation.”

This is pretty disgusting. Bringing in people to your culture, who you exploited for hundreds of years? What makes your culture inherently superior to theirs? Crazy.

Talvisota wrote:

"Portugal continued to trade with Nazi Germany throughout the conflict and may have received gold looted in the Holocaust in exchange."

From the exact article you sent.

Even if Portugal did help a little, it doesn't at all excuse everything else that they did.

Talvisota wrote:

"However, Irene Flunser Pimentel argues "Portugal fell very short of what it could have done, only saving a tiny part of those who were threatened to be killed by the Nazis, and knowing that was their fate" and noted that repatriation of Portuguese Jews from German-occupied Europe was dependent on "rigorous proof of their nationality".[30] Tom Gallagher, Salazar's biographer, wrote that there is no doubt that far more people could have been rescued and saved if Salazar had had more time at his disposal to focus on the peril which European Jews had been cast into"

Also from the article you sent.

Neutral Switzerland almost certainly laundered more Holocaust money than Portugal did.

A big part of the German Panzer armies were made of Swedish iron ore.

Yugoslavia was offered a trade treaty which was actually pretty favorable to them. When they refused it (involving a coup and all kinds of Western fishing in muddy waters), their country was overrun and served four years of brutal oppression. Should all the countries who managed to stay neutral have done so?

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Talvisota wrote:

"Portugal continued to trade with Nazi Germany throughout the conflict and may have received gold looted in the Holocaust in exchange."

From the exact article you sent.

Even if Portugal did help a little, it doesn't at all excuse everything else that they did.

Talvisota wrote:

"However, Irene Flunser Pimentel argues "Portugal fell very short of what it could have done, only saving a tiny part of those who were threatened to be killed by the Nazis, and knowing that was their fate" and noted that repatriation of Portuguese Jews from German-occupied Europe was dependent on "rigorous proof of their nationality".[30] Tom Gallagher, Salazar's biographer, wrote that there is no doubt that far more people could have been rescued and saved if Salazar had had more time at his disposal to focus on the peril which European Jews had been cast into"

Also from the article you sent.

Again, Portugal wasn't alone. After the true face of the Nazi started showing around 1936-1937 and Jews started fleeing the country, they were only welcome in countries like USA, UK, Netherlands, etc etc if they brought money; poor Jews had a very, very slim chance to get refuge anywhere.

Neutral Switzerland almost certainly laundered more Holocaust money than Portugal did.

A big part of the German Panzer armies were made of Swedish iron ore.

Yugoslavia was offered a trade treaty which was actually pretty favorable to them. When they refused it (involving a coup and all kinds of Western fishing in muddy waters), their country was overrun and served four years of brutal oppression. Should all the countries who managed to stay neutral have done so?

The Nuremberg laws were passed in 1935. Things were pretty clear by '36.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

“Salazar briefly served as minister of colonies before assuming the premiership, and in that capacity he prepared the Colonial Act of 1930,[112]which centralised the administration of the colonies in his own system and proclaimed the need to bring indigenous peoples into western civilization and the Portuguese nation.”

This is pretty disgusting. Bringing in people to your culture, who you exploited for hundreds of years? What makes your culture inherently superior to theirs? Crazy.

It is impossible to judge a statement like that from today's moral standards. But for comparison, ALL the colonial powers had varying flavors of this kind of reasoning. Their colonies were culturally backward and needed to be uplifted to the "higher" Western cultures (making some money off their back as well usually wasn't mentioned). This is not just Portuguese thinking; this is colonial thinking like was prevalent in the UK, France, Netherlands, Italy, etc etc. You can hardly blame him for holding such views.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Hey russ, according to you, there were about 80 million horrible people in Germany in 1937 or even 1941 because everyone (some fringe groups aside) supported Hitler.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Same is true for Putin today; the vast majority of Russians support him.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Were you in Portugal at any particular point in time? Ah yeah, that Algarve resort were you spent a fornight on vacation... no, I mean, actually been there? Do you know anything about the situation at all? Or did you just hear someone say that he was a dictator, so you must yell like three times in a row now that anyone supporting him must automatically be a "horrible person"?

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Everyone is either a saint or a demon to you, right? Nicely black and white, don't even have to digest any information, you can just copy the hymn of the day, eat popcorn on the grandstand and yell "Boo"? Truth is, complicated matters are never black and white... I'm sure he did many bad things, but he also took the country from a medieval society all the way to a modern and prosperous nation, and only a few decades later, an equal partner in the EU. When you achieve that, yeah, you're sure to get your hands dirty somewhere along the way as well.

