Diskussion:Aristides de Sousa Mendes

Mißverständlich

Der Satz "Zwar wurde Aristides de Sousa Mendes erst 1988 rehabilitiert und offiziell von der Regierung gewürdigt, aber dem Antrag von Dr. Jaime Gama von der Sozialistischen Partei um dessen Rehabilitation und postume Reintegration in den diplomatischen Korps wurde einstimmig von allen Fraktionen stattgegeben." macht so keinen Sinn. Vielleicht besser: "So wurde Aristides de Sousa Mendes erst 1988 rehabilitiert und offiziell von der Regierung gewürdigt, und dem Antrag von Dr. Jaime Gama von der Sozialistischen Partei um dessen Rehabilitation und postume Reintegration in den diplomatischen Korps wurde einstimmig von allen Fraktionen stattgegeben." --Pohl-rosengarten 11:25, 19. Jul. 2010 (CEST)

ok.--Goesseln 20:08, 27. Jul. 2010 (CEST)

Toulouse

dem französischen Konsul in Toulouse : Die Vichy-Regierung hat in Toulouse ein Konsulat ? --Goesseln 09:45, 24. Nov. 2010 (CET)

Disputed

My level of German is not good enough to correct this article but the article has several inaccuracies. The Sousa Mendes files were recently made public and it is now undisputable that Sousa Mendes was not expelled from the Portuguese Foreign office and kept on receiving his salary till the day he died. The Portuguese Treasury Department archives are, today, available online and it is possible to verify beyond any doubt, that at the time of his death Sousa Mendes was receiving from the government a monthly payment of 2,304 Portuguese Escudos. You can check it yourself at : http://badigital.sgmf.pt/Arquivo-DGCP--07---005---003/1/ There are also several letters written by Sousa Mendes, himself, where he mentions he was receiving his salary, including one to the Ordem dos Advogados (OA) / Portuguese Bar Association. Another “myth” is the number of Visas: according to Yad Vashem historian Avraham Milgram in a study from 1999 published by the Shoah Resource Center, International School for Holocaust Studies, (“Portugal the Consuls and the Jews”) a slight analysis of the list of visas granted by Sousa Mendes to Jews and non-Jews in May and June 1940, shows — without diminishing the greatness of his attitude — that the number of visas granted by the consul was lower than the numbers mentioned in the literature, raising a series of questions relative to Portugal and to the entry of Jewish refugees. Milgram concludes that the discrepancy between the reality and the myth of the number of visas granted by Sousa Mendes is great.

Sousa Mendes deeds have been inflated by Portuguese politicians trying to attack Salazar and trying to justify themselves. No doubt Salazar regime can be accused of many bad things. But in the case of refuges, Portugal was a safe haven for hundreds of thousands of refugees and Sousa Mendes, with a lifetime allowance (a salary 3 times the Salary of a school teacher) cannot complain. In any other country the inexcusable passport forgery he committed to help the Luxembourger army deserter, Paul Miny, in May 30 1940 (While the French were still fighting) would have meant several years in prison. --JPratas (Diskussion) 14:58, 21. Jan. 2014 (CET)

More accurate and sourced information can be found in the English Wikipedia.

Die Quellen, die als Grundlage des umseitigen Lemmas dienen, sagen anderes. Orik (Diskussion) 23:39, 2. Aug. 2015 (CEST)