Talk:Carnation Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cold War Wiki Project Carnation Revolution is part of the Cold War WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Cold War on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to the people, places, things, and events, and anything else associated with the Cold War. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


Portugal Portal
Carnation Revolution is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Portugal-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Portugal To-do:
Selected content star Carnation Revolution is part of the selected content on the Portugal Portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality Portugal-related article.


Contents

[edit] This article is too important to fall by the wayside

This article is incoherent and contradictory in places and (in my judgment) contains various bits of POV material. This is a shame, because this article is linked to by many others concerning Portuguese history in the 1970s. I am also having difficulty finding references to the subsequent attempted coup on November 25, and suggest that it might be a good idea for this article to touch briefly on that event. 71.206.196.96 (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pure Propaganda

This article was clearly written by full blown Marxist-Leninist. This was not a democratic revolution but a Maxist one, an exchange for one dictatorship for another.

The new regime's crimes were numerous, most seriously the creation of brutal Soviet-colonialist regimes in the former Portuguese colonies. Millions of "counter-revolutionaries" died, massacred by local communists, Soviets, East Germans, Cubans, and Zimbabweans.

Within ten years, the population of the former Portuguese Guinea had declined by forty percent. These disgusting wars didn't end until Gorbachev took over in Russia.Scott Adler 21:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you find a citation for these massacres? Andrew Levine 23:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if I understand the need for a citation - there are hundreds of thousands of refugees in Angola, Mozambique that bear witness to the excess of the Soviet regime. awoken

Definetly your perspective is a righ wing one... because the revolution was not a MArxist or Leninist... I agree that it was not a democratic revolution because such a thing does not exist!! that is why is called a revolution! The new regime did not have any direct influence on the colonies.. they got their independence... good for them or not they got it what they have done with it is their problem ... Have you ever eard about portuguese counter-revolutionares? there is a reason why! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.252.10 (talk • contribs)

The first comment is absurd and reductionist. It is true that there was a Marxist wing of the Revolution, but to call it all Marxist-Leninist is blatant manicheism. As for the colonies, the Revolution simply granted independence to them. Whether this process was conducted in an orderly fashion may be subject to debate, but to blame the Revolution for the bloody aftermath in some of those countries is ludicruous. Is France accountable for the civil war in Algeria twenty years after they left that colony? Is the UK accountable for Iraq's troubles after independence?

First the war happened immediately after the revolution - not 20 years later. How can you not blame the revolution? Had it not taken place the civil wars in the colonies would not have occurred. Also the manner in which the overseas territories were abandoned lead to chaos. Had a more organised handover taken place - millions of lived would have been saved (even if they were communist).The revolution and its immediate consequences have to be taken together. Yes - Britian and the US are directly responsible for the consequences of their non United Nations sponsored invasion of another soverign state. awoken
Not true, there was a war going on before in Africa, against the Portuguese, and supported by two foreign blocks. The revolution stopped the war between Portuguese and Africans not between the African supporters of the two rival blocks. The way the overseas territories were abandoned did not lead to chaos, what led to chaos were the two rival factions supported by N.American and Russia who killed thousands. The only responsible for the caos that came after the Portuguese left were those who were supporting the war and making a profit with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.212.204 (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides, in countries such as Angola there was a full-blown civil war, and massacres usually occurred both ways. Jonas Savimbi, supported by racist South Africa and the US, was no angel. How many casualties occurred prior to the revolution compared to post revolution? Thousands vs millions. Please

Overall the Carnation Revolution was a very positive influence in Portugal. It destroyed a corrupt and authoritarian regime and paved the way to democracy. The democratic Portugal of today still celebrates the Revolution as a very important milestone. --Larean01 16:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

