Talk:1964 Brazilian coup d'état

Proposed merger (1964 Brazilian coup d'état > Brazilian 1964 Revolution)

• Support: All of the sources that I have encountered have referred to "the 1964 coup," so I am logically biased in favor of keeping 1964 Brazilian coup d'état. However, all of my sources are English texts, so it would be interesting to receive some input from a Brazilian citizen or anyone with a strong command of the Portuguese language. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 23:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC))
• Very Strong Support: However, since Brazilian 1964 Revolution is completely POV and inacurate I think it would best be deleted, not merged. Revolution is a term used by the coup supporters, and only by them.Chico 00:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not support th merger, the othe one is too short.

How can we delete the Categories:unsourced articles?

--Ludovicapipa ^yes? 11:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries about the merger: the debate has already ended, and the statements above regard an earlier merger request regarding a different article which was deleted per a CfD debate.

The unsourced articles category will remain until all of the {citation needed} templates have been removed. I plan to address the last citation needed template by the weekend. Regards, --(Ptah, the El Daoud 17:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

Ok, then. I didn´t know it should be there because of a single {citation needed}. I thought only when there was plenty tags like that. How long it wil ltak to decide the merger? I think this article can be developed even more, there is a lot os history there.

--Ludovicapipa ^yes? 12:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The new merger debate is over: the old page was deleted, and that page was redirected here (this was done by another user, but I am in complete agreement with the decision). I revised your latest edits; tinker with them at will, and let me know what you think. I also added a {huh} template (which readers of the page read as: "clarify" ), as I think that the victory of Diretas Já needs to be explained in greater detail... I completely agree with you that this page needs quite a bit more work, and I also plan on adding and editing more when I have the time. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 03:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

Diretas Já

I've reinstated the {huh} (clarify) template within the sentence regarding Diretas Já, as I think that readers who are unfamiliar with the movement will need more information to understand its role and purpose. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

Well, Diretas Já, gathered 1.5 million people claimming for democracy: "finally respond" means that they would get what they wanted after so many years fighting for it!!

Is it clear for you now?

--Ludovicapipa ^yes? 22:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that my newest edit is sufficient:

In 1984, the 1.5 million activists in Diretas Já, the nation´s largest pro-democracy social movement, finally forced the government to respond to the popular demand for direct presidential elections, and by 1989, Brazil democratically elected its first president since the 1964 coup, the right-wing candidate Fernando Collor de Mello. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 16:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Democratic mobilization against democratix lef-wing presidents?

Hello Ptah, Can you please explain to me how come a conutry with democratic left-wing presidents could have also faced widely social democratical movements? I also want to know who are these left wing democratic presidents? As far as I know, Lula da Silva is the first left-wing to governe the country.

--Ludovicapipa ^yes? 20:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, I think you may have misunderstood one edit. The original statement, "as the nation had been democratically governed by a string of populist left-wing Presidents," is, in fact, correct: Juscelino Kubitschek de Oliveira, Jânio Quadros and João Goulart were all populist left-wingers. As the intent of the statement was not clear, I have rewritten it: "As the political climate had become more divisive under the populist left-wing administrations of Juscelino Kubitschek, Jânio Quadros and João Goulart,..." Surely you agree with this new version? --Ptah, the El Daoud

It indeed look better, in my opinion, to say the names of those socialist presidents. Janio QUdros offered a medal to Che Guevarra at his office, which caused much shame to the majority of brazilian society. Although I stiil believe that they are not left-wing, but had "more" social worries. --Ludovicapipa

Perhaps it is an issue of translation: in English, left-wing refers to all branches of the political left, from the extreme (Communism, Anarchism) to the moderate (Social democracy, Trade unionism, Social liberalism and Environmentalism).--Ptah, the El Daoud

Secondly, my recent cited additions regarding the mobilization of the left (by Brizola and others), explain that this mobilization was openly taking place in order to protect the left-wing President Goulart (and therefore the federal government and the constitution) from a military rebellion or a right-wing civil insurrection. I also pointed out, with a citation, that these pro-government left-wing militias failed to form and resist when the right-wing civilians and the military came together for the '64 coup we are discussing. --Ptah, the El Daoud

Finally, I have cut your new paragraph, quoted in full at the end of this edit, for several reasons:

1) the military's belief in a supposedly imminent communist threat is already mentioned in the second sentence of the article. An additional citation is welcome, but should be added to the citation already present at the end of this sentence;

