During WWII? Why was Switzerland, Sweeden, Spain and the Vatican left alone?

I suppose the Vatican was simply so small that nobody bothered to take them over, but were the other countries avoided simply because they were too much trouble? Or that they would be able to successfully resist an invasion?

Switzerland was far too much trouble for Hitler. There are some good stories behind that I don't have. And the Western Allies had no interest in invading anything the Axis hadn't.

During WWII? Why was Switzerland, Sweeden, Spain and the Vatican left alone?

I suppose the Vatican was simply so small that nobody bothered to take them over, but were the other countries avoided simply because they were too much trouble? Or that they would be able to successfully resist an invasion?

Switzerland has long maintained its nutrality by being a tough nut to crack for little reward. Kept lines of communication, the red cross and independent banking functioning. Not to mention being a bunch of guys sitting in the mountains who are all armed to the teeth. Also Swiss nutrality went as fr as playing ball with whoever was de facto in charge around them.

Ive never really understood why Norway and Finland got it in the neck but not Sweeden. Sure it was nuteral and didnt have resorces or strategic access the Soviets or the Nazi's needed. I guess the Soviets were mauled by little Finland and didnt fancy more of the same, while the Nazi's were hving problems holding down Norway and didnt fancy more of the same. As far as I understand it both sides had got what they needed form Scandinavia and found it rather a rough gig.

Spain is interesting. I still dont understand why Franco didnt let the Axis through to attack Gibraltar from the land. To some extent Spain was sill a mess from the Spanish Civil War and so not as usful an ally as it would generally be. Spain did issue a list of what it required to overtly join the the Axis, but these were abserd. It is alledged that Churchill bribed Franco, but I have no idea if that is more than a conspiricy theory.

I also think that Mussolini left the Vatican alone for the obvious reason that he didn't want every Catholic in the world hating him. Better to get along with the pope.

On the Vatican: the idea that any Italian government, even a fascist one, would allow the Pope to be arrested and the Vatican invaded is absurd. Hitler suggested it and Mussolini wasn't thrilled by the idea, he probably would have had rioting in the streets, at the very least. If not a civil war - there were a lot of Catholics in Italy alone, not to mention in Germany and Austria. (Even Hitler was supposedly Catholic) It would have generally been an all around bad move for virtually no gain. Why start a whole bunch of trouble over something that is of no military value? If the Pope had started speaking out against the Holocaust more publicly, then maybe....but even then, somehow I doubt it.

As said above, Switzerland really wasn't worth invading. They were very well armed, especially with sniper rifles, so Hitler would have lost a lot of men, especially officers, in attacking the Swiss. Besides, they were useful for storing "confiscated" money, and keeping lines of communication open. Again, why would they bother starting a whole bunch of trouble over something that had very little military value?

Spain wasn't invaded by the Allies because it didn't join the Axis. The Axis had enough on their hands without invading a friendly nation, so that's why Spain was left alone.

I don't know a whole lot about why Sweden was left alone, but I'd hazard a guess that it had something to do with the trouble Germany was having with the other Nordic nations, and Hitler's desire to move on to fighting Russia. But those more knowledgeable in this area could surely add to this.

But those more knowledgeable in this area could surely add to this.
That's not me but if I were to guess...

It was essential for Germany to take England out of the war, either by invasion or by forcing them into a peace treaty. By taking The Netherlands and France, Hitler could threaten the southern half of the U.K. Invading Norway gave him the ability to attack from the northeast. Sweden and Spain were of little use in that regard.

And Switzerland was a safe place for the Nazis to keep their money, they had more to lose than they had to gain. And since it was isolated it posed little threat.

First, neutral countries such as Belgium were invaded. Neutrality in itself was not enough to protect a country.

Sweden was not invaded, as they supplied Germany with iron through trade, so the Axis had no reason to take it.

Spain was recovering from the civil war, and not really in a good shape to intervain. And I think the Germans tried to have them on their side as they helped Franco during the war, but he kept buying time.

Sweden was not invaded, as they supplied Germany with iron through trade, so the Axis had no reason to take it.
Denmark was next door militarily weak and with a terrain very hard to defend. It's flat, not relatively but absolutely. The water between the islands could be a problem unless you dominated the sea, which Germany did, and there are no real distances so German airsuperiority was a given. Taking it would help feed Germany, as Denmark is called a "butter hole" by the Danes, and the Germans in WWII called it "the butter front", and a very popular posting it was for Wehrmacht people.

Norway needed to be taken to 1.) make sure the supply of Swedish iron ore was kept up during the winter months when the Swedish ports in the Baltic froze up, and 2.) because even the possibility that the UK and France would move in on it would leave Germany in a strategically worse position.

Sweden happens to have the size and population of Denmark and Norway combined, and by taking those two you would not have to fight Sweden as well.

Sweden, like Switzerland, recieved the treatment of neutral countries, with a long range of demands about all an sundry to try to influence it without having to resort to force. With Denmark and Norway taken Sweden was effectively bottled up within the German sphere or interest, and you could rely of Sweden being traditionally German friendly. The overrding Swedish foreign policy concern was the Soviet Union and Bolshevism anyway.

As long as Sweden was willing to trade iron ore for peace, there was no reason to invade, and as long as Denmark and Norway were safely in the German pocket the risk was nil that Sweden would somehow become the staging ground for military operations against Germany.