How is the dislocation of hundreds of thousands of people left destitute a good thing? Economic collapse - compare GDP as percentage of ec 12 prior to and post coup. Compare growth rates. Compare life expectancy rates in overseas territories prior to and post coup. All indicate that all the countries concern were worse off. These FACTS are widely available - try UN website or any economic text book. Please if you are going to discuss this topic provide facts and not opionion. The Coup was an economic and social disaster for Portugal and the overseas territories. Can you please provide an example of how the direct consequeces were positive? I suppose the goverment of Angola is a shinning example of how not to be corrupt? Just wonder what happened to all those petrol dollars?awoken
Fair enough. How would you change the article then? Please list a number of factual points discussed in the article that are either inaccurate, biased, or missing altogether. Thanks. 64.72.137.241 (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I consider weighted evaluations such as "the consequences for Portugal were bad" in the 'RESULTS' section as overtly and obviously biased. Whilst it is true that the Portuguese economy was growing strongly during the Salazar period, this had more to do with extraction of natural resources (gold, diamonds and raw minerals) from Portugal's colonies than nationally-generated wealth. With the loss of the colonies, Portugal's mineral wealth was lost also and this precipitated a long term and profound economic slow-down. Additionally, as is often the case following a coup de etat, the economy did indeed collapse for a period of 12-16 months and international investors were cautious about re-investment until democratic elections were held and the economy began to stabalise in 1975/6. I want to also address the author's assertion that "in the longer term the military coup eventually led to democracy and participation of the European Community although at a terrible cost both to Portugal and its former overseas territories." The author characterises Portuguese colonialism as one of assimilation, with Portuguese colonials extensively inter-marrying over sucessive generations as if a wonderful, multi-racial and egalitarian empire had been created! This is clearly a skewed perspective on the colonial enterprise and one which would be hotly contested by the victims of colonial rule in Angola, Mozambique etc. Portuguese colonialism, in common with that practiced by France and Britain in fact (not in contra-distinction as the author argues) was oppressive, extractive and based upon the subjugation and exploitation of native peoples. The author implies that the former colonies were better off under Portuguese rule, an assertion I find biased and highly problematic for inclusion within Wikipedia. One final point. Aside from the select few that benefited from Salazar's programme of Corporatism and despite the fact that the economy grew rapidly during the 1950s-60s, the majority of Portuguese lived in extremely poor conditions. State schooling ended at age 12, infant mortality was the highest in Europe, many lived in sub-standard housing and human rights were routinely abused. To give a couple of examples: any open criticism of Salazar would lead to a visit from the secret police, the PIDE and imprisonment without trail or legal representation and routine torture. Most were simply never seen again. For women, the suffrage movement that had earned women equality elsewhere in Europe was suppressed. Salazar made constitutional changes that forbade women the right to divorce, they were not even allowed to apply for a passport without the husband's consent and only attained equality in law following the constitution of 1976. Semantic debates over whether or not Salazar should be termed a dictator seem absurd to me within this context as do statements suggesting that the consequences of democratisation for Portugal have been, on balance, negative. I strongly urge that this misrepresentation of Portuguese history be revised. Thanks, Nigel Correia Gomme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.114.213 (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This article should be marked for cleanup and improvement. I don't have the time and knowlage for this, but I still have the impression it is too much cliche and pov -prone, does not go indepth enough in many areas. Th unpassioned descitprion of prior and post events, and some section to present diffrent points of view still prevailing would be much needed. --BBird 12:59 29 December 2005 (UTC)


The first couple of paragraphs are barely readable. This article desperately needs rewriting for clarity and citation of sources. -anon

I've cleaned up some of the English grammar but it is mostly readable by someone with English as a native language. I have made adjustments to political terminology but it's not that bad. As for sources, better to let someone with more than a passing interest in the subject have a look. My area of expertise is Eastern Europe not Iberia so I don't have anything on Portugal particularly. Lstanley1979 (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions not facts

This article is full of opinions (mostly leftist) and short of facts. I would advise not to trust it. It looks more like propaganda full of cliches.

I made some changes. this article looked like taken from the communist party bulletin. The revolution in Portugal is much more controversial in its origins, motivations and cosequnces. The good thing is that Portugal became a full democracy (but only after 1975 and a lot of trouble). But the communist prosections, the orgiac nationalisations and the decolonisation process were all disaters. Portugal is still paying for it. --BBird 16:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


I detected on section "Events" some points of inaccuracy, about what I would like to make a discussion. I would be very glad if the author answers. We can read there "In February 1974, Caetano was obliged by the old guard to remove General António Spínola and his underlings (...)». In fact, Marcello Caetano exonerated Spínola and – here is the mistake - the highest commander of all the military forces, Francisco da Costa Gomes, who was a Spínola's hierarchical superior and NOT «his underlings».

Next to the first quoted sentence, this phrase «General tried to change the direction of Portuguese colonial policy, which had become too expensive» give us the ideia, in my opinion, that General Spínola took action for disagreeing of colonial war budget. Actually, the controversially about Spínola were related to the publish of Spínola’s book "Portugal e o Futuro" (“Portugal and its Future”, in a free translation), in witch he proposed a political conversation about the war on portuguese colonies and not a military solution, as wanted by political leaders of Portugal, who extended the war until the Carnation Revolution, when they were deposed.

Referring to MFA, group of militairs that led the coup, the author posted «This movement was borne in secrecy in 1973 through the conspiracy of some army officers of leftist tendencies who had been radicalized by the breakdown of the colonial war.» The MFA at his beginning was an apolitical group and not a «conspiracy of some army officers of leftist tendencies». It was born as protest of profissional militaries against a law that gave quick promotion for temporarily recruited civil people.

