Mussolini decides not to help Franco

[nuyt]

Indeed, that's the assumption, whether it would work is another matter. I assume the Axis assume taking Gibralter helps their strategy, while I assume the British may see the grave risk to their lines of transport to the Mid and Far East. So they invade Spain in the south through the Campo de Gibraltar and establish a line of defense north of it together with remnants of Rep Spain. This may result in a 20th century version of the Nap Peninsular War.

The Axis face some challenges though: controlling the Atlantic islands of Azores, Canaries, Madeira and possibly Cabo Verde must be done swiftly by the Luftwaffe and additional airborne troops before small units of the KM can get there. But once under control, the Axis is in charge of all southern approaches to the UK. They need Portugal for this and Salazar may still be tempted to join the victorious Axis in late 1940, but not later.

For the Germans to just install Franco and then retreat is not an option. Franco may be long gone by 1940 and much of his troops defeated, imprisoned, fled to South America and Portugal. The Falange leadership and other conservative key figures will be executed/eliminated by the far left in the aftermath of the SCW.

By the way, I assume Republican Spain is dominated by the communists. That way Portugal will be in a state of alert towards Spain (possibly housing remnants of the Falange and conservative Spain) and already armed by the Axis since the fall of Spain to the communists.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi nuyt,

Portugal would more likely fall back on Britain. That was its historical default position for 600 years. The alliance between the two is the longest enduring in world history.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Kingfish]

Indeed, that's the assumption, whether it would work is another matter.

It wouldn't work until the Italians solve the fuel problem. Dominating the Eastern Med means neutralizing the British fleet at Alexandria, which means extensive fleet operations, which means fuel expenditures at levels far higher than the historical.

[Peter89]

Hi nuyt,

Portugal would more likely fall back on Britain. That was its historical default position for 600 years. The alliance between the two is the longest enduring in world history.

Cheers,

Sid.

First of all, it is not really an actual alliance, but a medieval treaty that was invoked and disrupted and neglected from time to time when it was suitable for both parties.
I have a smorgasbord of so-called alliances and "traditional friendships" in Europe, which examined in detail, are usually more colourful than we might expect from an alliance or a friendship. (One of such examples is the Polish-Hungarian traditional friendship.) History showed that Portugal did not commit to the British cause - because of its self-interest; and there is no indication that they would fall back to Britain if the Franco-British alliance, led by France' ground troops, cannot withstand a German onslaught. Why didn't they declare war on Germany with the French and British troops still intact, and Germany without a competitive navy? One would expect such a move from an ally, especially one of the longest enduring ally in history. In this period, Portugal knew that they could profit from a non-belligerent status both in trade and on the colonies. On the other hand, they could not maintain colonies without the British, but they could not defend their country without the Germans. So they acted in their own self-interests and did not give a crap about the said "alliance".

Second, it wouldn't really matter. Portugal would ally itself with Britain only if there was no real land-based threat from Germany, against which the British could do nothing. If a republican Spain is attacked, the Germans either take Portugal, or leave Portugal be, but in the latter case, Portugal would not ally itself with Britain.

Portugal's disposition would only matter if the Allies would want to make an unopposed landing on the mainland. Otherwise, their optimal course of action was singular and independent of the so-called alliance with the British.

[Peter89]

Indeed, that's the assumption, whether it would work is another matter.

It wouldn't work until the Italians solve the fuel problem. Dominating the Eastern Med means neutralizing the British fleet at Alexandria, which means extensive fleet operations, which means fuel expenditures at levels far higher than the historical.

To dominate the Eastern Med was impossible for the RM. Alexandria had to be taken on the ground; British naval power was far superior to that of the Italian. British naval power could not be challenged in a straight-up fight; the Italians never had more than 2-3 BBs ready for action and their anti-shipping air power was nowhere near the British one.

Cunningham played his cards superbly, and got away with the most reckless operations. One cannot wish for more vulnerabilities that he offered to the Italians, bringing his ships, including his capitals more than once in the range of land-based bombers. I cannot imagine a victorious RM against the RN in Alexandria for many reasons, mainly because under the most ideal conditions, the Italians achieved a draw.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Peter89,

You post, "First of all, it is not really an actual alliance, but a medieval treaty that was invoked and disrupted and neglected from time to time when it was suitable for both parties." True, but in this case it would likely suit both parties that Portugal not become Communist should the Republicans win the civil war.

You post, "Second, it wouldn't really matter. Portugal would ally itself with Britain only if there was no real land-based threat from Germany....." Isn't that the ultimate presumption of the thread, all other things being equal except for the absence of Italian intervention?

Cheers,

Sid.

[Peter89]

Hi Peter89,

You post, "First of all, it is not really an actual alliance, but a medieval treaty that was invoked and disrupted and neglected from time to time when it was suitable for both parties." True, but in this case it would likely suit both parties that Portugal not become Communist.

