Jump to content

Talk:Aristides de Sousa Mendes/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Still lacking a neutral point of view.

As I do not wish to battle I will not be coming to this talk page more than once a day. I have the following major comments:

  • The chapter “Trial and Punishment” also puts on trial those who punished Sousa Mendes. The chapter should state that Sousa Mendes never stood public trial, should list at least the major accusations that were brought against him and should be accurate in the punishment description. Sousa Mendes could have been brought to trial for the crime of passport forgery (The Miny couple escaping army mobilization on May 30 1940) something that could have cost him 5 years in prison and banned from public service. Sousa Mendes had a long track record of indiscipline, etc.
The major accusations are listed. As for the "long track record of indiscipline," in the 39 pages Fralon allots to the pre-war period, he devotes exactly three paragraphs to these "incidents" (on pages 17 and 18), and I have a really hard time seeing therein 1. any shocking scandal, or 2. any relevance to the action of 1940. Perhaps there is an important point to be made, but if there is, I just don't see it. Beebop211 (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The Chapter “Circular 14” is now less NPOV. Words like dictator and “secret police” are now deliberately being introduced in order to mislead the reader by establishing associations with stereotypes. At the same time views from the two scholars with more published works on Portugal and the refugees, Pimentel and Milgram, have been completely obliterated. According to Avraham Milgram, Portugal’s regime did not distinguish between Jews and non-Jews but rather between immigrant Jews who came and had the means to leave the country and those lacking them. Portugal prevented Jews from putting down roots in the country not because they were Jews but because the regime feared foreign influence in general, and feared the entrance of Bolsheviks and left-wing agitators fleeing from Germany. Milgram believes that antisemitic ideological patterns had no hold in the ruling structure of the "Estado Novo" and a fortiori in the various strata of Portuguese society.
Milgram is the source of that paragraph. Beebop211 (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Milgram also said, in his 2011 book that “Journalists and authors, especially those who wish to sing the praises of Aristides de Sousa Mendes, tend to overstate the number of visas he gave refugees in the summer of 1940….writers interested in lionizing Portugal for its humanitarian actions, Consul Sousa Mendes for his extraordinary feats, the Portuguese people for their humane attitude toward the refugees, etc..cite figures who not satisfy research criteria, but rather correspond to their wishful thinking…” Milgram p 121. Unfortunatelly most of the article is being sourced in those same sources that Milgram criticizes
I'm sorry but I really don't think Milgram is reliable on this point. He says (p.82) that most of the visas were issued on June 11 and June 12, which is totally untrue. He also admits on the same page that his remarks are based on a "superficial inspection of the list of names." This does not inspire confidence concerning his grasp of this material even though I find him very reliable on other points. Plus, in a new (2014) documentary "With God Against Man" Milgram is interviewed and he states that Sousa Mendes saved more lives during the Holocaust than any other single individual. So it looks like he has changed his mind since the 2011 book came out. Best to disregard him entirely on this issue and go with the preponderance of the literature. Beebop211 (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • My statement on the date the Holocaust started has been completely misunderstood. Portuguese historian Pimentel in her 600 pages book on Portugal and the Holocaust says that first news about the holocaust probably arrived to Portugal in 1941. Now, Mendes’s actions were in 1940. The exodus that arrived to the South of France was one of 6 to 8 million people in panic. official estimates said that there were eight million refugees in France — 6.2 million internal French refugees; 1.8 million Belgians; 150,000 from Holland and Luxembourg. Of the 6+ million French, Parisians were about two million, and 800,000 were from Alsace-Lorraine. It was these people that Mendes' tried to help. He did not try to help just Jews. Now some of these people did need help but most of them didn’t. The review of the book “Fleeing Hitler” (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); says the following: Ironically, most of the populace would have been better off staying where they were, unless they were Jewish, as the Germans had no plans to harm them wholesale; in fact, they wanted as many people as possible to carry on working to support the German war effort. Doubly ironic is that, while Parisians and other inhabitants of northern France and Belgium were panic-stricken and took to the roads with little cause, in Berlin and other urban centers in Germany, German Jews believed that they were safe and stayed until it was too late… It is estimated that 100,000 people died during the flight from Paris and the subsequent bedraggled return of most of the refugees; many of these victims were children, the old, the ill and the infirm. Some may actually have starved. Mendes only positioned his defense as a Jewish rescue operation in 1945 and he then wrote "I have not done it before because I did not want to compromise Portugal's neutrality".
  • We can all pretend that none of this happened and we can all do like the Sousa Mendes’ foundation that still lists perfectly regular visas granted during the phoney war, still list visas granted to Portuguese, English, etc. trying to credit all those numbers to Mendes. We can also do say that Portugal is Pro-Hitler. And that ambassador Teotonio Pereira was a Nazi. But the Wikipedia will be here for long and the truth will surface.JPratas (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It was a disciplinary proceeding not a trial, and the article should reflect that. We most certainly should not speculate about criminal charges he might have faced, but didn't.
  • The vast majority of reliable sources call Salazar a dictator because he was one. And therefore, so should we. Certainly, the facts about Kristallnacht were known in Portugal long before 1940, as were the facts about the brutal dismemberment of Poland. Relying on one book review to claim that people would have been "better off" to stay under Nazi rule is weak at best, given the death and misery that Nazi rule brought to tens of millions of people in the following five years.
  • The term "phoney war" is a rhetorical device not an accurate description of the grave situation in Europe during that brief lull in combat. Those who think that Portugal was correct to stay neutral have little basis for criticizing Sousa Mendes' comments about that country's neutrality during the war. I think that the list of notable visa recipients should be limited to those who would not have been granted by a consul following Salazar's orders carefully. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, don't forget that Sousa Mendes was operating not in Portugal but in France, and that his twin brother was in Poland. He knew what was going on, and he says so in his June 1940 "Day of Conscience" speech, his August 1940 defense statement and his 1941 letter to his lawyer, all reliably and multiply sourced. Even the charges against him accuse him of ordering the Bayonne official to "save all these people" so it's pretty clear that that's how he viewed what he was doing. Beebop211 (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
As for his twin brother, there should be a Wikipedia biography of him as well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but he's harder to research, because there's no literature about him, as far as I know. I could probably put together a bare bones entry based on mentions of him in the sources on Aristides, but I'm not sure how useful it would be. Beebop211 (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
There are letters from Cesar Sousa Mendes, sent to the Portuguese Foreign Office, sent while he was posted in Poland where he calls for tighter emigration policies. JPratas (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Foreign language sources

Hi there. Are we really including foreign language sources? If so, we need to include the three recent full-length monographs in French, all much more reliable than Milgram concerning biographical details about Sousa Mendes as well as the issue concerning the number of visas:

  • Eric Lebreton, Des visas pour la vie : Aristides Sousa Mendes, le Juste de Bordeaux, Paris: Le Cherche Midi, 2010.
  • Manuel Dias Vaz, ed., Aristides de Sousa Mendes, héros “rebelle,” juin 1940, Mercuès: Éditions Confluences, 2010.
  • Manuel Dias Vaz, ed., Le pouvoir de dire “non” : Aristides de Sousa Mendes, Bordeaux, Bayonne, Hendaye, juin 1940, Bordeaux: Éditions Quatorze, 2010.