But I´d like to maintain because this is a very important part of history, no one denies the communist threat; your citation talks abt a revolution that never happened, but my citation talks abt insubordination and a world reality that is very important to remember in order to make readers of this article know the world´s context and the meaning of the word threat; [1] --Ludovicapipa

I agree that it is a very important part of history, that is why the second sentence of the article explains it. Insubordination is indeed very important, but, unless there is specific information which has not been translated into English, the military and naval officers involved were not tied to the communist party or communist activists. That link was never proven. Therefore, it is very important that we mention the effect of this insubordination on the military within the Political climate before the coup section (it is already included in one of my block quotes), but, at the same time, avoid stating it in a way which equates insubordination with communism. The globalsecurity source explains that "Goulart carried his populism too far when he backed proposals for noncommissioned officers to hold political office and when he appeared sympathetic to rebelling sergeants in September 1963. The officer corps believed that the president was undermining discipline, thereby threatening military institutions." This is true, and worth mentioning in the article, but it is also important to note that, if the military believes that the President is involved, it is the Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro that is involved--not the Communists. --(Ptah, the El Daoud

2) military insubordination was tied to the populist socialist, not communist, politicians. If you disagree with this point, I would like to see a direct and explicit quotation which identifies the ties these insubordinate soldiers and naval officers had with communist politicians or activists;

The same link: Passarinho talk sabt the need of taking a decison towards pro or against communism. There was no populist socialist, as we agreed Fernando Henrique Cardoso was considered a communist. There was use of "social something" by that time...You are or you are not communist. Well, I ask you the same: can you provide a quaotation? If mariers are against their "boss" or there is a militar insubordinatio, there we considered communists.[2]--Ludovicapipa

You are correct when you state that "you are or you are not communist," and the Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro were not a communist party. Goulart was a proud Catholic who, like Vargas and Quadros before him, promoted populist socialist social programs. Communism is absolute. For communists there will be complete "collective ownership" of the means of production; there will be the abolition of religion; there will be a dictatorship of the proletariat. The Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro were left-wing populists working to accomplish socialist objectives within a preexisting democratic republic. They did not the extreme and incontrovertable goals of Communism (be it Marxist-Leninist, Maoist or any other form). As for the mariners, yes, I can provide a quotation identifying their rebellion, but I must repeat myself when I state that insubordination does not equal communism. Military rebellions have taken place time immemorial. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 06:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

3) while Cuba, China and the Soviet Union all sought better ties with Brazilian leftists, they did not provide arms to the government (which, again, was populist socialist and not communist) or to civilian communist activists (who had no control within the federal government). The fact that the Brazilian government participated in diplomatic relations with communist governments does not prove that there was going to be a sudden shift to communism;

No I just think it helps reader to understand the meaning of the word threat. It was a global view and helps to understand what was happening in the neighbourhood. --Ludovicapipa

China and the Soviet Union are not in the neighborhood, and the Cubans wrested power through guerrilla warfare, not legislation which was promoted by democratically elected presidents or through Brizola's militias (as Brizola was quite openly in favor of the democratically elected president and the legislation he was trying to get passed regarding social welfare, etc). Were the conservative civilian politicians and a majority of military officers afraid of the specter of communism? Yes. But diplomacy with communist states only fanned the long standing flames of discontent. I think it would be worthwhile to discuss the grievances of the conservatives and the military, but we should not simply present them as justification for military action. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 06:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

4) while one could suggest that a civil war in Brazil could have been similar to La Violencia in Colombia, that is outright speculation (after all a civil war did not take place: it turned out that the populist socialists were not organized at all, and that the communists were only capable of carrying out isolated acts of terrorism), and, as such, should not be inserted into an encyclopedic article;

Ok, but this was the goal of AI-5, to maitain order and end all possible communist threats. All quotations, even citatins, can be considered speculation. :--Ludovicapipa

Again, the situation was completely different from Colombia. The vast majority of leftists were members of Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro, and, while Brizola claimed that he had mobilized 200,000 to defend the federal government from the conservatives, this proved false (admittedly, through hindsight). The communists did not launch a counterstrike, and, when they did mobilize, they were only capable of isolated acts of terrorism. This was not the case in Colombia. In the end, one civil war should not be used to explain (let alone justify) another civil war. Attempts at such an analogy only obscure the facts of the situation. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 06:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

5) the point that the Brazilian censorship was "softest" because "Congress was still working" is unscientific: a weakened congress continued to exist throughout Stroessner's 35 years of power in Paraguay, as well as Castro's 47 years of power in Cuba. This does not alter the fact that the citizens, the media and even the congresses themselves were subject to some form of censorship.

