WI: The British sieze the Azores in the spring of 1940

I'm sure everyone here appreciates the significance of the hole in air cover over the central atlantic had in the Battle of the Atlantic, and that the British were very interested in basing airplanes on the Portuguese held Azores Islands.

They were able to secure them diplomatically, but by the time they did so, they had already effectively won the convoy war (IIRC, October 1943) and the remaining strategic impact had lessened considerably.

What if we have an alternate scenario where Portugal is not willing to hand over the islands, so the British, probably around the time when France is appearing to collapse, simply seizes them. As far as I know, the islands were completely undefended, so physically grabbing them wouldn't be that hard.


What are the likely consequences of this though? Would the rest of the British commonwealth have laid any major objections? How would the U.S. have reacted? Portugal's obviously going to be upset, but they don't seem that tough, but would that kind of naked aggression be enough to swing over some other nations into Hitler's bag? Would these sorts of penalties be acceptable in light of getting a much safer route from Canada to England?
 
Just happen to have 'Lisbon' by Neill Lochery on my shelf. A history of Portugals non participation in WWII it includes a description of the negotiations between Salazar & Brit diplomats over British military intervention into Portuguse territory.

Salazars main concern from 1940 was Spanish invasion, possiblly backed by German assistance. Portuguse intelligence services told Salazar the Spanish had been developing their plans to occupy Portugal. Salazar saw continental Portugal as indefensible 1941-42, even with British assistance. He planned to remove his government to the Azores, or further if necessary, & return with British assistance later. IIRC the Azores were defended by some local Gendmere type police units and a few companies of regular infantry. I've no knowledge of any militia.

The US also had a plan in the hands of the Navy for occupying the Azores if necessary. Like the occupation of Iceland it would have initially been of Naval units including a brigade of Marines, replaced by Army and Army Air Force units later.

Precisely what a Spanish motivation for marching into Portugal would have been is not clear. There were the Wolfram or Tungsten mines. Portugal had the bulk of the deposits & Spain had a small depoisit on its side of the border, and gained a bit more income from smuggling of stolen Wolfram ore smuggled from Portugal. Portugal also had a number of exiles from Spain lingering it Lisbons hotels & apartments, whom the Spanish police had a interest in. Maybe Spain wanted the cork trees?
 
But what if the British flat out invade the Azores? Does Spain use this as an excuse to invade Portugal (with German encouragement) to preempt the British? Kind of like Hitler claiming he was preempting the British in Norway?

Also, what is Lisbon's reaction to the British doing this?
 
...

What if we have an alternate scenario where Portugal is not willing to hand over the islands, so the British, probably around the time when France is appearing to collapse, simply seizes them. As far as I know, the islands were completely undefended, so physically grabbing them wouldn't be that hard.


What are the likely consequences of this though? Would the rest of the British commonwealth have laid any major objections? How would the U.S. have reacted? Portugal's obviously going to be upset, but they don't seem that tough, but would that kind of naked aggression be enough to swing over some other nations into Hitler's bag? Would these sorts of penalties be acceptable in light of getting a much safer route from Canada to England?

The US would take this about the same as it took the Brit occupation of Iceland in 1940. "Do you require any assistance?". Or the plans for Operation Gymnast, the invasion of nuetral French territory like Morroco & Algeria; Again: "How can we help?" The only penalty for the Brits is having to put up with Yanks milling about.

But what if the British flat out invade the Azores? Does Spain use this as an excuse to invade Portugal (with German encouragement) to preempt the British? Kind of like Hitler claiming he was preempting the British in Norway?

Also, what is Lisbon's reaction to the British doing this?

Salazar disliked the nazis and Mussolinis policies. Not remotely his brand of authoritarian rule. He & his cohorts prided themselves on good sense & dispationate technical skill in economics and administration. Things they saw both the nazis and Italian Facists as lacking. He also had a better view of Britains prospects & the growing alliance with the US. To get a hostile Portugal you have to get rid of Salazar & his supporters, replacing them with people of a different political outlook.

If the Brits did panic and occupy the Azores Salazar would likely continue his secret talks with the Brits, and open talks with Germany & Span to attempt to stall any action on their part. In the end Salazar might end up in exile.

There might be consequences for France. German diplomats had inquired in early 1941 & did so gain, about basing German maritime reconissance aircraft in Morroco and refueling them in Dakar. With Commonwealth soldiers & aircraft on Portuguese territory Hitler might take a interest in the Morroco plan and force the issue with Petains government. Petain & Co recognized Axis aircraft in Morroco as a slippery slope. Were that to happen then Britain & the US are liable to see Op Gymnast as a priority & execute it in the summer of 1942 or earlier.
 