Lebreton devotes an entire chapter to the question of the number of visas, in contrast to Milgram’s 3 sentences. OK with you both? If so, I’ll reread these three books and pull out the relevant passages. Please let me know your thoughts. Beebop211 (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I don’t have any problem whatsoever with sources in French or any other language and I believe that according to Wikipedia guideline we are not limited to sources in English. I very much doubt that these French books would outweigh Milgram, Lochery and Pimentel. But in these subject I will accept whatever Cullen says. JPratas (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, I have had a chance to look through Lebreton to see what he says on the subject. I have not yet looked at the other two books. Here is Lebreton.
On Pimentel (p.228): "Le Dr. Irene Pimentel conteste certains chiffres de la SDN sur le nombre de réfugiés au Portugal, les estimant de 50,000 à 100,00 quand il semblait évident aux organisations caritatives qu'ils avaient dépassé des 100,000. En revanche, elle ne retire pas un seul réfugié à Aristides." Translation: Pimentel questions the figure of 100,000 total refugees in Portugal, preferring an estimate in the 50,000-100,000 range. However, she does not take one single refugee away from Aristides.
On Milgram (p.231): "Pour finir sur ce sujet, on trouve dans les publications de Yad Vashem une étude intéressante de l'historien Avraham Milgram, intitulé "Portugal, consuls et réfugiés juifs." Dans ce document, Milgram conteste le chiffre de 30,000 en estimant qu'il s'agit d'une exagération d'Harry Ezratty, jamais vérifié par la suite et jamais reprise d'une étude à l'autre. Mais d'une part, Milgram ne compte pas les visas délivrés à Bayonne, Hendaye et Toulouse et, d'autre part, il s'en tient au chiffre du seul livre de compte de José Seabra, soit 1674 visas. L'article de Milgram, par ailleurs très intéressant, manque sur ce point de précisions et de connaissances." Translation: Lastly, one finds among the publications of Yad Vashem an interesting study by the historian Avraham Milgram titled "Portugal, the Consuls and the Jewish Refugees." In this document, Milgram contests the figure of 30,000, hypothesizing that the figure stems from an exaggeration made by Harry Ezratty, never subsequently confirmed or reevaluated from one study to the next. However, on the one hand, Milgram does not account for the visas that were delivered in Bayonne, Hendaye and Toulouse, and on the other hand, he holds firm to the number presented in the one surviving registry book of José Seabra (Sousa Mendes' secretary). Milgram's article, while very interesting in other ways, lacks details and knowledge on this point.
On visas covering whole families (pp.229-30): "Les réfugiés se présentaient le plus souvent en famille, il arrivait que tous les membres de la famille aient leur propre passeport, dans ce cas nous avons plusieurs entrées pour le même nom. Mais il arrivait aussi qu'un visa soit consenti pour toute une famille, ce fut le cas de la famille Vos dont nous avons le passeport. M. et Mme Vos et leurs deux enfants Eva et Anne n'ont obtenu qu'un seul visa. Quelle était l'itération exacte de ces passeports et donc des visas familiaux? Nous ne pouvons pas le dire avec précision, mais c'était très fréquent." Translation: Most refugees arrived in family groups. Sometimes each family member had an individual passport, in which case there are several entries (in the registry book) with the same last name. But other times a single visa covered an entire family. This was the case with the Vos family whose passport survives. Mr. and Mrs. Vos and their two children Eva and Anne collectively received a single visa. How many such passports were there, and therefore how many "family visas"? It's hard to give an exact figure, but this was a frequent occurrence. Beebop211 (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
One of the problems we’ve been having and that is extremely disruptive is that clear Wikipedia guidelines are being questioned and infringed. We should not be wasting our time discussing if a POV should or should not be included. It should. What these sources you are now bringing to the discussion are saying is almost the same thing that was written in the article on a specific chapter that addressed the controversy that exists around the numbers. But you have decided to delete the chapter therefore “deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this is being done on spurious grounds).” All you have to do is reinstate that chapter and then quote this POV and you can also include the POV from the Sousa Mendes Foundation (that is also relevant). Wikipedia says that the remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it.
p.s. Personally I think that these views have deliberately ignored the cross check that has been done with police files (extremely accurate) and HICEM reports. But we are not here to edit my views. We are here to edit according to Wikipedia guidelines.JPratas (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I would be so grateful if you would stop posting threats in Wikipedia's voice on my Talk page. Thanks. Beebop211 (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I did not use wikipedia’s voice. The warning on the talk page is mandatory because I’ve triggered an SPI. I’ve been dragging the SPI because I think your POV and contributions are valuable. But your editing style has been disruptive and is not allowing us to reach a NPOV. I hope you can switch to a cooperative mood so that you can contribute to the article.JPratas (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The warning also tells you what you need to do in order to defend yourself. There is a link you can use to know the accusation and also allows you to present your defense.JPratas (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
My defense? Beebop211 (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


Manuel Dias Vaz "est sociologue, président du Comité national français en hommage à Aristides de Sousa Mendes". This man has POV. All POV should be included. But the reader should be informed that he belongs to the Comité national français en hommage à Aristides de Sousa Mendes"JPratas (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Milgram is a Yad Vashem historian with extensive published research on the subject. The reader should be informed of who Milgram is. He did not write only 3 sentences. We all have access to his first paper. Available online.
When are we going to start following the wikipedia guidelines on NPOV?JPratas (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I've read some reviews on Eric Lebreton, Des visas pour la vie : Aristides Sousa Mendes, le Juste de Bordeaux - He does not have the same academic status of Milgram, but here is one review I've found: "de Sousa Mendes also tried (unsuccessfully) to appeal to Salazar’s sense of chivalry by explaining that issuing visas to refugee women protected them from rape by Nazi invaders, or as he decorously put it, “abrupt Teutonic sensuality.” Aware of his personal status as a sinner, de Sousa Mendes explained to his family that when he signed visas it was a kind of redemption: “Our life will not be as materially comfortable as before, but nonetheless let’s be brave and always remember that by giving these refugees a chance to live, we have a greater chance of entering the kingdom of heaven.""
This is one of the many reasons why early life should be included, factual, in a neutral language, just like in the case of Oskar Schindler JPratas (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

My recent edits

After two weeks without editing I’ve added the San Francisco episode and the Aide-memoire from the British Embassy. My aim is to provide facts in a completely neutral language. I have no problem whatsoever with the text being modified if the language I’ve used has not been neutral enough. I believe both this facts are non-controversial. Both this facts are listed in almost all scholar works. (English and Portuguese) I am available to provide any references that are considered necessary.JPratas (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

There are two different versions of the Sousa Mendes disciplinary action. One is from Rui Afonso and it discusses the intrigues of Sousa Mendes. According to the Shoah Center, the most accepted version involves the granting of too many visas to Jews. This biography cannot be told as one simple story—it must be told as a conflict of sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that "this biography cannot be told as one simple story—it must be told as a conflict of sources" plese read the new section I just added, below.I will reinstate the fact, do you want to propose the conflicting views?JPratas (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Aide-Memoire

According to Milgram : There are two versions regarding the disciplinary process that was set up against Aristides de Sousa Mendes. The most accepted sees the process as a consequence of the visas that he gave Jewish refugees after the invasion of France. The second, defended by Rui Afonso, 73 explains the persecution of Sousa Mendes as the consequence of internal and personal intrigues at the MNE, especially by Secretary-General Luiz Sampayo against his twin brother Cesar Mendes, in addition to the irregular visas granted by Sousa Mendes to the Wiznitzer couple and to Eduardo Neira Laporte.

A different thing is the recall. Milgram says: "Another episode which angered the MNE, and which eventually led to Sousa Mendes being recalled from the consulate general, has its source in an aidemémoire sent by the British embassy in Lisbon to the MNE".

While Neill Lochery and Felipe Meneses say that he was recalled because of “insubordination itself and the time of the action….the timing could not have been worse for Salazar and his careful planned attempt to preserve Portuguese neutrality. Salazar believed that in order to achieve this key policy goal, he needed to personally retain control over all area and respects of foreign policy. Indeed the consul’s actions led directly to a major increase in diplomatic tensions between Lisbon and Madrid at a key junction in the war. With Germany army on the French-Spanish border there was increased pressure on General Franco to join the Axis. The actions of Sousa Mendes led to the Spanish closing the border with France.

Never the less all scholars coincide in that the aide memoire was an important piece in the developments.