Sweden joining the Allies with German armies in Norway and Denmark would have been suicidal. Churchill admitted as much with his comment re. the Swedish pliability to German wishes and demands:
"The last thing we want in another casualty."

Also not only the Axis invaded neutral nations, the Allies did so in Iran and tried to do so in Norway. Hitler was only a few days faster.

Adler

Also not only the Axis invaded neutral nations, the Allies did so in Iran and tried to do so in Norway. Hitler was only a few days faster.

Adler

There you go with the 'what ifs' again, Adler :mischief:

The bottom line is Germany only took over nations who resisted facsim and di not comply. The countries you mentioned were not exeptions, as there were other nations were not directly under Germanys control, initially Slovakia, but also Hungary who were quite happy to send an army too Russia.
When Slovakia rebelled against facism in 1944 the Germans took over the country directly.

Both Sweden and Switzerland were useful satelites who were as 'protected' as any not in conflict with the Axis powers. Sweden supplied Iron and weapons to Germany and switzerland provided banking services. As long as these nations were ucompliant there was no recourse to direct control. Russia was also a 'neutral' country, but under the terms of the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact Russia supplied Germany with essential war supplies (e.g. rubber) without which the war in the west would not have been possible. WW2 had different start and end points for the combatants.

Hitler took a trip to Spain and tried to convince Franco to come one board. Franco did not and Hitler famously stated that "he would rather have a tooth drawn than go through that again". I suspect Francos reasons were a) if he joined the war with the Axis the Popular Front would resurge b) the allies would invade toppling him. However, Spain sent a division to the Eastern Front and gave considerable asistance to the Axis. Only neutral on paper I supose.

I realize everything I say here has probably already been stated, but:


Switzerland was just not worth it. Too hard, and too little reward. Why invade a bunch of highly trained troops in the mountains for nothing?

Sweden wasn't gonna cause trouble for Germany, and Hitler needed the troops elsewhere.

As always, the Vatican had far too much influence to be messed with.

Sweden was not invaded, as they supplied Germany with iron through trade, so the Axis had no reason to take it.


In addition to reasons Steph and Verbose offered, the Swedes belonged to the Nordic race. Another is that the Germans were allowed to transport their troops through Sweden when ever they wanted it.

So Hitler had no ideological/political/strategical/economical reasons to invade Sweden.

Happy Alex, what did you mean? I only said, the rights of neutral nations were not only violated by the Axis but also by the Allies. Not more or less.

Adler

TBoth Sweden and Switzerland were useful satelites who were as 'protected' as any not in conflict with the Axis powers. Sweden supplied Iron and weapons to Germany
Nope, not weapons.

And no ore after 1942 either.

Sweden was a friendly neutral country out of fear of attack up to the point where Germany no longer was a threat, which happened in 1942.

From then on Sweden was a neutral country friendly to the Allies.

Dunno where you get "sattelite" from.

Happy Alex, what did you mean? I only said, the rights of neutral nations were not only violated by the Axis but also by the Allies. Not more or less.

Adler

To equivocate between the Allies and Axis like this is perverse.

Nope, not weapons.

And no ore after 1942 either.

Sweden was a friendly neutral country out of fear of attack up to the point where Germany no longer was a threat, which happened in 1942.

From then on Sweden was a neutral country friendly to the Allies.

Dunno where you get "sattelite" from.

Smile and wave until the threat has walked on by and only then start calling him names uh? ;)

Don't take this as mudslinging as the leaders of a country should always protect their people and the Swedish leaders did this but I've always wondered if we, the Dutch, just had let the Germans have their way and pass through our country. Would we be forever reminded as collaborateurs? At least my city wouldn't have been bombed back to the stone age.

Smile and wave until the threat has walked on by and only then start calling him names uh? ;)

Don't take this as mudslinging as the leaders of a country should always protect their people and the Swedish leaders did this but I've always wondered if we, the Dutch, just had let the Germans have their way and pass through our country. Would we be forever reminded as collaborateurs? At least my city wouldn't have been bombed back to the stone age.
No offense taken. Though I think the name-calling starts when you've yourself found a big enough stick.

The Swedish problem was rather that they were never faced with an outright demand for submission, just incessant requests for a little bit of this and a little bit of that and the problem of vexing the great neighbour to the south, north, east and west if they didn't comply.

I would have been easier for them is all had been laid on the line. As it were they could hardly declare in favour of Nazi Germany, since Sweden was deeply democratic, and there was never a clear threat in front of which they might have justified folding.

You can't really make a grand gesture of throwing national independance away for the principle of the thing over something like a German request to be allowed transit of their ships through Swedish national water under Swedish escort, to give an example of the kind of concessions made.

Or rather I suppose you could, but the Swedish leaders during the war considered the effects worse than keeping their heads down, making the concessions they though necessary, and hoping for better days.

The iron ore exported after all bought German coal to keep the Swedish armaments industries going. If you cut the ore asap, you risk a German attack to ensure the supply, and you rid yourself of the industry that in time might give Sweden the kind of teeth necessary to tell the Germans to take a hike with some confidence you wouldn't get instantly creamed.

It's like Ernst Günther, the Swedish Foreign Sec. (Soc. Dem.) had it; every day he was nauseated by the concession made towards Nazi Germany, but the possible prize for not doing it was so high he felt he had little choice. The biggest problem was never knowing what German demands were necessary to comply with, and when you could refuse. There was never a good answer to that, so they incessantly worried about either having gone to far and provoked Germany, or having caved too easily.

