Talk:Portugal during World War II

Aristides de Sousa Mendes
A whole article on Portugal in World War II without any mention of Aristides de Sousa Mendes? Seems a little, well, incomplete. Beebop211 (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Declaration of war
Didn't Portugal declare war on Germany a few months before the end of the war?

77.54.15.127 (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the relevance to the article if a few Portuguese fought on the German side?
I don't think that adding that a few hundred Portuguese volunteers fought on the German side is part of this article. The article is about Portugal not about personal choices of a few hundred Portuguese. This information should be  included on Non-Germans in the German armed forces during World War II

There were at least Nine Non-German Units That Fought for the Nazis in WW2. 1) “The Vikings” from Scandinavia, the Baltic States 2) The Walloons - Made up of more than 8,000 French-speaking Belgians, the 28th SS Volunteer Grenadier Division Wallonien 3) Ost-Bataillon - More than 400,000 soldiers from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan 4) The Tiger Legion - 3,000 Indian expats 5) The British Free Corps 6) etc.

This is an encyclopedia and the article is about Portugal, it should not be a collection of curiosities and fait divers that were published in the press. Anyway If this information is going to be added it must be contextualized and the numbers of Portuguese that sided with the allies should be added as well. J Pratas (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

My friend, what's the name of the article? - Portugal during World War II. Thats history, of Portugal and portuguese in the context of the ii world war am i right? Do you really think it is not relevant to mention that hundreds of portuguese fought in this war, in combat/action, whatever side is, in the context of an article called Portugal during II WWar? They fought in several battles, just like in the siege of Leningrad. Of course it was their personal choises, Portugal was neutral has you know. it's history, and history should be counted based on facts.

http://visao.sapo.pt/actualidade/portugal/os-portugueses-que-combateram-no-exercito-de-hitler=f712272 http://visao.sapo.pt/revistas/visaohistoria/centena-e-meia-de-portugueses-combateram-no-exercito-de-hitler=f748589 http://aterrememportugal.blogspot.pt/2012/11/divisao-azul-na-antena-1.html

Thats not a fait diver, it's investigation in alcalá de enares documentation repository, source of the visaºo articles and a masters degree thesis on the subject of worldwar 2 and portuguese soldiers there. read the articles. Yes, it could be included there also my friend, in [Non-Germans in the German armed forces during World War II] i agree. But it's relevant here too, just like it is in the Blue Division enclyclopedia article. Those units you mention were Waffen ss i think, those portuguese were mainly wehrmacht - Blue Division. You can also add info about the portuguese who fought on the other side,(if that occurred) agree 100%, i think if the information is correct and based on facts the more information better ;) regards Isildurada (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Life quote
I've just re-removed this lengthy quote from a wartime edition of Life magazine. This is a primary source, and as such cannot be used to demonstrate any views towards Salazar - not least as it was obviously affected by wartime censorship and propaganda. The various secondary sources on this topic should cover how Portugal was viewed by the Allied governments and the general public, and would be vastly superior references than picking out individual stories from archives. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleting What the Life Magazine Article said
Life magazine was the first all-photographic American news magazine, and it dominated the market for more than 40 years. In 1940, at a time the British position in the war seemed hopeless, Life published a very long article on Portugal, edition of July 29,1940, where Life Magazine described premier Salazar as "By far the world's best dictator, he is the greatest Portuguese since Prince Henry the Navigator". The publishing in itself is a relevant fact that cannot be denied. Naturally the content is debatable and of course one can debate the Life's Magazine statement. Many reputed historians claim that Portugal's regime at that time was Authoritarian and not Totalitarian while others will argue that Salazar was a dictator and not a good one. All these different views have a place in wikipedia as long as the NPOV is respected. But such debate is not the point. The Life Magazine article is not being presented as an actual view but as a fact: what an important American magazine from that time side about Portugal and Salazar. It is being presented as-is, not in wikpedia's voice, but being neutral, allowing the reader to draw its own conclusions. It is ok to have the opinion that the article was "wartime propaganda". But the fact is that the article is an important historical document that provides the reader with information on what was relevant press was saying about Portugal at that time, and therefore it should not be deleted because it will deprive the reader from an important source wherever it may be wartime propaganda or not. If other relevant press was publishing different relevant content let us add it to the article, but let us not delete an historical fact.J Pratas (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please provide references that support your claims that this is a particularly important article. We don't need to present our readers with primary sources which they need to somehow figure out the significance of or interpret for bias, and doing so is a poor practice. Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Will do. Just give me two or three days, so that I can get access to my library. It should not be necessary though. Life was the leading magazine in the US at that time and if they published such an extensive article on Portugal, the relevance of the article in itself should not be arguable. The same goes to other facts occurred in 1940 such as the University of Oxford, having invited Salazar to accept the Honorary Degree of Doctor of Civil Law. These are the facts. You are free to add the interpretations of those facts by reputed scholars. But you should not delete facts that are obviously relevant, such as: what was the leading press saying at that time.J Pratas (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need to have such a source; Per WP:OR, we need to be careful about our use of primary sources on Wikipedia in an anything more than illustrative role. Can we just not have a phrase to the effect that: "Salazar was praised in certain parts of the international press[REF], including by Life which said X[REF]? —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * LIFE Magazine is a notable American magazine that chronicled the 20th Century. LIFE dominated the market for more than 40 years. It was so popular that President Harry S. Truman, Sir Winston Churchill, and General Douglas MacArthur all had their memoirs serialized in its pages. Therefore if in July 1940, right after the invasion of France and long before the US entered the war, LIFE published a long article on Portugal and on Salazar then the article is extremely valuable to the understanding of what leading american press was publishing at that time. Using the article itself has the advantage that since it was written at the time, it is free of the opinions imposed by later generations. Despite the fact that article is very important "per se" the fact is that, in addition this specific article has been quoted in several books and academic journals. A few non-exhaustive examples are:  i) "Jewish Political Studies Review", Volume 16, Page 46, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 2004. ii)The Complete History of the Holocaust, Mitchell Geoffrey Bard, Greenhaven Press, 2001, Page 327; iii) "Salazar"master biography, by Franco Nogueira, Vol III, "As grandes crises (1936-1945)" - 1978.  p. 190.  I therefore suggest that we all work together on improving the article by adding more content rather than waste our time on trying to delete content. There is a lot of room to improve the article by adding more relevant contentJ Pratas (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Portugal figth back Japan
Hi, since the article is about Portugal during WW2, can be mentioned that in pacific they have figth back Japan, but stay neutral official. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Paratroopers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.197.245 (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Timor
Australian and Dutch forces in East Timor are mentioned but Japanese troops aren't? I feel like that maybe should be mentioned... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.67.58.18 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)