The aide memoire is a fact not a POV.JPratas (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It's true that one of the charges, count 4, of the bill of indictment was "The request made to British nationals that they should contribute to a Portuguese charity before being granted visas." But Fralon spends four paragraphs quoting from Sousa Mendes' response to this count in order to show that the accusation, which was leveled without any proof, was groundless. Milgram, when citing this count, uses the qualifier "allegedly" as in that he "allegedly demanded a surcharge for British visas" (p.83). Therefore, if the accusation is mentioned, it needs to be qualified as groundless or alleged, preferably with a few lines from the defense. Is that OK with editor JPratas? Beebop211 (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
One thing is the interpretation that scholars can have on if the accusation was or wasn’t groundless. Another thing is that a serious formal accusation was done by the British Embassy. What seems to be undisputed is that the accusation made on June 20 had an impact. And the fact that it was made is important (groundless or not), especially if you consider what was happening on June 20 1940. I am Ok with adding all POV on this event and repercussion and have a NPOV. Nevertheless the fact in itself is key and should not be just omitted.It has not been omitted in works published by major scholars why are we omitting it here? JPratas (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
You say: "One thing is the interpretation that scholars can have on if the accusation was or wasn’t groundless." I am unaware of any reputable scholar who claims that this charge had any basis in fact. So how about this language or something similar: "On June 20, 1940, Sousa Mendes was falsely accused of charging extra fees to British citizens requesting visas." Beebop211 (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion on Early Life Chapter

Binksternet. After several days of discussions editor Cullen328 wrote : "Please summarize and cite what Fralon says about the Brazil and San Francisco incidents. If you do not wish to do so, I will, since you have provided the Fralon quotes." The guideline was to use Oskar Schindler as model. Do you wish to re-open the discussion? Your problem is content? or format? JPratas (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

After I read more of the material I'll be able to comment with better intelligence. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. In case it's useful, Cullen328 has identified 5 points of dispute on his Talk page. I suggest we tackle these one by one to achieve closure. Sound like a plan? Appreciate your help immensely. Beebop211 (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
A few thoughts: Let's keep discussion of this article's content on this talk page going forward, not mine. I suggest that draft language be listed here with refs to see if it gains consensus. I again encourage those with a special interest in this topic to work at building consensus based on summarizing the range of sources instead of staking out extreme positions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Strategy Moving for moving forward II

Binksternet, Cullen328, Beebop211 Pls read the following text in a constructive positive tone and having in mind that I am not native in English and I belong to a different culture.

Thank you proposing a strategy to move forward. It seems that you Binksternet{{ bring years of experience editing Wikipedia and you might be of great help. I agree with the guidelines being proposed (i.e. consensus of mainstream accounts, except for those facts which are in dispute. At those points the reader must be informed of the disputed facts, with attribution, telling the reader who published which fact) but I would recommend that, since SM is still a highly controversial figure in his home country, that as much as possible we should stick to presenting facts in chronological order and neutral language and let ther reader make his interpretation. Views on facts should be included only when from reputed independent scholars and as quotes. POVs from politicians, ambassadors, etc.. can be briefly mentioned but in an separate specific short chapter.

I would like to make sure that there are safeguards in our approach to ensure that a preponderance of the literature is being presented. Just because a fringe source proposes a nutty theory doesn't mean that its inclusion is warranted. Beebop211 (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I also propose that we approach this exercize, chapter by chapter. To run a Marathon you need to go step by step. There is too much controversy to start listing the disputed points all at the same time, we might end up in diffuse fruitless painless disputes.

You think there is a lot of controversy because you start from the perspective that the notion that Sousa Mendes was a hero is a lie. In fact, there is almost no conflicting info about his deeds in the reliable literature. Beebop211 (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I would also recommend that all of us do some basic reading on the subject. This will avoid many painful battles (Yesterday I was quite surprised to read that Beepop221 wasn’t aware of the San Francisco episode until I include it in the article).

You misread what I wrote. I said that I was first made aware of the San Francisco episode when I saw the Bay Area symposium talk on YouTube. Beebop211 (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

To make your life easier I’ve listed what, to the best of my knowledge, are the sources we should be reading and using. Those sources are listed below in a separate chapter. Also to make your life easyier, when available, I’ve included online links to googlebooks and other sites. I don’t want to exclude any sources (e.g. sources in French). The list can be increased by all of us but we should not populate it with popular literature. We should use mostly scholars. This list can also be later adapted to be included in the article. I’ve noticed that Oskar Schindler’s article has a chapter named “Sources” and a separate chapter for “references”. We could follow that example.

What about The New York Times? What about The Christian Science Monitor? What about the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA)? The Independent of London? These are all highly reputable sources of investigative journalism. I hope we can all agree on this. What about Mordecai Paldiel, who is the leading world authority on the "Righteous Among the Nations"? What about Yehuda Bauer, who is one of the leading historians of the Holocaust? Beebop211 (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I also kindly ask you to please stop calling me the “anti-Sousa Mendes” or the “Salazar supporter” which I am NOT. We should all avoid criticism and stick to facts. Portuguese History until 1974 was mostly written by pro-Salaza POV. In 1974 we had a revolution. After 1974 most history literature is anti-Salazar. We are finally having a new generation of scholars (e.g. Pimentel, Menseses, etc.) writing history books and studies, without political intentions, and referencing extensive available public documents. In Portugal the Mendes' story has been used by “Soares and his minions” to attack “Salazar and his minions”. Since Salazar and his minions are already dead the prevailing “popular version” has been the one coming from Soares and his minions.

I know it irritates you that Portuguese President Mario Soares called Sousa Mendes "Portugal's greatest hero of the twentieth century," but the fact remains that he did so and that it's a significant statement. He also apologized on behalf of Portugal for The Inquisition. These are highly significant gestures. Beebop211 (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This is important because editor Beepop221 was influenced by the Soares’ side version and also has declared herself to be a big fan of historian Antonio Louça, a Trotskyist extremist that says that “the ethnic cleaning that Zionism is doing against Palestinians is similar to what the Nazis have done in the 30s. (I don’t think that after knowing this Beepop221 is still a fan of Louca but the fact that she did not know this is not helpful). If we are aiming for NPOV we all need to make an effort to see the broad picture and know the subject.

We could all profit from the fact that I am Portuguese. I have lived the 1974 revolution. I had military tanks at my door. I know that what came afterwards was by no means what you call democracy. All our economy was nationalized (banks, industries, newspapers, radios etc.) our jails were full of people that were not formally accused, all the media was state owned, evens sports newspapers were state owned (until 1986), we risked becoming a soviet satellite and Portuguese colonies became the battleground of the cold war with the Cuban army getting involved in Angola and Indonesia invading East Timor. We had over 10 prime ministers since 1974 and 1986. (Soares was prime minister twice in that period). I lived it. It was chaos! We could not even buy milk because there wasn’t any to buy….and when we could buy we were allowed to buy one liter per day.

Have you heard of Tarrafal camp? And Humberto Delgado? Beebop211 (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Having lived all this I find it quite frustrating that the article still says that “The report was suppressed by the Portuguese government for over a decade”. What government? We had 10 governments during that decade…The wikipedia shoul not be the echo for absurd statemens.

It is a widely reported fact that the Bessa Lopes report, written in 1976, was suppressed until 1987. Beebop211 (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don’t want to denigrate SM. I want the story of my country told in a NPOV.

This is a biographical entry on Aristides de Sousa Mendes. Not the story of your country. Beebop211 (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

In order to move forward I propose we start tackling the lead section and the “early life” section.

Agree? Thoughts?JPratas (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

General strategy for moving forward

I have been looking at various talk page discussions including the archives. It looks like two strategies are in conflict: one based on research performed by the Sousa Mendes Foundation, and the other based on as many Foundation-denying facts that can be found. Neither of these strategies can succeed here. Instead, what must happen is that the biography must be based as much as possible on a consensus of mainstream accounts, except for those facts which are in dispute. At those points the reader must be informed of the disputed facts, with attribution, telling the reader who published which fact.

One more problem I see in the article history and the talk page is that editors here have been too eager to calculate how many visas, how many refugees. The guideline WP:CALC only allows for simple calculations made from known numbers. It does not allow conjecture about numbers, or even simple arithmetic calculations based on numbers that are in dispute. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Shall we go down the line of the five points identified by Cullen 328? Perhaps we can come to closure on each point before going on to the next. Sound OK? Beebop211 (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
My discussion of five points was not intended to imply that those were the only relevant points, but rather five that came to mind then. And I did not intend to imply that they should be resolved one by one, although that is better, I suppose, than stagnation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, how shall we begin? Beebop211 (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
First thing is to get rid of questionable Foundation sources, for instance the Miny page which give self-conflicting text about Paul being the son aged 19 or the husband.
Where does it say he was her son? Beebop211 (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
If Fralon covers it then we don't need the SMF.
Sure, I can live with that. Beebop211 (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Next is to list here on the talk page the points of dispute or conflicting fact found among our sources so we can figure out how to present these disputed points to the reader.
There are very few points of dispute among the reputable sources, so this should be a quick process. Beebop211 (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Another possible solution to help the article move forward is to compose a section called "Historiography" in which the story of Sousa Mendes can be described as changing several times, always upon the publication of new research.
That's interesting but not exactly reflective of what happened. There never was a change in how he was viewed in the literature. The change was a political one: first he was recognized by Israel and then by the U.S. and finally by Portugal following intense pressure from the U.S. Congress in the form of a petition drafted by Rep. Tony Coelho and Rep. Harry Waxman and signed by 70 congressmen. The only change in the literature is that there started to be more of it as the story became more widely known. Beebop211 (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
We can say Sousa Mendes was not listed in the Who's Who book of his day, then we can say he was re-discovered by some researcher, then another aspect was discovered by a different researcher, etc. This way our biography can contain multiple facets: the shining hero, the tarnished functionary, etc. Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your proposal. I also agree with Cullen328's remark. The "Historiography" seems to complex, but that is just my opinion. Especially because I am the only one that can speak Portuguese (Am I not?). I further developed your strategy in a new chapter. Below. JPratas (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources - Work in Progress