Churchill said the right thing than. You could say Germany had won a diplomatic victory over Sweden, having them totally outmanoeuvred and where they wanted them and most importantly - getting what they wanted from Sweden while keeping things civil.

Thanks, learned something new today.

Spain was recovering from the civil war, and not really in a good shape to intervain. And I think the Germans tried to have them on their side as they helped Franco during the war, but he kept buying time.


IIRC I think Spain DID at least send a division or two to Russia, I believe it was called the "blue" division. Correct me if I'm wrong

I think it was a tatical error on Hitlers part not to get Spain actively involved. If he'd have promised a North African empire to Franco then Spain would have actively sided with the Axis, but he didn't and look what happened in North Africa...

I think the Axis really could have done with those Spanish troops and ships fighting on their side in North Africa, it would have certainally made Operation: Torch alot harder for the allies and changed the whole scope as far as the invasion or Italy and so forth is concerened!

Howver it's a bit more complicated than that, what with Spain demanding quite alot and not enacting the anti-semantic laws that the Nazi's desired. Reaplistically, whilst Hitler (with hindsight) really could have done with Spain fighting on the Axis cause, it wasn't to be.

As for Sweeden, Germany needed their trade and Sweeden needed to stay out of the conflict, what with German troops needed in Norway, defend the Atlantic wall, fight in North Africa/Yugolslavia/Greece and of course on the Russian front the Germans were rather overstretched!

The Nazi's drew up invasion plans of Switzerland but they were (from tatical perspective) wisely not followed through. There are of course financial reasons why the Axis never invaded as well...

IIRC I think Spain DID at least send a division or two to Russia, I believe it was called the "blue" division. Correct me if I'm wrong
Your right, they sent troops to 'fight the communists'.

IIRC I think Spain DID at least send a division or two to Russia, I believe it was called the "blue" division. Correct me if I'm wrong

IIRC they were formally external voluteers to the Axis rather than Spanish Regements. More along the lines of not stopping your citizens from signing up rather than sending your own troops. A vital distinction or a fig leaf depending upon your point of view.

Where did Portugal figure in Spain's thinking. The allied base on the Azores is about all I know.

Where did Portugal figure in Spain's thinking. The allied base on the Azores is about all I know.

Portugal was an intelligence hotbed. Both Axis and Allies tacitly agreed to play their games of intrigue and exchange there and Salazar played both sides in turn, though I would characterize him as "soft fascist" myself. England had longstanding connections with Portugal in any case.

Portugal was an intelligence hotbed. Both Axis and Allies tacitly agreed to play their games of intrigue and exchange there and Salazar played both sides in turn, though I would characterize him as "soft fascist" myself. England had longstanding connections with Portugal in any case.

The oldest still operative alliance in the world.

The oldest still operative alliance in the world.

Yes this alliance goes back to medieval times. As an interesting side note, Ian Fleming worked for British intelligence and passed through Lisbon during WWII. Remember those crazy James Bond Casino scenes with spies?? Estoril Casino during this period was the kernel of inspiration.

I think it was a tatical error on Hitlers part not to get Spain actively involved. If he'd have promised a North African empire to Franco then Spain would have actively sided with the Axis, but he didn't and look what happened in North Africa... I think that was because he had an understanding with Mussolini that the Mediterranean lands (incl N Africa) was to be a 'New Roman Empire' under Fascist Italy.

At least until when the Italians got overrun in Libya and Rommel and the Afrika Korps were sent in...

Yes this alliance goes back to medieval times. As an interesting side note, Ian Fleming worked for British intelligence and passed through Lisbon during WWII. Remember those crazy James Bond Casino scenes with spies?? Estoril Casino during this period was the kernel of inspiration.
You had a nice triangulation between Lisbon, Stockholm and Istanbul. A lot of WWII cloack-and-dagger stuff went on in all three.

To equivocate between the Allies and Axis like this is perverse.

Well, I did not equivocate the Allies and the Axis totally. But I only said, the Allies did the same with Iran and planned to do so with Norway what Germany did: Attacking neutrals. If you think that is perverse, tell that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin.

Adler

Well, I did not equivocate the Allies and the Axis totally. But I only said, the Allies did the same with Iran and planned to do so with Norway what Germany did: Attacking neutrals. If you think that is perverse, tell that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin.

Adler

The obvious difference is that, with exception of Stalin, the purpose was to meet the enemy and the overall purpose was to defeat the Axis. As opposed to dynastic conquest vis-a-vis WW2 and WW1. That is what I mean by equivocation.

Why was Switzerland, Sweden, Spain and the Vatican left alone?

They were all more useful for Axis as market partners than occupied countries. After fall of USSR and Great Britain it would be next targets.

happy Alex, in some way you could say that from the Axis, too. At least the Lowlands and Norway.

Adler

Franco and most of the Spanish leaders were catholics
who believed in God and wanted to preserve the best
traditions of Spain and keep out atheistic communists.

They correctly recognised Hitler as a very dangerous
atheistic phychopathic dictator who recognised no law
or morality and that if they joined him as allies on his
'conquer the world' adventure an unlikely German victory
would leave the Spanish people as no better than servants
if not slaves of the Germans.

However a few fascist hotheads were in favour and Franco
found it easier to let them volunteer for the blue legion and
die as cannon fodder in Russia because he feared that if he
kept them in Spain they would stir up trouble and lead a
fascist coup against him and the more moderate nationalists.