Also also, Salazar did NOT do that. That was all after. Portugal was impoverished, isolated and scarred from years of war after his death. It was their decolonization and joining the EU which eventually led to their advancement. Portuguese society before that wasn’t really medieval either. The people were as culturally advanced as most of the rest of Europe, it just happened that their government was not.

Yeah...... They were far from "modern and prosperous". Compared to the rest of Europe, they were behind, badly.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Talvisota wrote:

"Portugal continued to trade with Nazi Germany throughout the conflict and may have received gold looted in the Holocaust in exchange."

From the exact article you sent.

Even if Portugal did help a little, it doesn't at all excuse everything else that they did.

Talvisota wrote:

"However, Irene Flunser Pimentel argues "Portugal fell very short of what it could have done, only saving a tiny part of those who were threatened to be killed by the Nazis, and knowing that was their fate" and noted that repatriation of Portuguese Jews from German-occupied Europe was dependent on "rigorous proof of their nationality".[30] Tom Gallagher, Salazar's biographer, wrote that there is no doubt that far more people could have been rescued and saved if Salazar had had more time at his disposal to focus on the peril which European Jews had been cast into"

Also from the article you sent.

Again, Portugal wasn't alone. After the true face of the Nazi started showing around 1936-1937 and Jews started fleeing the country, they were only welcome in countries like USA, UK, Netherlands, etc etc if they brought money; poor Jews had a very, very slim chance to get refuge anywhere.

Neutral Switzerland almost certainly laundered more Holocaust money than Portugal did.

A big part of the German Panzer armies were made of Swedish iron ore.

Yugoslavia was offered a trade treaty which was actually pretty favorable to them. When they refused it (involving a coup and all kinds of Western fishing in muddy waters), their country was overrun and served four years of brutal oppression. Should all the countries who managed to stay neutral have done so?

Switzerland, Yugoslavia and Sweden were right next to and easier to invade than Portugal. Sweden would be invaded if they didn’t continue trade, both Germany and Sweden knew this. The Swedes actually did pretty well in saving countless Jews, including almost all in Denmark. Unlike Portugal, who has a destroyed and honestly neutral Spain, which would not be easy to march hundreds of thousands of men thorough. There is nothing wrong with Portugal staying neutral to avoid doom, but their situation was not the same, and they did a lot less than Sweden. As for Switzerland, they receive pretty universal condemnation for their acts there…

In the end, it's not that deep, Salazar isn't that bad as you potray him by nitpicking his mistakes. He ruled for a long amount of time, so there isn't a definite answer for his term. The last years were an outdated regime, while the first years was what was flourishing. He was the a ruthless dictator though.

Of course there will be something bad in 40 years?

Now to answer this

Talvisota wrote:

Yeah to be fair Claudio, I am a little uncomfortable with you idolising a literal dictator....

Now, what is your favourite ice cream flavour?

Claudio NVKP wrote:

In the end, it's not that deep, Salazar isn't that bad as you potray him by nitpicking his mistakes. He ruled for a long amount of time, so there isn't a definite answer for his term. The last years were an outdated regime, while the first years was what was flourishing. He was the a ruthless dictator though.

Of course there will be something bad in 40 years?

Now to answer this

Talvisota wrote:

Yeah to be fair Claudio, I am a little uncomfortable with you idolising a literal dictator....

When did I talk about him? I rarely do. I endorse him, for the good things he's done for the country, yes. And his character, which you can understand by listening to his speeches.

Now, what is your favourite ice cream flavour?

Claudio NVKP wrote:

In the end, it's that deep, Salazar is as bad as, if not worse you potray him by revealing his mistakes. He ruled for a long amount of time, so there is a definite answer for his term. The last years were an outdated regime, while the first years was what was flourishing (until they also became outdated). He was a ruthless dictator for sure.

Of course there will be many bad things in 40 years?

Now to answer this

Talvisota wrote:

Yeah to be fair Claudio, I am a little uncomfortable with you idolising a literal dictator....

When did I talk about him? I always do. I hate him, for the terrible things he's done to the country, yes. And his evil character, which you can understand by listening to his speeches.

Now, what is your favourite ice cream flavour?

Talvisota wrote:

Claudio NVKP wrote:

In the end, it's not that deep, Salazar isn't that bad as you potray him by nitpicking his mistakes. He ruled for a long amount of time, so there isn't a definite answer for his term. The last years were an outdated regime, while the first years was what was flourishing. He was the a ruthless dictator though.

Of course there will be something bad in 40 years?

Now to answer this

Talvisota wrote:

Yeah to be fair Claudio, I am a little uncomfortable with you idolising a literal dictator....

When did I talk about him? I rarely do. I endorse him, for the good things he's done for the country, yes. And his character, which you can understand by listening to his speeches.

Now, what is your favourite ice cream flavour?

Honeycomb ftw