Reliable Primary Sources

  • "Spared Lives: The Actions of Three Portuguese Diplomats in World War Documentary Exhibition, Catalogue". Portuguese Diplomatic Institute / Historical and Diplomatic Archive. Retrieved March 19, 2014.
Yes, I concur, because this book contains explanatory essays that make it a secondary source. Beebop211 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Is this different from the above? Beebop211 (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
If we accept this primary source then we should accept all primary sources. Beebop211 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
If we accept this primary source then we should accept all primary sources. Beebop211 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a reliable Primary source, by the Portuguese Ministry of finance and provides evidence that Mendes was receiving a monthly allowance of $1,593 and that this allowance has been updated until he died, when he was receiving aprox $2,300.
Anyway these numbers have also been quoted by Professor Douglas Wheeler, Professor Neill Lochery and Biographer Rui Afonso.
So let's stick to the secondary literature. These figures should be in escudos, not dollars. Do you know how much they represent in dollars? Escudos mean nothing to me. Beebop211 (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Rui Afonso a published source, worshiping Mendes, says that 1593$ PTE was equivalent to 3 times the salary teacher. Actually his full quote is “It could not be considered a prince's salary but it was 3 times the salary of a teacher”. Other than that we can engage ourselves in original research but having in mind the original research discussions are acceptable for the talk page (Wikipedia says so) but not for the article. Having said that: It is not very complicated to prove that 1593$ PTE was the full consul salary at that time. You can google some references from the internet but Irene Pimentel in her second book quotes the allowances given by COMMASSIS to the refugees in stress. Lochery also says that the cost of a room in the most luxurious hotel in Lisbon was 6$PTE.But my guess is that this is original research and we are left with Rui Afonso's quote.JPratas (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Since we are discussing this on the Talk page, why don't you tell me how much this was in dollars, approximately, during the period in question. Beebop211 (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I’ve already been accused of engaging in original research and I don’t see any need in engaging ourselves in original research that involves converting currencies in 1940 and then try to see how much that would represent in the Hamptons or any other place in the US seventy four years later, when there is already a reliable source that tells you that the money SM was receiving was three times the one of a teacher. There is a book from Fernando Rosas, “Portugal entre a paz e a Guerra” (Portugal between peace and war) that says that the average salary of a blue color worker was 17$00 per day (page 350). JPratas (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm just curious, since you seemed so sure that the dollar equivalent I provided was wrong ($20). Do you think it's higher or lower than that? This is important because of your premise that Sousa Mendes' destitution was a result of his mishandling his "income." Remember, this is just the Talk page. Beebop211 (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
If the book Portugal entre a paz e a Guerra does not compare the half-salary of Sousa Mendes to the wage of a teacher or a blue-collar worker then the book cannot be used here as a reference. That kind of comparison is not allowed per WP:No original research. Every source we use here must mention Sousa Mendes if we want to have the best possible article. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I fully agree Binksternet,. That is what exactly what I’ve tried to convey. There are plenty of sources that mention the salary. Rui Afonso says that SM was receiving 1596$ (3 times the salary of a teacher). This number matches the numbers of the SM’s personal file at the Portuguese Ministry of Finance (primary source). This number also matches the number that SM said he was receiving when he wrote to the Portuguese bar association (another primary source). Professor Douglas Wheeler also says that SM was receiving approximately 1500$. Professor Lochery also quotes that he was being paid. Jose-Alain Fralon also mentions that in 1950 Mendes wrote to his twin saying “Pedro Nuno [his son], Maria Adelaide [his daughter in law] and their children [his grand-children] are in financial straits. My salary has been used up to pay for their outings (p. 133). It is very disruptive that with so many published secondary sources and reliable primary sources available and after this has been disputed in November this is still being discussed.JPratas (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Do these sources use the word "salary"? What is the term exactly that is used? Do they say this was the SAME AMOUNT that he had been earning as the Consul-General of Portugal in France? Do the sources state that he had no loss in income? Beebop211 (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Beebop211, author Rui Afonso uses the portuguese word “pensao” (pension). As to all other sources I believe you have access yourself so pls check it and come back to me should you require any further information. Sousa Mendes himself used the words “vencimento de aposentacao” that might be translated to “on call salary”. In fact he was kept on being listed in the Diplomatic Year Book until 1954.
Thank you. This is helpful. Beebop211 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
As to your question, Beebop211, on loss of income, all diplomats receive more money when they are posted abroad because as ex-pats they receive money for housing, school for kids, etc. The fact is that 1590$ was more than most people had in Portugal at that time and cannot be considered poverty. Certainly was not enough for the kind of living he wanted to have. In case you want to engage yourself in original research Irene Pimentel has a blog where she makes all kinds of analyses of cost of living during the war and also compares lots of salaries. Wikipedia does not allow you to publish original research, but my guess is that if you publish your original research in the SM Foundation then you will be able to quote it here. Because it is published. Why don’t you follow that route? If you have this option why not use it? I will be glad to direct you to sources and help you with this research. But It would be important that the SMF foundation website to be seen as credible, and therefore would not insist on saying that Portugal was “Pro-Hitler”, something that is not confirmed by extensive testimonials by British and American ambassadors at that time. This type of erros can only backfire.JPratas (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The Portuguese people were not anti-Semitic and the Portuguese consuls weren't either, but the government certainly was. Please see Milgram on this subject, which he explores at great length. Unfortunately it was the government's attitude that most influenced the fate of the refugees, which is why an estimated 10,000 people were stranded at the French/Spanish border on June 24, 1940 after the government ordered it sealed. A lot of those people ended up dead. Fortunately the Portuguese people were very welcoming, and made the refugees' experiences (for those who managed to enter) as bearable as possible. Did the government's policy change later in the war when it became clear that the allies would win? Yes, it did, and that is where the stories of Branquinho, Leite Pinto, etc. etc. start to become relevant. But we are speaking in THIS essay about 1940. Beebop211 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I had this same dispute with Redmoon660 (talk · contribs) (note that Redmoon660 is a name change from "Sousa Mendes Foundation"). And on the same day I provided this evidence user Redmoon660 went silent and was imediatelly replaced by Coimbralove (talk · contribs) who recently gave positive in an SPI investigation,Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Redmoon660. Although the master (Redmoon0660) has been inactive, Coimbralove and Beebop211 (talk · contribs) have been confirmed to each other. And althought I’ve been enduring months of disruptive editing by these connected users, I’ve stated in the SPI investigation that I have no wish to ban users who support the SM Foundation. But we must all pledge to respect the wikipedia policies.JPratas (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Gee, how kind of you not to request that I be banned. Beebop211 (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Books and studies published by independent scholars and that specifaclly address the Sousa Mendes episode.