Did you know that the allies intended to invade norway to stop iron shipments from sweden that went though Narvik(don't ask me why!) the germans just beat them to it!

The Iron from Sweden was sent via Norway in winter because the Baltic ports were frozen. Especially the winters in the 1940s were very cold.

Adler

Did you know that the allies intended to invade norway to stop iron shipments from sweden that went though Narvik(don't ask me why!) the germans just beat them to it!

The allied did took Narvik to the Germans, but this victory could not be exploited because of the defeat on the continent

The allied did took Narvik to the Germans, but this victory could not be exploited because of the defeat on the continent
They even knew when they decided to attack that they would immediately have to evacuate Narvik once they took it.

Portugal was an intelligence hotbed. Both Axis and Allies tacitly agreed to play their games of intrigue and exchange there and Salazar played both sides in turn, though I would characterize him as "soft fascist" myself. England had longstanding connections with Portugal in any case.

I don't think Salazar had much of fascist, soft or hard, but whatever he was, I don't think he ever had any doubts in supporting the Allies, though there may have been a few germanophiles in the cabinet. There were more in Spain though, but I don't think Franco was very convinced about Hitler. He probably tried to gain time by contributing with the Blue Division to fight the communist evil, but wait and see in neutrality what was the direction of the war.
For Salazar, the goal was always keep the neutrality of the entire peninsula, behave himself as neutral, but support England and the the US as much as that formal neutrality allowed. The Allies last wish was also a belligerent Portugal (or Spain) as, at least in the early stages, that would stretch the region to be retaken and enlarge the foes. It would also increase the financial expenses, and they already had what they wanted, the Azores.

Some falangists in Spain, though, still inspired by Alfonso XIII iberism were dreaming with an Iberian Union imposed by military conquest. But whether they did that with or without siding with Germany on the war, it would mean war with the Allies.

Another interesting fact was the Neutrality Pact both countries signed before the war, which Salazar, with the support of the Allies always used to influence Spain to keep a low profile. But after the war, Portugal was invited to become a founding member of NATO, which further alienated franquist Spain from the world order and enraged Franco, so once again clever diplomacy was called into action.

During WWII? Why was Switzerland, Sweeden, Spain and the Vatican left alone?

I suppose the Vatican was simply so small that nobody bothered to take them over, but were the other countries avoided simply because they were too much trouble? Or that they would be able to successfully resist an invasion?

War is a matter of priorities. Unless adding another enemy is strategically important to you (attack neutral Belgium and Netherlands to get into France , attack neutral Denmark and neutral Norway to dominate Scandinavia and the North sea, attack neutral Hungary to get to the oil in Romania, attack neutral Yugoslavia to get to Greece and help close off the Suez canal from the Allies, etc.) you are wasting your time and soldiers pursuing ends that don't help you.

No matter how massive the nation, there is a limited pool of people and resources at any nation's disposal to achieve a goal militarily. WWII had every side throwing everything they had at the conflict. Prioritizing the potential targets you mentioned would not have helped either side win in the larger scheme of things, and both sides knew it. Maybe if the Germans hadn't been pinned down in Russia and Africa, Hitler might have finished off the job by moving into those nations you mentioned. The allies wouldn't have invaded any of those targets unless the German Army was already there ready to be surrounded and destroyed, like in Africa.

I don't think Salazar had much of fascist, soft or hard, but whatever he was, I don't think he ever had any doubts in supporting the Allies, though there may have been a few germanophiles in the cabinet. There were more in Spain though, but I don't think Franco was very convinced about Hitler. He probably tried to gain time by contributing with the Blue Division to fight the communist evil, but wait and see in neutrality what was the direction of the war.
For Salazar, the goal was always keep the neutrality of the entire peninsula, behave himself as neutral, but support England and the the US as much as that formal neutrality allowed. The Allies last wish was also a belligerent Portugal (or Spain) as, at least in the early stages, that would stretch the region to be retaken and enlarge the foes. It would also increase the financial expenses, and they already had what they wanted, the Azores.


We can agree to disagree about Salazar and "soft fascism" (I admit I invented this term). I say soft because I do feel there were echoes of this during the dictatorship/Estado Novo with glorification of the Ultramar provinces/empire, education of nationalism, censorship, reactionary attitudes, secret police, cult of the leader, the typical nationalistic slogans etc.... And this is not only my opinion, it has certainly been echoed by others before. Estado Novo is characterized by some as possessing some fascistic tendencies. And I should add I find some Portuguese opinions of Salazar to be quaintly deluded even today.

I agree with the rest of what you say, Salazar was certainly not going to turn against England/U.S. However ideologically and in terms of government type (dictatorship, political/ideological repression), he aligns better with the Axis (excepting the Soviet Union of course).

There's little point. Too many enemies and you'll be destroyed, it's as simple as that. Too little during a war and the less your country will benefit, at least in terms of land area. There has to be a balance.

Switzerland was far too much trouble for Hitler. There are some good stories behind that I don't have. And the Western Allies had no interest in invading anything the Axis hadn't.
Not entirely true - they occupied Iran, frex.

Also, early on Churchill was toying with the idea of occupying or destroying the northern Swedish mines to deny their produce to the Germans. The idea got rather theoretical after the Norway campaign.

Nope, not weapons.

And no ore after 1942 either.