I don´t agree, still a soft censorship, and brazilian media, tv, newspapers such as, Rede Globo, Estado de S. Paulo and Folha de S Paulo supported the coup. They were against censorship --but not against militaries. They were also against communists. This is also a very important feature of a soft censorship and a bloodless one. :--Ludovicapipa

I do not see how the junta's censorship was any softer than Stroessner's censorship, nor does it make a difference that various media outlets supported his coup (Stroessner was as well). Every dictatorship or junta allows some media to thrive--the outlets that agree with them. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 06:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

Please respond below to any of my points which you would like to contend, and do not feel the need to rush (after all, this article is a work in progress, it does not matter how long it takes for us to resolve any of our disagreements)... --(Ptah, the El Daoud 22:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

Your paragraph, quoted in full:

According to Jarbas Passarinho, 1964 coup d´etat aovided the imminent communist threat represented by several world and local manifestations, such as: militar insubordination in 1963 in Brasilia, mariners in 1964; Fidel Castro´s, Che Guevarra´s , China, Soviet Union and Cold War. Even militaries wanted to move forward with democracy, since economy was growing and Medici was a very popular president. Passarinho states that Colombia still faces civil wars, because there was no AI-5 and that Brasil could have had the same fate if it was not the miliary government. He also point out that althoug censorship was severe, it was latin america´s softest since Congress was still open and working.

FHC

Ptah, I read your citations concerning the last paragraph of the article: there is no citation on FHC as a socialist or populist. He consideres himself a social-democrat today --but he was widely considered a communist, not a socialist or populist. These words were not used. As Passarinho said (quotaion above) people were pro or against communist --for such was the persecution that you had "to be or not to be". Do I need to cite? No, Shakespeare...

As for teh left-wing presidents you´ve mentioned, I think they confirm that communis was a part of our every day life -- not only a threat.

--Ludovicapipa ^yes? 00:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

While he contributed articles to a communist sponsored journal, he was never a communist party member. Both he and his father were members of the Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro who worked in coalition with the communist party at a legislative level when they needed to, but that was the extent of their relation. That is what the cited article illustrated. The party policies promoted by the Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro were populist socialist: rent controls, agrarian reform, etc. Cardoso was to the left of his party, and supported these populist socialist policies. In the end, it does not matter. I have added a citation which describes the rhetoric of the Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro as leftist populist, and, as the leaders and key supporters of that party did, in fact, flee into exile (think Goulart, Brizola, etc), the substitution of leftist populist should suffice.--(Ptah, the El Daoud 06:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

Re: "The meaning of the words threat of communism"

I have cut your new section (quoted at the bottom of my comment in full), and will explain point by point my reasoning. I have added a new sentence to the introduction which states: "Some historians, including Jarbas Passarinho, argue that the threat of both global and local communist movements was real." I included your citation... If we are going to bring up Castro, Guevara, Mao or Stalin and/or Khrushchev, we will need to explain each inclusion specifically. If you think a paragraph should be dedicated to explaining this, I think we could easily make room for it in the political climate section (although it will probably have to go through a few drafts before either of us are content with it). I object to the inclusion of Passarinho's views on (La Violencia), for the initial waves of violence took place between the Liberals and the Conservatives. The communists took advantage of a "normal" civil war (liberal reformers versus the established conservative establishment) and made it a three-way conflict. Could this have happened? Perhaps, but it ignores the fact that the initial cause of concern was civil war between liberals and democrats who supported different versions of capitalist democracy, not communism. Your last sentence, "He also point out that although censorship was severe, it was Latin America´s softest since media" was incomplete. Did you mean to say "since media outlets continued to operate?" If you did, we can include that, but I need to point out that I will provide citations which show that media outlets continued to exist under all of the juntas, and journals under all of the juntas (in Paraguay, in Argentina, in Chile and in Brazil) were shut down when they went to far in criticizing the government... I have to work late tomorrow, but I'll respond to any new edits of yours later that night or on the following day. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 06:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

According to Jarbas Passarinho, 1964 coup d´etat aovided the imminent communist threat represented by several world and local manifestations, such as: militar insubordination in 1963 in Brasilia, mariners in 1964; Fidel Castro´s, Che Guevarra´s , China, Soviet Union and Cold War. Even militaries wanted to move forward with democracy, since economy was growing and Medici was a very popular president. Passarinho states that Colombia still faces civil wars, because there was no AI-5 and that Brasil could have had the same fate if it was not the miliary government. He also point out that although censorship was severe, it was Latin America´s softest since media and the Congress were still open and working.