There is no mention of Sousa Mendes in this article that I could find. Did I miss something? Beebop211 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, but with the understanding that this book is excellent for general context but a poor source where Sousa Mendes is concerned. Beebop211 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not familiar with this book and cannot comment. Beebop211 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Milgram, Avraham (2011). Portugal, Salazar, and the Jews. Yad Vashem. p. 324. ISBN 9789653083875.
OK, but similar to Lochery: excellent on context but slipshod on Sousa Mendes. For Sousa Mendes, the leading Yad Vashem authority is Mordecai Paldiel, who has published extensively on the "Righteous Among the Nations" in general and on the "Righteous Diplomats" in particular. But I have no problem with presenting them both, and noting where they disagree. Beebop211 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, but with the same caveat as above. Beebop211 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC) I just reread it, and it's better than I remembered, although self-contradictory in a few places. There also appear to be a few errors of translation. But we can certainly use it as a source. Beebop211 (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Pimentel, Irene; Ninhos, Claudia (2013). Salazar, Portugal e o Holocausto (in Portuguese). Lisbon. p. 908. ISBN 9789896442217.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
I have this book, but cannot read it since it's in Portuguese. I understand it's excellent but would not be able to verify that her points are being accurately summarized by JPratas. Beebop211 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine. It's kind of a sloppy article, filled with typos, but generally reliable. Beebop211 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Other Books - Milgram calls them "Popular Literature" aiming "to raise the Sousa Mendes' deeds. But good to tackle issues that are not addressed by scholars such as: Who was Rabin Kruger? Why did SM died in a dire financial situation? Why was he Ostracized? ".

  • Alain-Fralon, Jose (2011). A Good Man in Evil Times: Aristides De Sousa Mendes - the Unknown Hero Who Saved Countless Lives in WWII. England: Penguin Books Ltd. p. 192. ISBN 9780140286700.
Yes, that's fine. But you mistated the author's last name, which is Fralon and not "Alain-Fralon." Beebop211 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Afonso, Rui (2011). Um homem bom: Aristides de Sousa Mendes, o "Wallenberg portugues" (in Portuguese). Lisbon: Editorial Caminho. p. 354. ISBN 9789722110044.
Again, since it's in Portuguese, I would have no way of judging if JPratas is accurately characterizing its contents. However, Afonso did write an essay in French, which I can read, and JPratas says he has no problem with French sources, so we should have no trouble agreeing on using the French article instead. I also have no problem using the Portuguese book to confirm the identities of visa recipients, because that info is easy to decipher. Beebop211 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page. If anyone needs help see help with translationsJPratas (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Denial books, by Historian Saraiva and Ambassador Themido

  • Saraiva, José Hermano (2007). Album de Memórias (in Portuguese). Lisbon: Portuguese Diplomatic Institute - Portuguese Foreign Ministry. ISBN 9789898140012.
Absolutely not. This is a notorious smear job by someone who doesn't know his facts. Beebop211 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. Wikpedia says that in such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; Professor Saraiva is one of the most popular historians in Portugal, having been the presenter, for decades, of weekly documentary series of historical divulgation in Portuguese Public TV. His published views on SM have been published in his memoires and on the second biggest weekly newspaper in Portugal.JPratas (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Saraiva claims that "some Jew" decided that Sousa Mendes saved a lot of people and that now everyone believes it. Well, that "Jew" is named Ilja Dijour, and he happens to be a highly credible source since he was a HIAS official based in Lisbon and himself a Sousa Mendes visa recipient. This book is a smear job, not a "POV." Beebop211 (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
No. Beebop211 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Interviews after those books that got significant media atention

No. Beebop211 (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
No. "A myth created by Jews." Anti-semitism, anyone? Beebop211 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Just for the talk page - Interest readings that provide context & Book Reviews:

  • Pereira, Pedro Teotónio (1987). "Correspondência de Pedro Teotónio Pereira Oliveira Salazar" (in Portuguese). Presidência do Conselho de Ministros. Comissão do Livro Negro sobre o Regime Fascista.
No. Beebop211 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Hayes, Carlton J.H. (2009). Wartime mission in Spain, 1942-1945. Macmillan Company 1st Edition. p. 313. ISBN 9781121497245.
This has nothing to do with the events of 1940. Beebop211 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Pimentel, Irene (2012). Jewish refugees and anti-Nazis among the Portuguese during the Second World War. Postdam. p. 55. Power Point Document. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help) -This is an interesting power point for those wanting to geet acquainted with the subjet. The power point can be easily googled and downloaded but the link cannot be inculded in wikipedia. The ppt is by Portuguese scholar Pimentel. She wrote, toghether with Claudia Ninhos what is probably the most extensive research on Portugal and the Holocaus. A 900 pages study.
I am not familiar with this. Beebop211 (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
You can google it and download it. It is factual and Neutral.JPratas (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In orde to preserve the list I suggest we sign here:

1 - Created and Last edit by JPratas (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC) 2 - Added a power point from Pimentel - Cofrence in Postdam - 2012JPratas (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There are many other relevant sources aside from the above, including three full-length recent monographs in French. There is a huge literature on Sousa Mendes as well as several documentary films. Beebop211 (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Moving Forward

Binksternet, Cullen328, Please let me know how do you want to move forward in order to improve the article. Did you have time to familiarize yourselves with the online sources I've provided? Can we start moving forward tackling the early life chapter? What about sources? Do you agree adding a "Sources" chapter to the article just like in the Oskar Schindler article? Do you agree with the list I've provided? Part of it? More? Please let me know how can I be of assistance.JPratas (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Early Life - Moving Forward

Binksternet, Cullen328, This article needs to be a complete biography of SM whole life, with emphasis of course on the events of 1940 and the aftermath. It needs a section similar to the one I've pointed to in Oskar Schindler for the same reason as with that article. That is a good article and this one isn't. Researchers looking at the personality characteristics of the "righteous Gentiles" and other similar people who risked all to save others need to see a broad view of these people's character. Is there a streak of rebelliousness that is a common characteristic, and a willingness to depart from social norms?

I understand Cullen328 agrees with me due the several paragraphs he wrote using almost these exact same words.

I therefore propose that the following paragraphs are included in the “Early Life” section

Along his career Sousa Mendes had several incidents with the Portuguese Foreign Office. In August 1919, while he was in Brazil, he faced disciplinary proceedings, for using public money, from the consulate, for his private use. Sousa Mendes defended himself explaining he had financial problems and had been "forced to take out a loan in order to provide for his family needs". He was suspended for two years.[1] In 1938 he again run into financial problems and was subject to disciplinary procedures because he had been late in transferring funds to the ministry.[2] In 1923, while posted in San Francisco, Sousa Mendes clashed with the local Portuguese community, because he was enforcing a contribution to a charity institution to which the American Portuguese refused. Sousa Mendes defended himself making public statements to a local newspapers. The Portuguese community got divided with part of the community taking sides with Sousa Mendes. Ultimately the conflict lead to the US Department of State canceling his consular exequatur and banning him from his consular services in the US.[3][4]. JPratas (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Fralon p.17
  2. ^ Fralon p39
  3. ^ Afonso, Rui - pag 193
  4. ^ Articles available online at the ASM Virtual Museum [[1]]

Early Life - Corrections Explained

Corrections to Early Life Chapter

1) San Francisco was not an embassy, but a consulate. Embassies are only located in a nation’s capital, in this case, Washington.

2) Mendes was posted to San Francisco in 1921 not 1920.

3) Unlike his twin Aristides Mendes was not from the diplomatic career. He was from the consular officer career path. Unlike diplomats, consuls do not get involved in politics, neither enjoy the same level of diplomatic immunity, they handle bureaucracy such as processing visas or passports, including reviewing and reconciling visa, passport issuance, report of birth, etc. That is why Milgram and Wheeler say that he was a low-rank official.

4) The sentence: “The news reports reached the Portuguese Ministry of Foreign Affairs which responded in 1924 by recalling Sousa Mendes to Portugal because of his serious diplomatic mistake” is inaccurate. No source says that the MNE called Mendes back to Portugal. The fact is that he ignored all the warnings from the Ministry and he ended up expelled by the American authorities. The Portuguese Ministry did not recall him, they shifted him to Brazil. He is recalled to Lisbon after Brazil in 1926. All this can be verified at Rui Afonso, 1995, pag 193, but can be verified in other sources, such as the case of the Coimbra University Press, “Nationalism and Americanism in Journalistic Dispute, Aristides de Sousa Mendes and the Portuguese Community of San Francisco” that asserts the following “The discussion evolved to such a point that the American government denied Sousa Mendes exequatur and the Portuguese Foreign Office was forced to transfer him.”