How would Portugal become communist?

You post, "Second, it wouldn't really matter. Portugal would ally itself with Britain only if there was no real land-based threat from Germany....." Isn't that the ultimate presumption of the thread, all other things being equal except for the absence of Italian intervention?

Cheers,

Sid.

I don't follow you here; thaddeus_c was arguing about a situation after the Spanish Civil War (who would prefer a republican Spain, etc.). For me it seems you are referring to a time period still in the Spanish Civil War. Is it your case that Britain would probably intervene to prevent the spread of communism to Portugal? If so, I have my doubts; British upper classes would profit from the fall of the Portuguese empire (they could carve it up with others or maybe take it for their own), and the leftists had still illusions about the nature of communism. Let's not forget that they didn't really care about the outcome of the SCW.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Peter89,

You ask, "How would Portugal become communist?" Domino effect if the Republicans won the Spanish Civil War?

thaddeus didn't start the thread.

You say, "For me it seems you are referring to a time period still in the Spanish Civil War." Nope.

You ask, "Is it your case that Britain would probably intervene to prevent the spread of communism to Portugal?" Nope, I said that Portugal was more likely to fall back on Britain, its historical protector in the event of a Communist victory in Spain. Given how close the British came to supporting Finland in the Winter War, anything is possible.

"British upper classes would profit from the fall of the Portuguese empire (they could carve it up with others or maybe take it for their own)," is pure fantasy. The British had been economically dominant in Portugal for centuries and had no need to possess its empire to exploit it. The days of the UK creating new colonies was past decades earlier. It didn't need to own a place to exploit it - look at Latin America.

Who says, ".....,they didn't really care about the outcome of the SCW."? Both a Fascist and a Communist regime in Spain were bad news for the liberal democracies.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Peter89]

Hi Peter89,

You ask, "How would Portugal become communist?" Domino effect if the Republicans won the Spanish Civil War?

Okay, maybe that's why I didn't really get your former comment.

I see this scenario extremely unlikely, given that Salazar crushed republican-supporter mutinies and had a general right wing disposition - as well as a firm grip on power.

You ask, "Is it your case that Britain would probably intervene to prevent the spread of communism to Portugal?" Nope, I said that Portugal was more likely to fall back on Britain, its historical protector in the event of a Communist victory in Spain. Given how close the British came to supporting Finland in the Winter War, anything is possible.

Sure, but Sid, there was no need for British help to prevent a communist overtake in Portugal. The OP was about no Italian help to Franco, from which we concluded a republican Spain, from which you arrive to a communist Portugal which falls back to Britain. Maybe you are right on this, but Finland is a great example how Britain did NOT care about the spread of communism.

"British upper classes would profit from the fall of the Portuguese empire (they could carve it up with others or maybe take it for their own)," is pure fantasy. The British had been economically dominant in Portugal for centuries and had no need to possess its empire to exploit it. The days of the UK creating new colonies was past decades earlier. It didn't need to own a place to exploit it - look at Latin America.

Before the war, certainly. Britain was interested in the status quo. However, I doubt that they would refuse if Portuguese outposts like Macau, Portuguese India or the Azores would fall into their hands - if not for anything else, then to deny them to others.

Who says, ".....,they didn't really care about the outcome of the SCW."? Both a Fascist and a Communist regime in Spain were bad news for the liberal democracies.

Cheers,

Sid.

Bad news, yeah... maybe. Liberal democracies usually don't give a damn about other countries' political problems as long as the business transactions run smoothly. If liberal democracies did care about Spain, they could send a few divisions to eradicate the nazi and communist presence and immediately afterwards, organized a democratic election. Without that, it was what it was; bad news.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Peter89.

All bets are off for Salazar if Communists take power in Spain. Remember, they were pursuing an Internationalist agenda at the time. In that eventuality, he is going to have to look elsewhere for support.

You post, "Finland is a great example how Britain did NOT care about the spread of communism." I would suggest that the reverse is true. Britain was already at war with Germany, easily the second most populous country in Europe, and yet still actively considered intervening in Finland against the USSR, easily the biggest country in Europe.

You post, "However, I doubt that they would refuse if Portuguese outposts like Macau, Portuguese India or the Azores would fall into their hands - if not for anything else, then to deny them to others." So, not a outright land grab, then? The British had been in a position to acquire these Portuguese overseas territories for several hundred years, but had never done so. They did not retain any of the French colonies they captured in WWII and acquired no new territory after WWI - just League of Nations Mandates. I think that at this late stage, the British were not looking at acquiring Portuguese possessions for its own sake.