Last edited:
What if the Republicans won the Spainish Civil War? A less threatening Spain might embolden Portugal to do something on the scale of allowing Allied access to the Azores. Although, a non-fascist Spain can also attract Hitler's attention when France falls...
 
"Must clean up the Bolshivik abcess in Iberia." More German combat power is wasted on a irrelevant frontier. In the long run to his enemies advantage.

How much would the Allies be hindered by Gibraltar being taken (I assume not much, given that much Allied shipping to North Africa pre-Operation Torch was rerouted around Africa)?

With Portuguese (and Spainish) entry, I'd say it more than balances out in favour of tne Allies, with islands in the Atlantic, West Africa, East Indies and West Mediterranean all coming under Allied control.
 
I'm not so sure. A lot of the shipping to Malta went through the western Med, and Malta was the key to the supply interdiction that was giving Rommel trouble.

Take Gibraltar, neutralize Malta, and suddenly an axis push to Suez doesn't seem all that ridiculous. You'd really probably need both though, or it would be worthless. And I'd only rate the upgrade of a push to Suez to "possible", I'm not saying it would definitely work.

And even if the Axis do turn the Mediterranean into their private lake, it's not all that clear how much that helps them overall. I mean, sure, Italy would likely be ignored in favor of just building up more to hit Normandy with, but I can't see them appreciably slowing down either the Western or Eastern fronts with a few extra Italian divisions floating around somewhere.
 
The major limiting factor on the Axis logisitcs in Africa wasn't due to Malta, it was due to pathetic pre-war development by the Italians, both in port and transport facilities.
 
What if we have an alternate scenario where Portugal is not willing to hand over the islands, so the British, probably around the time when France is appearing to collapse, simply seizes them. As far as I know, the islands were completely undefended, so physically grabbing them wouldn't be that hard.

What are the likely consequences of this though? Would the rest of the British commonwealth have laid any major objections? How would the U.S. have reacted? Portugal's obviously going to be upset, but they don't seem that tough, but would that kind of naked aggression be enough to swing over some other nations into Hitler's bag? Would these sorts of penalties be acceptable in light of getting a much safer route from Canada to England?

It's going to cause the British a lot of headaches with neutral countries. It will alienate Portugal, probably Brazil. Salazar doesn't much like Hitler or Mussolini, but he's not a total autocrat; his regime includes a lot of reactionary and quasi-fascist types who are more pro-Axis - or may turn pro-Axis because of this.

This is not comparable to Iceland; the British moved into Iceland after the Germans invaded Denmark. This is unprovoked invasion of a neutral country, the same thing Hitler is being condemned for. It's going to weaken U.S. popular support for Britain substantially. It will probably affect Lend-Lease, which will be later and smaller.

And I don't know that it does the British that much good. Their ASW aircraft are pretty weak at this time, and the main convoy lane is as far north of the Azores as it is south of Iceland. It would make a bigger difference in 1942.
 
How much would the Allies be hindered by Gibraltar being taken (I assume not much, given that much Allied shipping to North Africa pre-Operation Torch was rerouted around Africa)?

Effectively nearly all went around Africa. The Tiger Convoy was one notable exception. Some high risk aircraft reinforcement missions were flown from the western Mediterranean to Malta, which had mixed results. Operation Pedestal lost a lot of ships.

Gibraltar was useful as a well developed military port, tho not a large one. A good anchorage for Brit surface units to refuel between mid Atlantic patrols.
 
Is'nt / was'nt Portugal England's oldest ally?

Propoganda-wise the Germans would have a field day with it
 
The major limiting factor on the Axis logisitcs in Africa wasn't due to Malta, it was due to pathetic pre-war development by the Italians, both in port and transport facilities.

It seems a little bit unfair to call it "pathetic", given that until the late Gheddafik's petrodollars those roads and installations were very appreciated by both locals and colonists.

I may concede that they weren't top-tier and that they often didn't offered alternatives on key routes, but you could have say the same to British infrastructures in Egypt, obviously leaving apart the trio Alexandria-Cairo-Suez Canal; the logistic problems of RE in North Africa weren't neither the convoys flow (check percentage of Axis ships successfully reaching Tripoli and other major ports there, it wasn't until Tunisian campaign that they dramatically dropped) neither roads, bad as everywhere in the area; the problem was the organization of logistics in itself together with the lack of resources needed to have a winning offensive war in the desert in 1940.
 