5) With the coup of May 28, 1926, Mendes was appointed consul in Vigo, Spain. Sousa Mendes was a monarchist, and while in Vigo he collaborated with the dictatorship. In 1929, when he was stationed in Vigo, he referred to himself as “the right person to oversee and annihilate all the conspiracies, conducted by Portuguese political refugees, conspiring against the Portuguese dictatorship (...) in managing this delicate mission I have made countless efforts with the Spanish authorities in order to provide the Portuguese dictatorship with the information needed to destroy all revolutionary maneuvers”.[1]

6) The Sousa Mendes Track Record of incidents also include in 1928[2] while in Vigo, 1932 while in Antwerp and 1938 in Bordeaux, he was subject to disciplinary proceedings because he had been late in transferring consulate funds to the ministry. Also in July 1935 following certain statements made in public on the occasion of the Portuguese Pavilion at the Brussels Exposition. Another brought by dispatch of 26-7-1935 owing to irregularities in the consular accounts. Another case of disciplinary proceedings was brought by dispatch of 5 August 1938 because he left his post (Antwerp) without leave and without the knowledge of this Ministry or of the Legation in Brussels, etc. I’ve opted to summarize all these events in one short sentence.

In general, you are trying to make Sousa Mendes look bad. I don't mind corrections to obvious errors but I do oppose the addition of so much information about the "track record of incidents". Even Rui Afonso softened his stance about Sousa Mendes being disciplined for his track record of incidents prior to the granting of too many visas to Jews. According to Avraham Milgram, Rui Afonso's first book was strongly of the stance that Sousa Mendes was disciplined for his intrigues, but Afonso's second book was less focused on this aspect. Why are you trying to defend Afonso's initial position?
Also, you must stop using primary source papers as your references. Instead, you should limit yourself to references written by biographers such as Milgram, Fralon and Afonso. You cannot simply say "Articles available online at the ASM Virtual Museum", or the source being the "Arquivo Histórico Diplomático". Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
If Sousa Mendes had his exequatur cancelled by the United States Government this is an extremely relevant fact in a consul’s career therefore it should be included in the article in neutral language and this should not be open for discussion. Again, if along his career Mendes faced several disciplinary proceedings it should be in the article. I don’t know what do you mean when you refer to Rui Afonso’s second book. The second book is very candid about these incidents; actually in the case of San Francisco incident it is highly critical about the Mendes’ lack of diplomacy in handling the whole dispute. And if you read what actually came out in the press in 1923 you will be far more shocked, among other things the directors of the Cult of the Holy Spirit also accused Mendes of canceling their attorney licenses in order to keep all the consulate fees for himself. What I wrote in the article is a soft neutral version of the dispute. If you want we can escalate this to an administrator as I don’t see why important well sourced facts, extensively published in primary and secondary reliable sources should be excluded from the article base on spurious grounds. Censoring these facts makes as much sense as hiding that S. Paul chased Christians or that Osacar Schindler was Nazi and drunk. JPratas (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
One last thing. In 1926 Portugal was not a Monarchy. Was a Republic. The republican regime was instated in Portugal on October 5 2010. JPratas (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
This article was completely written by a sock puppet of Redmoon660 (an account formerly named Sousa Mendes Foundation). The article is POV, has several historical inaccuracies, was obviously written by someone lacking knowledge of Portuguese history and without access to Portuguese sources (that in this case are extremely relevant). I can contribute to improving the article and your help could also be extremely useful in this task. Please let us work together. JPratas (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Your own goal is to make Sousa Mendes look very bad, to chip away at his glorified status as a national hero of Portugal. That makes you just as guilty of POV, but in the other direction. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
My goal is to have a NPOV and I am contributing to it. I don’t want to start rebating general statements and accusations. The fact is that the exequatur cancelation is extremely relevant and you are damaging Wikipedia by censoring it. If you want other sources besides Rui Afonso you might want to read the complete story in a 16 pages article published by the University of Coimbra (the same University where Mendes graduated and one of the most reputed universities in Europe). You can read it in this link [2] and if you cannot read Portuguese you can read the summary in English in this link [3]. I will not strat edit warring. I had enough of that with the sock puppets that have written the article and left it in the current bad shap. I am willing to work with you but we must enter a cooperative mood, otherwise we would better escalate this JPratas (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
You are not editing from the NPOV, JPratas. Your editing history shows quite clearly that you are devoted to making Sousa Mendes look bad. Your editing is increasingly tendentious. In my opinion, you should stop all such editing now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
This is what you have said before Cullen328:“I have expressed my opinion several times that the article needs to cover his pre-war loss of consular assignments, his political views, his personal financial and marital problems, and any other controversial claims, in a balanced neutral way. It is a biography of his whole life. This should be done in a way similar to how such issues are addressed at Oskar Schindler” and you also said “I think that the article needs to be a complete biography of his whole life, with emphasis of course on the events of 1940 and the aftermath. It needs a section similar to the one I've pointed to in Oskar Schindler for the same reason as with that article. That is a good article and this one isn't, at least in part because of your (Beepbop221) determined efforts to keep even well-referenced negative information out”
My latest edits aim to be in line with what you said. Can you please specify where they were not? JPratas (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The tone, tenor and connotations of your proposed edits are consistently unbalanced and lack neutrality. You seem either unwilling or unable to write neutral English language prose, at least with regards to Sousa Mendes. There is no doubt that you are in command of the sources. There is also no doubt that you are here to pursue an agenda, which is crystal clear to any uninvolved editor who wades through the mountains of text you churn out. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes I am in command of the sources and I’ve been sharing all of them Cullen328. It is the history of my country and most literature is in Portuguese. I’ve been polite, patient and cooperative. My recent edits have improved the article. You’ve already recognized the article needs to be improved. My English is poor and although I try to write in neutral language I might not be successful but I welcome revisions. If the tone was not the most Adequate I beg your pardon and I beg you to correct it. I am, and have been, willing to work under your guidance. Are you willing to work with me to improve the article? JPratas (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
In the meantime I’ve seen your latest revision Cullen328. I must say that most of the language you’ve deleted\softened was not my language. (e.g. “serious diplomatic mistake” was not my editing). If this editing made you anger I am not the one to be blamed. I just have two minor suggestions related with your editing. 1) “Stories about this disagreement was published in local newspapers” is not accurate. What really happened was that both sides published their “insults” (to use Milgram’s expression) in the local newspapers. Mendes want to enforce a contribution to a Brasil based charity institution. Instead the community decided to give money to an American Hospital. Mendes did not like that and canceled their licenses to work as attorneys to the consulate. The community went public and Mendes also went public insulting them(despite all the warnings he received from the Portuguese embassy in Washington). Both sides made their dispute public, not a stories were published. 2)Mendes was posted to San Francisco on June 11, 1921 and not in 1920.JPratas (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Fralon says 1920 San Francisco: "Aristides was reinstated in 1920 and posted to San Francisco, where his ninth child Carlos, was born that same year." I don't think Fralon gets the year right for Carlos (most likely born in 1922 in the city of Berkeley, not '21 or '20) but it is possible that Sousa Mendes received his assignment and was traveling to San Francisco in 1920. Anne Treseder writes that Pedro Nuno de Sousa Mendes was born on 29 April 1920 in Coimbra,[4] so the sailing ship passage would have to be after May 1920. Fralon says further that the San Francisco diplomatic dispute started this way: "The consul ran into some problems with certain associations of Portuguese residents in that city, because he [Sousa Mendes] had stood up for his poorest compatriots when they protested against the working conditions to which they were subjected by their employers who were also Portuguese but much better off." If we are to describe the dispute in further detail it should be noted that Sousa Mendes was trying to help the working man. Fralon says Sebastião was born in 1923, supported by other sources, so he is correct with regard to this year. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Are you willing to work with me to improve the article? JPratas (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I copy edited the article without regards to whether or not the content was written by you. I will try to improve the article, but as I have made clear, I do not trust your objectivity in this matter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I know that Cullen328. You don’t need to repeat it all the time. But you trusted Beepbop221 and see what happened. At least give me an opportunity. Remember that I've made the mistake of battling with 3 sock puppets trying to twist facts. It can be exasperating. Makes one loose objectivity. How would you feel if you had to “quarrel” with someone, from another country, to whom you would need to explain that 4th of July is Independence Day? Can you imagine yourself in that position? How would you feel? This is how I feel sometimes. The article is improving. Anyone interested in studying Mendes already has access to more information and easy access to a detailed list of sources. Why don’t we try to keep on improving the article and then have it reviewed by an administrator?JPratas (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC

I didn't trust that other editor either, as I made clear, and that person is not the only one trying to twist facts. Experienced editors have all had many interactions with people pushing a point of view over the years. So it goes. What makes you think that an administrator has any more power to review articles than any other editor? Reviewing articles is not an administrative function. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Cullen328 Please read the article on Pedro Teotónio Pereira and tell me: Do you really think it makes any sense to call this man a Nazi? Like Beepbop221 did? With the American ambassador and the British ambassador saying exactly the opposite. This is not NPOV this is false! Please read carefully “Neutrality by Agreement “ [5] and tell me if you can honestly say that Salazar was “Pro-Hitler” like the SMF says. Portugal's Nationalism was not grounded on race or biology. In 1934 Salazar made it clear that Portuguese Nationalism did not include pagan anti-human ideals that glorified a race, and in 1937, he published a book where he criticized the ideals behind the Nuremberg laws[3] and in 1938 he sent a telegram to the Portuguese Embassy in Berlin ordering that it should be made clear to the German Reich that Portuguese law did not allow any distinction based on race and therefore Portuguese Jewish citizens could not be discriminated against.[4] In 1937, Adolfo Benarus, Honorary Chairman of COMASSIS[5] and a leader of the Lisbon’s Jewish Community, published a book wherein he rejoiced with the fact that there was no anti-Semitism in Portugal.[6] In 2011, Yad Vashem historian Avraham Milgram said that modern anti-Semitism failed "to establish even a toehold in Portugal"[7] while it grew racist and virulent elsewhere in early twentieth-century Europe. Why is all this being twisted? Off course the Sousa Mendes’ story gains more glamour if Teotonio Pereira was a Nazi. And there you have it. To raise the deeds of Sousa Mendes the others are denigrated. Who has an agenda? Wh is raising funds? Not me. Why is it being hidden that Mendes received a ifetime allowance 3 times the salary of a teacher? JPratas (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
That last passage is pretty much a textbook example of tendentious editing. I do not need to answer any of your off-topic questions, which have nothing to do with improving this article. In my opinion, you should spend a few months editing in areas that have nothing whatsoever to do with Portuguese politics, and closely observing the wide range of ways that people try to misuse Wikipedia to advance their personal points of view. Then, perhaps, you can return to this article with a more helpful attitude. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Fralon is wrong on San Francisco

Binksternet I have no wish to further detail the San Francisco episode, but Fralon is wrong and this is the reason why I’ve been pointing out the importance of primary sources. Sousa Mendes was appointed to San Francisco in 1921 (not 1920) after having been suspended for two years. Primary sources can easily clear this out. There is the document that officially appoints him and there are also the newspapers articles, from 1921, announcing his arrival. Fralon is also wrong when he says that Mendes was protecting the working men. This assertion is not confirmed neither by primary sources (newspapers from 1921, letters exchanged between Mendes and the Ministry) neither it is confirmed by the 16 pages article published by the Coimbra University Press, neither it is confirmed by Rui Afonso.

The fact are as follows:

1. Mendes wanted to raise funds for the “Comissão Pró-Pátria do Rio de Janeiro” to help orphans of war in Rio, Brazil.

2. Mendes became aware the Cult of the Holy Spirit organization had decided to donate funds to the American Red Cross and to the Sacred Heart Hospital in Hanford, California instead of donating funds to the organization he favoured.

3. On Setember 24, 1923, Mendes published an article accusing the directors of the Cult of the Holy Spirit of lack of love and respect for Portugal and he also banned the Portuguese notaries from performing any further services to the consulate.

4. The dispute went on in the form of insults being published both by Mendes and the directors of the Cult of the Holy Spirit. These last ones accused Mendes of banning their notary services because he wanted to keep the notary fees for himself.

5. On December 1923 the Ministry sent a telegram to Mendes ordering him to stop publishing articles in the newspapers.

6. On January 1924 the Ministry sent to Mendes a long official letter telling him that he was damaging the prestige of the consulate, reminding him that the local community was free to choose the institutions to whom they elected to donate funds to and that his decision to ban the notaries was illegal and should be reverted immediately. He was also warned that the American authorities would also not approve his conduct.

7. Mendes kept on with his fight and he ended up with his exequatur canceled and being transferred to a remote location ( Maranhao-Brasil)

I don’t think all this detail should be in a Wikipedia article. I just want to call your attention for the need to be very careful when dealing with popular literature such as the case of Fralon’s book Avraham Milgram said the same about popular literature and the number of visas. Milgram looked into the primary sources and concluded that the 30,000 is a myth and he said it out loud. Have in mind that three scholars (Milgram, Wheeler and Lochery) have pointed out the efforts made by popular literature to raise the deeds of Mendes in order to compare him to Wallenberg and how unreasonable that is. We should not rely on popular literature to establish a benchmark and then say “denigrate” to anything that discredits popular literature. Wikipedia should not be the echo of Popular LiteratureJPratas (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Please provide detailed citations to the San Francisco newspaper coverage of the incident. I will go to the San Francisco Public Library and see if I can get copies of those articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Cullen328 I don’t know if there were any articles covering the dispute. What I know is that both sides published articles insulting each other. The articles are available online on the Sousa Mendes Virtual Museum but they are all in Portuguese. All this happened on the local Portuguese newspapers (“A Liberdade”, “Jornal de Noticias”, etc.. Most of the letters that Mendes exchanged with the Ministry are also available online but are also written in Portuguese. I once saw an article in English giving notice of Mendes upcoming arrival. But that is all. I read it in one newspaper web archives. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance.JPratas (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Circular 14

The chapter did not reflect correctly the actual historical context neither the views from reputed scholars. In 1934 Salazar made it clear that Portuguese Nationalism did not include pagan anti-human idealsthat glorified a race, and in 1937, he published a book where he criticized the ideals behind the Nuremberg laws.[8] In 1938 he sent a telegram to the Portuguese Embassy in Berlin ordering that it should be made clear to the German Reich that Portuguese law did not allow any distinction based on race and therefore Portuguese Jewish citizens could not be discriminated against.[9][10]

In 1937, Adolfo Benarus, Honorary Chairman of COMASSIS[11] and a leader of the Lisbon’s Jewish Community published a book where he rejoiced with the fact that there was no anti-Semitism in Portugal.[12]

Portugal was not in a position to absorb a large influx of temporary residents and Sousa Mendes' twin, Cesar, Portuguese Ambassador in Warsaw when Poland approved several anti-Semitic laws, wrote to the ministry asking for the adoption of measures to prevent the immigration of Polish Jews into Portugal.[13][14]

Between September 1939 and December 1939, approximately 9,000 refugees entered in Portugal.[13] Passport forgery and false statements had become common and the police felt the need for a tighter control.[15] A country of Portugal’s diminutive size was necessarily wary of a large influx of temporary residents.[16]

Preserving neutrality required cautiousness. Along the war Germany put in place several plans to take military positions in Iberia: Operation Felix, Führer Directives No. 18, Operation Isabella. Portugal's emigration policies were far less restrictive than those of the Allies. Great Britain cancelled all issued visas when the war started and in May 1939 the British Parliament had already approved measures that severely limited Jewish entry into Palestine. As to the United States, when the country entered World War II, the State Department practiced stricter immigration policies out of fear that refugees could be blackmailed into working as agents for Germany.

Well sourced views from Milgram and Lochery, two reputed scholars, add value to the chapter. JPratas (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Number of Visas

In previous discussions Cullen328 wrote the following:

“If the preponderance of the literature is repeating a myth, and more recent scholarship shows he was paid, then we should state that in a neutral, well referenced way”. And also

“The article as now written does not accurately reflect Avraham Milgram's comments on the matter of visa numbers in his 1999 article available online on the Yad Vashem website, which says that "the discrepancy between the reality and the myth of the number of visas granted by Sousa Mendes is great. Nevertheless, we must conclude that the majority of Jews who, in the summer of 1940, succeeded in crossing the Pyrenees and Spain to the Portuguese border, did so thanks to Sousa Mendes." I read that as saying that the generally accepted number of 30,000 total and 10,000 Jews is incorrect, but that error does not detract from the significance of his humanitarian acts. Milgram wrote that 15 years ago. Did he retract it is his book? Have other scholars challenged his conclusion? If not, the article should reflect what Milgram says in those two sentences. As a matter of fact, I think that they should be quoted in the article.”