Sweden was a friendly neutral country out of fear of attack up to the point where Germany no longer was a threat, which happened in 1942.

From then on Sweden was a neutral country friendly to the Allies.


Weapons, such as Bofors 40mm anti-aircraft guns were sold to Germany.

Sweden traded iron ore to Germany till August 1943 when the transit agreement was negated by the Swedes. And smaller shipments even after that.

In addition Sweden continued ball bearings shipments to Germany almost until the end of war, even they promised the Allies they wouldn't after 1944. Moreover, Sweden traded equipment and ball bearings machinery, which helped Germany with great ball bearings manufacturing difficulties as part of Allied bombing was targeted on Germany's ball bearing plants.

Until August 1943 Norwegian resistance members and Jews who sought refuge in Sweden were sometimes given back to the Germans.

Sweden started to seek better terms with the Allies as Germany was seen to loose the war in 1943. But German troops were allowed pass-through whenever they wanted until the end of war, even if the Allies insisted other. Also many other demands by the Allies were rejected by the Swedes for the benefit of Germans.

On the other hand, didn't Sweden end up taking in most of Denmark's Jews when they were smuggled out of the country? Which would have not been possible had they not been on such good terms with Germany, and had been invaded as a result.

It's true, and many Jews from other countries in German-occupied Europe received asylum in Sweden. But for some Norwegian Jews it wasn't so good.

Sweden's attitude to Jewish refugees changed from hostile during the pre-war and early war years to very welcoming during the later part of the war.

Well, there is a famous saying from (or only attributed to?) Hitler "Die Schweiz nehmen wir beim Rückzug ein!" - "We will conquer Switzerland on the retreat!"

A few points
- banking system as already stated. Switzerland was the place by which Axis and Allies could make "trade" during the war.
- the Alps&the reduit, conquering Switzerland would have been no problem for the Nazis, but it would have also been suicidal, as it is the fastest way to Italy. This line would have been cut by these mountain fortresses and logistics would have been made much more difficult. The reduit is a very fascinating thing, really.

As you see, the whole point (a bit like Sweden) is a discussion between collaboration and strategic luck, keeping a little bit of autonomy (saving Jews, Swiss/Swedes, Allied soldiers, ... ). It's of course both, Switzerland was not invaded because we cooperated and because Germany wouldn't have been able to defeat us ("Guerilla Warfare").

m

Well, there is a famous saying from (or only attributed to?) Hitler "Die Schweiz nehmen wir beim Rückzug ein!" - "We will conquer Switzerland on the retreat!"

A few points
- banking system as already stated. Switzerland was the place by which Axis and Allies could make "trade" during the war.
- the Alps&the reduit, conquering Switzerland would have been no problem for the Nazis, but it would have also been suicidal, as it is the fastest way to Italy. This line would have been cut by these mountain fortresses and logistics would have been made much more difficult. The reduit is a very fascinating thing, really.

As you see, the whole point (a bit like Sweden) is a discussion between collaboration and strategic luck, keeping a little bit of autonomy (saving Jews, Swiss/Swedes, Allied soldiers, ... ). It's of course both, Switzerland was not invaded because we cooperated and because Germany wouldn't have been able to defeat us ("Guerilla Warfare").

m

Sorry, Germany wouldn't have been able to defeat you? I don't agree. The germans would have made short work of swizerland, mountains fortresses or otherwise.

Read my post again, conquering would have been no problem. But I actually believe the reduit was worth something and would have prevented the Swiss ARMY from being defeated...

Sorry, Germany wouldn't have been able to defeat you? I don't agree. The germans would have made short work of swizerland, mountains fortresses or otherwise.

Sorry, but I don't agree. Certainly, if the German Wehrmacht had concentrated on Switzerland with no other distractions, they would have been able to beat them down - but are you forgetting they had other goals to fulfill... just a few? Hitler opened one front after the other, just when did you think the Wehrmacht would have had excess resources to go after Switzerland? Same goes for Sweden..
Of course, if either Sweden with its iron ore,or Switzerland with its routes through the Alps, had declared against Germany, Hitler would have had to redirect priorities to crush them... but it wouldn't have been easy! He would have been stupid (better say: even more stupid than he was already) to attack them unnecessarily.

BTW, if you think it's easy taking mountain redoubts in the Alps, take a look at the Austrian/Italian mountain campaigns of WWI - nobody got anywhere much then, and Panzers aren't much use in the mountains.

We can agree to disagree about Salazar and "soft fascism" (I admit I invented this term). I say soft because I do feel there were echoes of this during the dictatorship/Estado Novo with glorification of the Ultramar provinces/empire, education of nationalism, censorship, reactionary attitudes, secret police, cult of the leader, the typical nationalistic slogans etc....

As you say, there echoes of it during Estado Novo, but Salazar himself was not one of those echoes imo. And also those echoes were not constant during the whole period of course, and although they were common in the beginning in the late 20s and early 30s, even before the war their fundamentals were already being attacked and at least visibly swept away from the public sphere by the influence and personal convictions of Salazar himself. He was a dictator, head of an oppressive regime, anti-parliamentarian and a bastard in general, but a fascist he was not.
We can however perhaps start a new thread if you want to discuss the details, but in my opinion a few points that set him apart from fascism would be: reactionary conservative instead of revolutionary; traditionalist instead of modernist; the cult of simple life ("Viver habitualmente", Live as usually) instead of the cult of agitation (the fascist motto "Live dangerously" is everything that Salazar hated; ditto for the spanish falangist shout of "Viva la muerte"); as a consequence an attitude against all type of agitation instead of fascist militarism (for the regime, the colonial war is therefor a defensive war against external internationalist agitation); salazarism was therefor suspicious or overly against concentrations of masses and militias, while popular armed militias were a pillar of fascism; after early rhetoric of National Revolution, when salazarism consolidated itself, such transformations were over, the society didn't need regeneration, as the regime is a political reflection of the national soul, while fascism, as any totalitarianism is dependent of the idea of a permanent revolution; and many others.