Driftless

Donor
What's the impact on the Azores & Portugal if something like pdf27's "Blunted Sickle" scenario were in place? France is not conquered, denying the Germans uboat bases in western France. If convoys are able to run farther south, would anyone press Portugal to use the Azores as a base?
 
Just happen to have 'Lisbon' by Neill Lochery on my shelf. A history of Portugals non participation in WWII it includes a description of the negotiations between Salazar & Brit diplomats over British military intervention into Portuguse territory.

Salazars main concern from 1940 was Spanish invasion, possiblly backed by German assistance. Portuguse intelligence services told Salazar the Spanish had been developing their plans to occupy Portugal. Salazar saw continental Portugal as indefensible 1941-42, even with British assistance. He planned to remove his government to the Azores, or further if necessary, & return with British assistance later. IIRC the Azores were defended by some local Gendmere type police units and a few companies of regular infantry. I've no knowledge of any militia.

The US also had a plan in the hands of the Navy for occupying the Azores if necessary. Like the occupation of Iceland it would have initially been of Naval units including a brigade of Marines, replaced by Army and Army Air Force units later.

Precisely what a Spanish motivation for marching into Portugal would have been is not clear. There were the Wolfram or Tungsten mines. Portugal had the bulk of the deposits & Spain had a small depoisit on its side of the border, and gained a bit more income from smuggling of stolen Wolfram ore smuggled from Portugal. Portugal also had a number of exiles from Spain lingering it Lisbons hotels & apartments, whom the Spanish police had a interest in. Maybe Spain wanted the cork trees?

The goal would have been pan-Iberian unity. Many Falangists wanted to conquer Portugal, but Franco wasn't really a Falangist and wanted far more than Hitler could afford to give him to join the war anyway. But what is Spain had joined the war? Could the exhausted Spanish military of 1940 or 41 have actually overran Portugal?
 
Is'nt / was'nt Portugal England's oldest ally?

Propaganda-wise the Germans would have a field day with it

Yes, the Treaty of Windsor 1386 which is the longest running treaty of alliance still in place and never breached.

"In the first place we settle and covenant that there shall be from this day forward... true, faithful, constant, mutual and perpetual friendships, unions, alliances, and needs of sincere affection, and that as true and faithful friends we shall henceforth, reciprocally, be friends to friends and enemies to enemies, and shall assist, maintain, and uphold each other mutually, by sea and by land, against all men that may live and die."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Portuguese_Treaty_of_1373#cite_note-1
 
I always wondered how såsom managed to avoid being dragged in. If Gibraltar falls, then the med falls IMHO. If Portugal does not declare war in this POD, they are OB the allied side and Spain is forced to intervene.
 
It seems a little bit unfair to call it "pathetic", given that until the late Gheddafik's petrodollars those roads and installations were very appreciated by both locals and colonists.
It was pathetic compared to what the British and French had put together.

I may concede that they weren't top-tier and that they often didn't offered alternatives on key routes, but you could have say the same to British infrastructures in Egypt, obviously leaving apart the trio Alexandria-Cairo-Suez Canal;
Libya didn't offer even a rail-track to most places, which is much worse than egypt. Also, the west-bound lines were kind of constrained by the Qattara Depression.

the problem was the organization of logistics in itself together with the lack of resources needed to have a winning offensive war in the desert in 1940.
Lack of resources was due to poor pre-war investment, and the organisation of the logistics was in fact about as good as it could be.
 
Brits and French were in Egypt already in 1859 given the Suez Canal works, themselves implying the build up of infrastructures; Italy wasn't even an unitary state in 1859 and it wasn't until after WWI that we could reasonably claim to effectively control Libya. I don't know about you but I see quite a mismatch in time available to tune up roads, ports or whatever you may need to help your military moving on.

I also have issues with the question of the lack of resources as caused by poor pre-war investment: you may stockpile lets say oil or rubber but if they have always to be imported you are left with just two alternatives, giving it up (like RM did in late 1942-1943) or try to get them by force (like Japan or Germany); the logistics was poorly organized, for Christ's sake, check out what happened prior of the invasion of Greece (troops sent to Albania with their divisional assets left in Apulia for a series of misunderstandings), during the war in East Africa (they sent wrong sizes of tires for both aircraft and vehicles forcing the RE to left all of them behind in the last stages of the conflict), in the expedition to the USSR (troops lacked trucks and winter equipment to criminal levels)...
 
Libya was far less developed than Egypt to start with, and of course we should keep in mind that Mussolini didn't have a crystal ball, the Italian war-effort was intended to focus upon France and Yugoslavia.
 
Top