In the end of the section it is posted «Caetano was then immediately exiled in Brazil.» Caetano was immediately exiled in Madeira, portuguese island on Atlantic, and after to Brazil.

(Miguel P 05:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC))


This statement, at the tail end of consequences, seems pretty biased/opinionated, "The decolonisation process, whose guidelines were approved with the Alvor Agreement, was generally marked by the handover of power, without free elections, to liberation movements (some supported by the Soviet Union) and by the general disregard for the rights of the Portuguese-born or Portuguese-origin population." How were these people disregarded, influenced?

[edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by RBStewart (talk • contribs) 00:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

their property was nationalised.

[edit] POV?

Well, I'm not an expert on Portugal's history, but it seems to me that recent changes made by BBird gave the article an apologist tone, see, for example, the removal of almost all the occurrences of "dictatorship" and the specious distinction that "[u]nder the Estado Novo, Portugal was considered not a democray, whether by the opposition, by foreign observers, or even by the regime leaders themselves", only to avoid the use of "dictatorship". My sensation is that the alleged "leftist POV" has been replaced by a stronger pro-Salazar POV. GhePeU 10:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


Definitely not pro-Salazar, but people have to understand that all this talk about dictatorship are a kind of politically correct speech that occurred in Portugal after 1974, which in many ways pure propaganda. Anyway even if Salazar was a de facto dictator (he was not de jury, his powers were limited by a constitution, a Parliament and so on), Marcelo Caetano, who was deposed in 1974 (Salazar left the office in 1968), was not a dictator. The regime was monoparty (but in 1974 there were different political spheres in the Parliament), but to say it was a dictatorship is too strong and probably inaccurate. My amendmsnt jsut tried to balance the text. To say the truth I don't care much anyway, I just don't like politicaly charged one way views. --BBird 14:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

A country with no democratic elections, no political parties, no rights for citizens and no independent judiciary IS a dictatorship. Period. --Larean01 16:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

so is a communist state a dicatorship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.26.167 (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not if it has what Larean mentions. I would say more that a dictatorship, since many are run by political parties such as the CPSU in the Soviet Union, often involves parties with a monopoly on power, since elections/plebiscites are often held in countries regarded as dictatorships. What matters is the substance of those elections rather than the actual fact that they occur on a regular basis. Given the European Council's report on British elections, I could claim Britain is a dictatorship (the 2005 election was found by the Council to be fraudulent in 20-30 marginal constituencies and judging by comparing my local seat's result with my own data sampling on eve of poll, even if the right candidate won the vote was still bent) but then again we have other apparatuses in place that make sure there is no barrier to free participation in multiple parties, thus Britain does not qualify for the status. I would say Portugal was a dictatorship and acknowledged to be so by Salazar himself as a counter to what he perceived as weak parliamentary democracy. Dictatorship is a neutral term; I would say authoritarian is too weak and totalitarian too strong but since Salazar himself removed the democratic framework in response to challenges from the extreme right and extreme left, one has to allow that had same happened in Germany in 1930 Nazism might not have happened; so therefore dictatorship is not a "politically correct" label but a statement of fact. Lstanley1979 (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 40%?

I had already heard about 40% of the Budget going to defense during the war, but I sincerely doubt this number. I have studied Portuguese Economic History and even José da Silva Lopes (one of Portugal's most respected political economists), in one of his best essays (História Recente da Economia Portuguesa, 1996), points out that the war didn't have any major economic consequences for Portugal. A 40% drain would surely have heavy and grave consequences for the Portuguese economy. I would like to know the source from where this data was taken. Thank you. --MiguelFC 21:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


I also doubt. Anyway 40% of the Government budget at the time is quite diffrent from 40% today, as the GB at the time reresented much les than today. One of the consequences of 25-4 was the exponential increase in Government spending. --BBird 22:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup of the translation

A lot of this article reads like it was written by someone whose first language was not English.

So what! It ain't writen anywhere that en-Wiki is for en-native speakers only; that's a racialist afront to most of the world wwho isn't en-native speaker and has much to contribute. That's the consequence of globalisation and the post-colonial era. 'Mistkes' can be - and often are - forms of anti-colonial subversion; native speakers cannot claim ownership of any correct version of a language, and each Wiki is a world project, not an X-native language project, though some, admitedly, are having dificulties with looking forward from their national bellybuttons.Corrado7mari 13:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss the article, assume good faith, and do not engage in personal attacks. Cleduc 14:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made a number of minor changes to make the article flow better and to delete some bits that didn't make sense.