There were common elements of course, like corporativism, nationalist education and nationalist propaganda. But some of those are common to other non fascist regimes, and with regards to nationalism for example, they weren't invented for Salazar, but were actually put in practice by the very undemocratic I Republic, a fact conveniently ignored nowadays.

To sum it up, salazarism as a political system was a an anti-parliamentarian reactionary dictatorship set up in the late 20s/early 30s, which started as a congregation of conservative and right wing sensibilities. In the beginning it wasn't clear what was going to happen, and Salazar, perhaps in a clever political maneuver dated the growing influence of the fascists, Rolão Preto's national syndicalists. It was the time of the famous roman salute of Salazar at the Lisbon Coliseu speech when the militant students came from Coimbra to "thank him" and which caused an editorial orgasm in all fascist and integralist newspapers. However, once he felt he had domesticated the fascist, he crushed them in the mid 30s, ie, even before the war and when internationally, fascism was still on the rise: Rolão Preto was arrested and exiled, the national-syndicalists banned, the fascist newspapers shut down, militias disbanded, roman salutes faded away, and visits from the nazi youth ended.


And this is not only my opinion, it has certainly been echoed by others before. Estado Novo is characterized by some as possessing some fascistic tendencies. And I should add I find some Portuguese opinions of Salazar to be quaintly deluded even today.

That's true, but it works both ways, ie, both sides, the orphans of the regime and the foes, are equally deluded. But what's more sad to notice is that the chair fell almost 40 years ago, yet he remains the compass of national politics. Even if he's not named, everything and everyone is defined with regards to him and his model. Such myth doesn't help in any way to understand him better, what were those 48 years all about and the ones that came before and after, and especially, move on!


I agree with the rest of what you say, Salazar was certainly not going to turn against England/U.S. However ideologically and in terms of government type (dictatorship, political/ideological repression), he aligns better with the Axis (excepting the Soviet Union of course).

As I said above, being a dictator and attacking political opposition isn't any distinct feature of Fascism or Nazism and WW2 is more complex than a simple Dictatorships vs. Democracies contest. Salazar's desire for non belligerent intervention is his strongest conviction at this time for several reasons, pragmatical, strategical and ideological, and while he deeply disliked parliamentarian democracy, he also disliked nazism and fascism and their militaristic and revolutionary nature (he also despised Franco btw). Combined with his more pragmatic views on wide geo-strategy (what was best for Portugal and what was best for the colonies), his sympathies could only rely on the UK. He wasn't so fond on the US and her idealism and new order, but in the end also complied with them.

You also need to see that at the time these issues were a bit more complex: many in democratic Britain for example preferred the franquists in Spain to the republicans, which they feared for its suspected jacobinism, marxism and bolchevism. And in the 30s salazar had an excellent reputation both in Britain and in France as the "good and gentle dictator". The fact that he was dictator wasn't even much of an issue, as what was important was his general doctrine and views, considered mostly normal and necessary, a man with whom one could have a proper civilized understanding, as opposed to the tumultuous and dangerous Hitler and Mussolini (though before the war, not as much feared as Stalin...).

Sorry, but I don't agree. Certainly, if the German Wehrmacht had concentrated on Switzerland with no other distractions, they would have been able to beat them down - but are you forgetting they had other goals to fulfill... just a few? Hitler opened one front after the other, just when did you think the Wehrmacht would have had excess resources to go after Switzerland? Same goes for Sweden..
Of course, if either Sweden with its iron ore,or Switzerland with its routes through the Alps, had declared against Germany, Hitler would have had to redirect priorities to crush them... but it wouldn't have been easy! He would have been stupid (better say: even more stupid than he was already) to attack them unnecessarily.

BTW, if you think it's easy taking mountain redoubts in the Alps, take a look at the Austrian/Italian mountain campaigns of WWI - nobody got anywhere much then, and Panzers aren't much use in the mountains.


This discussion just got intresting again! The Germans would have been utterly destroyed by the Swiss secret weapon ;)


http://www.armyknife.ch/images/swiss_army_knife.jpg



If we assume for a minute that the Germans needed or desired to invade and occupy Switzerland, I don't think it would have taxed them very greatly.

Firstly, conventional resistance would not have worked, the Germans had superior weapons and resources and training/combat experience at almost any given point in WW2. As for the fortress, I am not familier with the one to which you refer or its state of readiness in the war. However, it dosent really matter as fotresses were no obstacle to a modern army, even by the standards of WW1. For example the forts in Belgium were flattened by the Germans relatively quickly. In any case, I wonder how long the fort could have lasted after it had been isolated and surrounded.

Second, resistance to the Germans would have continued in the mountains no doubt as it did in other countries, especially by those opposed to facism. I suspect there were German/facist sympathisers in Swiserland and I know there are German speakers though I don't know how keen they were on joining the reich, so nobody blow me away here please. Anyway, such resistance this would not have stopped the Germans remaining in control of the urban centers and making use of the country, as they were able to do in other parts of Europe. Also, there are lots of questions as just to how effective resistance was to occupation/collaboration in Nazi occupied Europe.