I tried to accomplish it within the guideline. I believe it is well referenced and I hope I´ve used neutral English language. Since I am not native in English I might have not been 100% successful. Revisions are welcome.JPratas (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sousa Mendes' money problems

Below some references that I tried to condense in one simple neutral paragraph.

Fralon

  • They could have stayed more [in Brazi] if Sousa Mendes, in August 1919, had not been temporarily suspended…he wrote to his superiors on May 22 1920 explained that he had financial problems and had been forced to take out a loan in order to provide for family needs”." (Pag 17)
  • “He was someone who always spent without counting the cost and believed that the mere idea of balancing one’s budget showed lack of breeding” (pag 18)
  • “after asking his brother for a further loan to help pay for the statue of Christ the King”. (pag 38)
  • “He again ran into financial problems. On top of that he was subject to disciplinary procedures because he had been late in transferring funds to the ministry. In 1938..”. pag 39.
  • “Sousa Mendes had always had financial problems, but now they were getting steadily worse. He never had any money sense, and Adrée even less so than he.” Pag 136
  • The people of Cabanas de Viriato also did not take much to Andrée, "the foreigner" whom they held responsible for the family misfortunes. They criticized her for having "ruined" Sousa Mendes and gradually sold off all the furniture in the family mansion, Passal (pag 138)

Lochery

  • On top of this allegations, other historical examples of Sousa Mendes getting into trouble have been chronicled elsewhere, notably over a case involving a contribution to a charity while he was in S. Francisco in 1923. The fact that Sousa Mendes had a large family to support was a fact in some of the suspicious raises against him. With fourteen children, many of whom were still living at home in 1940, making ends meet could not have been easy on his relatively low level diplomatic salary.(p. 47)

Afonso

  • Afonso also mentions Mendes money problems, several times. For example, on page 307 he says that: His twin Cesar, his brother Joao Paulo and his cousin Silverio, all had serious disputes with Arisitides on account of Andrée's bad spending habits.p.307 etc..JPratas (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

June 19th - Eugene S Bagger Testimonial

For the heathen are wrong: An impersonal autobiography by Eugene S Bagger

Tuesday, June 18th… We went to the American Consulate and secured letters to the Spanish and Portuguese consuls. Returning to the Spanish Consulate, I was admitted at once. The consul was polite but firm. “It is absolutely impossible for me to give you a visa unless you have your Portuguese visa first. Go get it…The line at the Portuguese Consulate formed up a narrow staircase. The office was on the third floor… I got into line and waited… The thing was obviously hopeless… I stood on the staircase in front of a window between the stories. The window opened. Behind it stood the Portuguese consul, whom I had met several times before. “But my dear Mr. Bagger, what a delicious surprise!…” The window closed. The pushing and elbowing on the staircase grew more and more desperate. At 7 o’clock I gave it up…
Wednesday, June 19th. At 9 a.m. there was a mob of four hundred in front of the Portuguese Consulate. Half a dozen soldiers, with steel helmets and fixed bayonets, struggled to maintain a kind of order. I waited in line till 11 o’clock. No use.
We went back to the terrace of the [Hotel] Splendide, to have a drink… I stepped into the café to find the waiter. There at the table sat the Portuguese consul, having an aperitif with a friend. He hailed me. “But my dear Mr. Bagger, I am desolate about yesterday—the heat—the crowds—overwork—” “Why not give me a visa here and now?” “But certainly, my dear friend, but certainly.” He whipped out a fountain pen, scribbled something in our passports. “Here you are. All you have to do now is to go back to the Consulate and have them stamped.” I said nothing. There was nothing to say.
It was then that the miracle happened. A distinguished-looking man approached, in his hand half a dozen passports. “My dear Monsieur Skalski, with the greatest pleasure,” said the consul. “Monsieur Skalski—Mr. Bagger.” He signed the passports. M. Skalsi said, “You want your passports stamped? Come along.” I went. M. Skalski explained. He was the Polish consul at Arcachon. He had been honorary Portuguese consul in Poland. He had his credentials with him. At the Consulate … the steel-helmeted corporal, overawed by M. Skalski’s diplomatic passport, saluted and let him pass. Five minutes later M. Skalski handed me our two passports, duly stamped…JPratas (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
What is the point that you are trying to make by posting this material, JPratas? Is it copyrighted? If so, please remove it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Several points Cullen328 . First point is that I fail to understand why Eugene Bagger is quoted in the list of people who received visas from Mendes. Like you once said: What is so special about Mendes giving a visa to Eugene Bagger, an American citizen, if this is what he was supposed to be doing and was being paid for?
Second point. There were several attempts to delete from the article the letter that the British Embassy sent to the Portuguese Ministry where the British complained that Mendes was delaying the visas granted to British citizens. Read Bagger carefully. He says that the Spanish consul received him “at once” while when he tried to get the visa from Mendes he went through a nightmare “the pushing and elbowing on the staircase grew more and more desperate. At 7 o’clock I gave it up…". He had waited for one day and he says the line with a few hundred people did not move. The following day he queued again for the whole morning to no avail, then went to a hotel where he found Mendes having an aperitif with a friend (instead of being at the consulate). He finally ended up being helped by a Pole, not Mendes. This testimonial from Bagger does not exactly match the “assembly line process”(June 17 to 18th), Does it?
Note that after getting their Portuguese visas these people still had to go to the Spanish consulate, and at least in Bagger’s case, he was received at once.
In the end when you read the visa registry book you will count aprox 600 visas granted between June 17 and June 20. Many of them granted to Portuguese, British and Americans.
I am not saying all this to be able to publish what can be considered original research but to support published vies such as Milgram’s, Themido or Saraiva.
This was published between 1923 and 63, I believe it is no longer copyrighted.JPratas (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aristides de Sousa Mendes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Aristides de Sousa Mendes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Arquivo Histórico Diplomático
  2. ^ Arquivo Contemporâneo do Ministério das Finanças, Carta dactilografada, fls.1, Processo/Cota ACMF/DGCP/07/005/002A
  3. ^ Salazar, António de Oliveira – “Como se Levanta um Estado”, ISBN 9789899537705
  4. ^ Dez anos de Politica Externa, Vol 1, pag 137. Edicao Imprensa Nacional 1961
  5. ^ Portuguese Committee for the Assistance of Jewish Refugees in Portugal (COMASSIS), which was led by Augusto Esaguy and Elias Baruel, and had Moses Amzalak and Adolfo Benarus as its honorary chairmen,
  6. ^ Benarus, Adolfo – “O Antisemitismo” - 1937 ( Lisboa : Sociedade Nacional de Tipografia)
  7. ^ Avraham Milgram, Portugal, Salazar, and the Jews, Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 2011, p.11.
  8. ^ Salazar, António de Oliveira – “Como se Levanta um Estado”, ISBN 9789899537705
  9. ^ Dez anos de Politica Externa, Vol 1, pag 137. Edicao Imprensa Nacional 1961
  10. ^ This characteristic of the Portuguese regime has raised some curiosity. Apart from deeper aspects of Portuguese culture, it inevitably led to speculation about Salazar's Jewish ancestry. Apparently, Salazar knew about his Jewish forebears and was proud of it. See ERENSIA SEFARDI, WINTER 7 (1997) (quoting from manuscript by Albert
  11. ^ Portuguese Committee for the Assistance of Jewish Refugees in Portugal (COMASSIS), which was led by Augusto Esaguy and Elias Baruel, and had Moses Amzalak and Adolfo Benarus as its honorary chairmen.
  12. ^ Benarus, Adolfo – “O Antisemitismo” - 1937 ( Lisboa : Sociedade Nacional de Tipografia)
  13. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Pimentel was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ There are three letters from Cesar Sousa Mendes in the Historical Archives of the Portuguese Foreign Office, asking for adoption of measures to prevent the immigration of Polish Jews into Portugal. - “AHDMNE, carta de César de Sousa Mendes para o ministro do MNE, , 2.ºP, A. 43, M. 38 B, pasta “Passaporte de indivíduos sem nacionalidade”.
  15. ^ Before 1939 the Portuguese Police had already dismantled several criminal networks responsible for passport forgeries and several consuls had been expelled from service also for falsifying passports.See: Pimentel, "Irene Judeus em Portugal Durante a II Guerra Mundial"
  16. ^ Weber, Ronald "The Lisbon Route: Entry and Escape in Nazi Europe"
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aristides_de_Sousa_Mendes/Archive_4&oldid=1072572587"