You post, "Liberal democracies usually don't give a damn about other countries' political problems as long as the business transactions run smoothly." Quite possibly true, but it is very much easier to do business with fellow liberal democracies, no two of which have yet gone to active war against each other.

Cheers,

Sid.

[nuyt]

ok, so it's 1938. The communist led Republicans have just declared victory over Franco, who has fled to the Canaries with his last remaining troops. The communists start to round up anything wearing a black robe and anybody owning land or factories, to eliminate them. Those who can, escape to Portugal. Then the communists turn on their anarchist and moderate allies, to eliminate them. It's 1939 as the whole world watches in horror how Spain bleeds to death. But no one does anything, Britain is still in appeasement mode. Portugal has mobilized and receives equipment from Italy and Germany. Franco's last troops on the islands and in North Africa are regrouping and rearming, also with Axis support. Britain fears a communist/Stalinist attack on Gibraltar. WW2 breaks out. Spain remains neutral on Stalins orders.
Autumn 1940. German troops cross the Spanish border.
Do the Brits come to the aid of Spain?

[Peter89]

Hi Peter89.

All bets are off for Salazar if Communists take power in Spain. Remember, they were pursuing an Internationalist agenda at the time. In that eventuality, he is going to have to look elsewhere for support.

I can not rule out that possibility.

You post, "Finland is a great example how Britain did NOT care about the spread of communism." I would suggest that the reverse is true. Britain was already at war with Germany, easily the second most populous country in Europe, and yet still actively considered intervening in Finland against the USSR, easily the biggest country in Europe.

What happened:
- Britain left alone Czechoslovakia against nazism
- Britain left alone Spain against fascism
- Britain left alone Finland against communism
- Britain left alone the Baltic states against communism

But they were considering help, yes.

When Britain went to war against Germany it was not because they cared about Poland, but because they cared about Germany.

There is nothing wrong with realpolitik - the problem is with the notion that ruthlessly selfish colonial empires operated on high moral grounds and cared for liberty and democracy.

In my opinion, there were people who cared about such things, and their effect on the foreign policies were felt more and more, accelerated after WW2. But ultimately, war and peace was not decided on ideological grounds.

You post, "However, I doubt that they would refuse if Portuguese outposts like Macau, Portuguese India or the Azores would fall into their hands - if not for anything else, then to deny them to others." So, not a outright land grab, then? The British had been in a position to acquire these Portuguese overseas territories for several hundred years, but had never done so. They did not retain any of the French colonies they captured in WWII and acquired no new territory after WWI - just League of Nations Mandates. I think that at this late stage, the British were not looking at acquiring Portuguese possessions for its own sake.

Yes, not like that. However, if according to your scenario, Portugal descends into communism, what do you think would happen to Portugal's colonies?

The British couldn't let Portuguese India to go independent; that could destabilize the whole Raj. An independent Macau is possibly impossible; besides, the Japanese would get it anyway. An independent Azores is a bit more realistic, but that independence would depend on British naval consent. As for the African colonies, independence can be ruled out, so what's left there? It's either the British or someone else.

it is very much easier to do business with fellow liberal democracies,

I do not agree.

It is the easiest and most lucrative to do business with the corrupt elites of small, economically inferior nations who lives under an autocratic leadership which can overrule the basic interests of the said nation in order to solidify its own power.

[Peter89]

ok, so it's 1938. The communist led Republicans have just declared victory over Franco, who has fled to the Canaries with his last remaining troops. The communists start to round up anything wearing a black robe and anybody owning land or factories, to eliminate them. Those who can, escape to Portugal. Then the communists turn on their anarchist and moderate allies, to eliminate them. It's 1939 as the whole world watches in horror how Spain bleeds to death. But no one does anything, Britain is still in appeasement mode. Portugal has mobilized and receives equipment from Italy and Germany. Franco's last troops on the islands and in North Africa are regrouping and rearming, also with Axis support. Britain fears a communist/Stalinist attack on Gibraltar. WW2 breaks out. Spain remains neutral on Stalins orders.
Autumn 1940. German troops cross the Spanish border.
Do the Brits come to the aid of Spain?

Now that is interesting, from whom Portugal would receive support. I think in 1938/1939 it is the British as Sid suggests, but in 1940/1941 it is the Germans or no one actually, because the Germans would not tolerate a communist Spain.

Also, I doubt that a communist Spain can be hand-driven by Stalin; communism always rests on weapons and Stalin was too far away.

[nuyt]

Salazar was a master of the balancing act. He would get both British and German weapons. IRL he got stuff from Vickers, Rheinmetall and Ansaldo, so why not in this scenario?

[nuyt]

Also, I doubt that a communist Spain can be hand-driven by Stalin; communism always rests on weapons and Stalin was too far away.

That's why the Reps had T26 tanks and loads of other stuff delivered by or paid for by Stalin.