Finally, there is the larger picture. It took the combined efforts of the Allies and all they're resources and manpower to bring down the Axis powers, so I don't see how the swiss could have managed to keep anything but a tiny fraction of the Axis war machine busy.

You don't seem to be familiar with the réduit. So I suggest you read the (section in the) wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9duit) or/and take a look at the site wikipedia is suggesting (yes, wiki is sometimes better as a "search engine") (http://www.fort.ch).

The system does not at all aim at defeating the Nazis/invaders. But at making the new area useless for them by killing all the logistic systems in Switzerland (tunnels, bridges, ...) and hiding the Gold for example.

Read it please and then post your points again, as I do think at the moment we are talking of different things,

mick

You don't seem to be familiar with the réduit. So I suggest you read the (section in the) wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9duit) or/and take a look at the site wikipedia is suggesting (yes, wiki is sometimes better as a "search engine") (http://www.fort.ch).

The system does not at all aim at defeating the Nazis/invaders. But at making the new area useless for them by killing all the logistic systems in Switzerland (tunnels, bridges, ...) and hiding the Gold for example.

Read it please and then post your points again, as I do think at the moment we are talking of different things,

mick

well okay, but nothing there contradicts any of what I said, the article stating that the lowlands and cities would have been abandonded to the Germans, which is precisily what I said. In which circumstance the Germans would may have left the defenders where they are. A static army has little use in modern war which is about mobility and the control of resources, vis-a-vis the Maginot line.

I would also draw your attention to the folklore and myths section of the article, which encouraged enemies to percieve the defense as more of a problem (can't really use the term threat here) than it would have been in reality. The myth had as much of an effect on the defenders as the attackers (if any). Similarly, the French placed absoloute faith in the Maginot line, while in reality it proved to tie up significant French resources which would have been of better use in a mobile army.

The Axis planers and generals would have had the intelligence to see past these myths.

Yes, they would (In fact, the Germans had better maps of Switzerland than the Swiss at the time), but I never said otherwise. Your comparison with Maginot or Ber Leev, or any other line goes wrong as they had other objectives. The Maginot line didn't stand in the alps. It's the geostrategic situation that makes the difference. The reduit was never meant to protect the Swiss, it was meant to render the area useless for the Germans/Soviets.
That's why I stated in an earlier post that the Nazis could have defeated the Swiss easily, but not the Swiss army.

Of course there is a big portion myth in here and I have experienced that personally, but go look at some of the pictures and you can understand why. the whole fortress is impressing. The Swiss Alps are at the moment nothing more but a Emmental cheese, full of holes. And it is even said that the Swiss Army doesn't find the entrances to one fortress any more... ;) (Well, but it is also said that they once forgot a tank at a farm and years later the farmer called what he should do with it... ;)).

Back to topic, we really do not know wether it would have worked, that's up for grabs and really is a What-if thing, impossible to state. That's why I think the myth thing is not relevant for our question, as it concerned more the Swiss themselves ("propaganda") and mostly after-WWII too, I think.

mick

Also, there are lots of questions as just to how effective resistance was to occupation/collaboration in Nazi occupied Europe.
Very in Yugoslavia, tolerably in Poland, Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, and mostly useless elsewhere. :)

@MCdread

I'm well aware Salazar was very much against agitation and social upheaval, hence I was trying to describe him as a "soft" fascist. He was no revolutionary, he was reactionary agreed and wanted people to live their simple backward lives. He didn't want to fight wars (although that became inevitable in the colonies). But even the Carnation revolution wasn't much of a revolution, it was very quiet and people came out in the streets only after, and so much time after the "chair fell", as you put it... maybe it's just a reflection of Portuguese nature, I don't know.

So while I recognize the quiet and simple nature of his dictatorship (this is what I was alluding to by "soft"), I don't think this automatically absolves consideration of Estado Novo as possessing some fascist traits (this is what I meant by echoes, not personalities or ideologies, but characteristics of the state itself in practice), namely the things I have already referred to: Nationalism, Corporatism, suppression of freedoms, right wing government (I somewhat disagree about distinction between reactionary vs revolutionary. I realize your point has some merit, but the fascist governments too appealed to old glory, the glorious past) etc. In any case if you disagree with "soft fascist" label, I imagine you still agree it was a rightwing authoritarian dictatorship among whose characteristics were Nationalism and Corporatism (both of which are common to fascism as you agreed). This is what gives it a semi fascist feel to me, being right and combining these characteristics. I agree his ideology doesn't exactly fit fascism, he is his own creature, but it's the characteristics of the state in practice that have some parallels with fascism, without the extreme violence. He wasn't an over the top Mussolini for sure.

And about the deluded comment, I wasn't talking about communists vs supportors of Salazar, but just some common people's attitudes about how it was better under Salazar. I guess I should have made that clearer. I am aware there are complexities here, I am not trying to be simplistic. You look at anything close enough and you can see it doesn't fit a perfect dictionary definition. It's true that Salazar wasn't really fascist like Mussolini for example, but I feel the state in practice did have some fascist characteristics (already mentioned) Portuguese style (very calm, not violent).