What this article needs is a photo of a gun with a carnation!--Filceolaire 12:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Corrado7mari, I am portuguese and I do not agree with you. It is not a "racialist afront" to ask for better language standards. As far as I am concerned, native speakers represent the best standard in any language, including portuguese and english. Get over yourself and be objective when discussing this article. en.wikipedia.org is not for english native speakers only, and specially because of that, we should avoid spelling, gramatical and sintax errors. It is hard enough to read another language without the mistakes. 80.172.5.217 15:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Vasco

[edit] Clarification

'Oliveira Salazar came to control the country until 1968, when he was incapacitated.' How exactly was he incapacitated? Did he suffer a stroke or something similiar, or did someone break his legs while he was having a shower? I think it would be useful if something more specific was here, rather than the very ambiguous 'incapacitated'. Hegar 15:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

A kind of stroke. He fell from a chair in his summer house and never recovered.--BBird 15:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

One can only speculate whether it was a stroke or a nerve toxin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.26.167 (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Salazar did not actually rule the country until 1968. By that time, he was in a hazardous state of health for some years.

Since he had a problem and became incapacited and had been dismissed by the president, to his death (a 4 months period) the ministers and all the people that were around him created a giant theathre to he think he still was rulling. They used to gave him laws to sign. He died without knowing he had been dismissed.

The context section is currently quite large and isn't very exact in terms of framing the Ultramar war. Is anybody bothered by the idea of it being reestructed (and, to do so, partially rewritten) into subsections (such as Dictatorship, Relationships with other nations, The Ultramar war and Economy - just as examples for now)? If not, I'll try and get to do so eventually. Cheers, Zeppocity 06:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


The article is quite correct, in fact 40% was really the height of the war and those who say not so are lying. It's not a leftist article as it doesn't make leftist references at all. Please do not erase our history. It was a dictatorial regime, and that's it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.128.161.125 (talk • contribs)

Really? Considering the value of oil in 1975? (That is post oil shock of the 70s). Portugal was most probably the largest oil producer in Africa at the time. A very simple calculation of oil price mulitplied by oil reserves / production would indicate a significantly different result. This without even considering other production in other minerals, agriculture and industry of the Portuguese territories. Growth rates of 6%. It is a complete distortion of economic facts. Angola was a major oil producer, diamond, etc. So much so that it was able to sustain a much larger conflict for a much longer time. The only way I can even get close to the 40% would be extract the overseas territories economic output from the equation. But to do so would be a complete misrepresentation of facts. I believe the number was sucked out of the air...and not out any reliable economic analysis.
Actually exactly because of the price of oil in the 70's Angola was not a big producer, the reservers are in the sea and even today (2007) a big part is still untouched, it was to expensive to find and explore those reserves, as for diamonds, portuguese army was unable to protect the mines since the begining of the colonial war, they were, in fact, supporting the war effort on the revolutionary armies. I do agree that growth rates were hight due to the colonies, but because of the production of traditional raw materials and not in spite of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.157.136 (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Salazar's regime was a right wing, one party political system. It had repression of dissidents, censorship and a political police (P.ID.E./DGS) I think it is safe to call it a dictatorship. The revolution was led mainly by politically minded military, of wich many where leftist/communists but not all. The Comunist party had a big influence in the period between the revolution and the first elections exactly one year later where they lost most of their influence due to bad results in the polls, mainly due to the fact that they where the first and better organized party in that period. The PREC (Processo Revolucionario Em Curso-revolutionary process in development) was a term coined by the comunist party, they where trying to turn the revolution from a democratic/burguoise first step to a socialist IE comunist one. The Constitution writen in that period was very leftist/marxist in its wording and caused serious economic problems in the years after, nationalization of companies and colectivization of land in the Alentejo area.The decolonization process was strongly influenced by comunists or comunist simpatizers (Rosa Coutinho) who where able to make the transfer of power into the hands of comunist/soviet oriented liberation movements. The civil wars that ensued in those countries was the result of fighting between those movements and other more western/american oriented movements.One book writen by a now dissident of the comunist party (Zita Seabra-Foi Assim) is one good source about the comust party in that period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.184.76 (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bloodless

"The population, holding red carnations (cravos in Portuguese), convinced the regime soldiers not to resist. The soldiers readily swapped their bullets for flowers." To my knowledge, it was the revolutionary soldiers that at a certain point started using carnations on their weapons, not the regime's. And most (if not all) surrendering of regime's units occurred early in the morning, when the general population was unaware of what was going on; so their surrendering was not influenced by the population but by their fellow soldiers on the other side of the conflict. Gazilion (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)