Talk:First Portuguese Republic

Quality of article

I have recently been reading a number of Portuguese history pages as I knew little on this subject. Unfortunately I found this article extremely difficult to follow. Many sentences make little sense or have a stilted, obtuse construction. Far too many bracketed name and date references disrupt reading.

eg: "Sidonismo, also known as Dezembrismo (Eng. Decemberism), aroused a strong interest among historians, largely as a result of the elements of modernity that it contained (José Brandão, 1990; Ramalho, 1998; Ribeiro de Meneses, 1998, Armando Silva, 1999; Samara, 2003 and Santos, 2003)"

"Nevertheless, much has been written about the crisis and fall of the regime and the 28 May movement (Cruz, 1986; Cabral, 1993; Rosas, 1997; Martins, 1998; Pinto, 2000; Afonso, 2001). The First Republic continues to be the subject of an intense debate which is impossible to summarise in these paragraphs. A recent historiographical balance sheet elaborated by Armando Malheiro da Silva (2000) is a good introduction into this debate"

I gave up.

Tiddy 05:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Basic focus of article

It needs to be less meta-discussion of recent trends in historiography, and more about what actually happened during the period. AnonMoos 04:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly copyright infringement?

I think the section marked "The Republic" is copyrighted elsewhere.

It comes from an article entitled "The Political History of Twentieth-Century Portugal" and was published in the E-Journal of Portuguese History Here is the link to the article:

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Portuguese_Brazilian_Studies/ejph/html/issue2/pdf/baioa.pdf

The text comes from the first few pages.

I don't know if the author posted it himself. I'm not the copyright holder, but I did run across the article and it looked a little suspect. If the author did post it here, my mistake.

Cheers!

Mwinslett 00:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)mwinslett

I highly doubt the author posted it, and hence the text should be rewritten or removed due to copyright infringement. The original text is by what seems to be three different professors at three different universities. It is even clearly stated that the paper was copyrighted. KristofferAG (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree. I read the Brown article (above) when I came across it and immediately thought infringement issue. Having edited several articles on the people and events during the period, I have been meaning to take a stab at a revision. The question that arises: whether blanking the mitigating content, would result in no article at all. My first impulse is to completely delete it, but I am already editing a few things, and the subject is so significant that it would need some time to completely re-write. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) 14:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Nightmare Republic

Copied from WP:RD/H for processing. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why was Portugal before the New State called the Nightmare Republic?Bryson Bill 19:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The term refers to the First Republic, 1910 to 1926, which was notoriously unstable. In its sixteen years, it had forty-five governments. As you say, the Nightmare Republic led to the New State, which lasted from 1926 to 1974. That was certainly stable but was not exactly a model of liberal democracy. Xn4 23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a fascinating question about a fascinating subject-the First Portuguese Republic, the model and acme of a dysfunctional state. No banana republic comes close to the Portuguese record of instability and regime change. I found one contemporary view by Will Rogers which summarises the position with his characteristic humour;

They make 'em or break 'em quick over here. You don't get four years' trial like you all do over home, and then we have to put up with regardless. A Premier never unpacks his grip over here. He just engages his room by the day. Portugal, the week I was in Madrid, had three Revolutions and four changes of Government in one day, and they haven't got daylight saving either, or else they could have squeezed in another Revolution.

Yes, of course it's a comic exaggeration, but not much! The New State, one might even say the necessity of the New State, can only really be appreciated by a proper understanding of what went before. As Xn4 says, the first republic had forty-five governments in just under sixteen years, the most unstable state in Europe by far. The average life of each administration was no more than four months. There were military coups in 1915, 1917, 1921 and 1926. Of the eight presidents only Antonio Jose Almeida served out his term in office, though his health was ruined in the process. One was assassinated, two resigned after threats of military intervention, and two were ejected by force. President Teixeira Gomes was so desperate to leave the country that he boarded the first ship after his resignation and never returned! The poet Guerra Junqueira described the republic, for which he had campaigned, as "an heroic march to the sewer." Later one academic was to describe the period as a 'permanent carnival.'

So, what was the source of this chaos? Why, the economy, stupid! No, seriously now, this was part of the answer. The old monatchy had left the country with a huge foreign debt, almost impossible to manage considering how poor Portugal was at the time, a country where as much as 78% of the population were illiterate. A bad financial inheritance was compounded by the economic crisis which overtook the country in 1915 and lasted for over ten years. In the worst period inflation reached almost 3000%, and the currency was devalued no less than twenty times between 1919 and 1924. A bad economy made for a bad political culture, and riots, bombings, assassinations, coups, plots, strikes, mutinies and walk-outs were a regular feature of the Portuguese horizon. Perhaps as many as 5000 people were killed in public disorder, civil war in all but name. The name 'Nightmare Republic' was actually accorded by an Irish journalist in 1914, writing for a publication by the name of Nineteenth Century. Portuguese editors constantly expressed fears over the ongoing 'Mexicanisation' of the nation. The French even adopted the verb Portugaliser for a time, meaning to bring chaos into politics.

With a bad economy, no political culture to speak of, and an almost complete absence of consensus on any issue of central significance, conspiracy and counter-conspiracy took the place of democratic participation. In 1919 the constitution was revised, according the president additional powers, including the right to dissolve parliament. Intended as a political anchor it only made matters even worse, if such a thing were possible. Presidents were openly intimidated into dismissing parliaments, whether or not there was a need. In 1921 President Almedia was forced at gun point to call new elections on two separate occasions. The only thing that kept the Nightmare Republic afloat for so long was that right-wing conspirators, including those in the army, were as divided as the rest of Portuguese society. But it was only a matter of when, not if, that the curtain would be brought down and the carnival brought to a close. Clio the Muse 01:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There we have the Rolls Royce answer, supplementing my pedestrian shorthand! All I feel able to add is that once, long ago, an old man with a beard told me that in the 1920s, as a tribute to the otherworldliness of Portugal, someone opened a low dive in Paris called "le Grand Hôtel de l'Univers et du Portugal". I should like to think this is true, but I have never found any trace of it. Xn4 02:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What a pity! Clio the Muse 05:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Threat of Spanish Invasion?

What evidence is there for the threat of a spanish invasion as to one of the reasons why Portugal entered World War 1? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.138.221 (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to First Portuguese Republic. Favonian (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Portuguese First Republic → First Portuguese Republic — Relisted. Favonian (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC). There are two reasons I think this article should be at "First Portuguese Republic" instead of its current location. Firstly the official name of the country is the "Portuguese Republic" which you can see in the English translation of the constitution and the title of the presidential website. Within Portugal, I am sure most people will refer to the "First" and "Second Republics" when they need to distinguish between the two. However, from an outside point of view we need to clarify that it is the "Portuguese Republics" that we are discussing. It makes grammatical sense to put the numbering in front rather than in the middle of the title. Secondly, I am not a big fan of Ghits but in this instance a search using Google Books has shown me that there are about 5,000 usages of the term "first portuguese republic" and about 300 usages of the term "portuguese first republic" within the books at Google. Green Giant (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support: per explanation above. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support for same reasons. --RJFF (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Flag

How do I connect "Flag" with Flag of Portugal? Thanks! Mts-Lisboa (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• anyone out there? Mts-Lisboa (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)