@MCdread
In any case if you disagree with "soft fascist" label, I imagine you still agree it was a rightwing authoritarian dictatorship among whose characteristics were Nationalism and Corporatism (both of which are common to fascism as you agreed).


Yes, an authoritarian right wing and anti-parliamentarian dictatorship. It had a few traits in common with fascism, especially as it was born around the same time and in response to some common events, but most of the similarities not exclusive of either, therefor I'd say it was more of a classic authoritarian political system, with some specificities of time (where some echoes of fascism can be seen), place and personality and beliefs of its main perpetrators, Salazar by far the most important. But to put into a broader historical context it is at least as much, if not more, miguelist or anti-republican (in the sense of the I Republic) than fascist. And there other big influences apart from that: Carmona was a Freemason, and he was an important figure in the beginning, the military that made the coup of May 26 and then abdicated their power to Salazar were simply classic traditionalist conservatives, some monarchists. Marcello Caetano, though initially (in the 30s) an integralist (a semi-fascist ideology to which Humberto Delgado, later a freedom hero also adhered to...), turned into a sort of authoritarian conservative with social concerns like welfare. After WW2, some christian democrats also took part and influenced the regime (Adriano Moreira was an influent minister, for example).

Anyway, we're largely OT. :)

Anyway, we're largely OT. :)

Yes but your posts are always well worth reading and interesting. I'm moving back to Lisbon in the summer, we should watch a game of your favourite team Benfica together.

Yes but your posts are always well worth reading and interesting. I'm moving back to Lisbon in the summer, we should watch a game of your favourite team Benfica together.

A drink we can take and a football game we can see, and hope we do, but the only thing I want see of Benfica is them rotting. :p

Spain sent troops to fight the Russians. And they did see light combat with British soldiers.

Yes this alliance goes back to medieval times. As an interesting side note, Ian Fleming worked for British intelligence and passed through Lisbon during WWII. Remember those crazy James Bond Casino scenes with spies?? Estoril Casino during this period was the kernel of inspiration.

You had a nice triangulation between Lisbon, Stockholm and Istanbul. A lot of WWII cloack-and-dagger stuff went on in all three.

I know this is off-topic, but if anyone knows any more about this, I'd be interested in hearing it, since its something I know nothing about.

I know this is off-topic, but if anyone knows any more about this, I'd be interested in hearing it, since its something I know nothing about.

I'm not an expert, but here is some more information. Estoril, a sunny and luxurious resort town (with casinos) just outside of Lisbon, was an aristocratic playground for European elites during this period, as was Lisbon itself. During the WWII period, various royal exiles could be found here as well as powerful elites in general.

For example, Calouste Gulbenkian, "Mr. Five Percent", an Armenian oil tycoon, took refuge in Lisbon during WWII and lived there for the rest of his life, becoming one of the city's greatest patrons ever in the process (His name is omnipresent in Lisbon). Gulbenkian is famous for being instrumental in opening up the Middle East (Oil) to the West, helping found Shell, and founding/running Iraqi Oil Fields after WWI (he kept 5 percent of all revenue from Iraq which was under his control, hence his nickname).

Then you had the royals, like the last Italian king (House of Savoy), the Duke of Windsor (who had famously abdicated the thrown and suspected of harbouring some Nazi sympathies), and the Spanish royalty, who were all exiled in Lisbon.

This is the kind of over-the-top milieu Fleming and other spies (Codename Garbo for example) found in Estoril and Lisbon. Fleming's first book, Casino Royale, which is also the newest Bond film (I haven't seen it but I heard the new Bond is good), took inspiration from Fleming's WWII intelligence experience in Lisbon. Lisbon's role as a neutral ground between Axis/Allies is also referenced in other films, like Humphrey Bogart's "Casablanca", where the war hero and lead female are attempting to flee to Lisbon to escape the Axis.

Here is a couple paragraph quote from Wiki's entry on the PVDE/PIDE (Port. secret police) which touches on the Espionage going on...

Wikipedia:
Also in 1936, with the beginning of the Spanish Civil War and in 1937 with the attempt against Salazar's life by anarchist militants, the PVDE started focusing its battle against Communism and the underground Portuguese Communist Party. During this pre-World War II period, several Italian and German advisors came to Portugal to help the PVDE to adopt a model similar to the Gestapo.

During the war, the PVDE experienced its most intense period of activity. Lisbon was the European centre of espionage and one of the favourite exile destinations. Writers such as Ian Fleming (the creator of James Bond) and other famous personalities such as the Duke of Windsor or the Spanish Royal Family were exiled in Lisbon. German spies attempted to buy information on trans-Atlantic shipping to help their submarines fight the Battle of the Atlantic. The Spaniard Juan Pujol Garcia, better known as Codename Garbo, passed on misinformation to the Germans, hoping it would hasten the end of the Franco regime - he was recruited by Britain as a double agent while in Lisbon. Conversely, William Colepaugh, an American traitor, was recruited as an agent by the Germans while his ship was in port in Lisbon - he was subsequently landed by U-boat U-1230 in Maine before being captured. In June 1943, a commercial airliner carrying the actor Leslie Howard was shot down over the Bay of Biscay by the Luftwaffe after taking off from Lisbon, possibly because German spies in Lisbon believed that Prime Minister Winston Churchill was on board.

Several American reports called Lisbon "The Capital of Espionage". However, the PVDE always maintained a neutral stance towards foreign espionage activity, as long as no one intervened in Portuguese internal policies.