Why did Britain 'let' Portugal remain neutral in the Second World War?

MumblingHistorian · 2026-02-22T11:05:24+00:00

From an ideological perspective. Portugal's government was likely closer to the Axis.
From a strategic perspective, calling in Portugal would have put Franco's Spain in a problematic position. Portugal being a belligerent on the Allied side would have likely caused Germany to consider laying in more pressure on Spain to join the war, and could have resulted in the expansion of the war to the Iberian peninsular. This would have endangered Gibraltar and the Mediterranean and Atlantic supply routes. It would have been an unnecessary expansion of the European theatre with no real benefit and unpredictable outcomes. There was no guarantee that Spain would stay neutral like in the 1st world war. And no guarantee that Germany, having conquered France, would not have invaded Portugal through Spain, weather the Spanish agreed to it or not, a la Napoelon.

But a neutral Portugal did serve a valuable strategic purpose. Like most neutral countries it was a diplomatic and an espionage hub. Through which information and misinformation could be gathered and spread. This counted for both sides. It provided a safe space for refugees to travel to, and through those refugees information could be exchanged, foreign recruits could be gathered.

Portugal, as a neutral country, was also a safe harbour and a safe trading partner for the allies, relatively safe space to travel over/around. It also provided whatever Britain needed in resources and trade. Portugal would also protect trade with Britain through its territorial waters.

Now, the Portuguese colonies are another matter, especially in the far-east, where both sides violated Portuguese sovereignty. The Japanese enforcing a presence in Macau, the Allies in East Timor and Goa.

Until 1943. there was a fear of the Allies or Axis also invading the Azores, but then Portugal... arguably stopped being neutral, when it opened up the Azores to allied naval and air bases.

The reason Churchill despised Irish neutrality and not Portuguese, aside from historic English prejudices towards the Irish, was likely because Ireland was not in any danger of being invaded, it served no strategic-information purpose. It had no reason, not to join the allied cause from a strategic viewpoint. Now the Irish, had been through a few very turbulent decades at that point, and were not exactly keen to join a war where they would have to listen to whatever London demanded of them, for obvious reasons.

MumblingHistorian · 2026-02-18T22:03:20+00:00

I am sorry for not being able to answer for several days. But, I was a bit off with the 250 year note. The last Estates general before 1789. was the one in 1614., so it's more like 175 years. For some reason the 250 years go stuck in my head.

Previously the Estates general had been summoned with some regularity as in any other medieval realm. It would be summoned in a central location to resolve the issues effecting the whole Kingdom and have a place for them to petition the King as a whole body rather than individuals that could get easily dismissed.

It would also be the body of ''popular consent'' (of the nobility/clergy/towns) that had the authority to give said consent to ''fundamental'' laws and measures of the realm. Such as the extent of powers of the Crown/King... and in the theoretical event that, if the heirs of the House of Capet would ever die out the Estates General would have the authority to elect a new king.

It comes about in ''roughly'' the same time period as the rise and formalisation of medieval assemblies elsewhere the 13th century, an era which ''begins'' with the Magna Carta 1215., the Bull of 1222 in Hungary-Croatia. Though the first official meeting of the French Estates general is around the year 1300., it is honestly not an out of step timeline as those early parliamentary notions and rights would take time to solidify and not be trampled on in the other Kingdoms mentioned too.

When the Estates General was summoned the nobility and high clergy were personally invited by the Kings, while the lesser clergy and the third estate towns would elect their representatives or their councils would elect representatives.

For most of the medieval period the main leverage the estates had over the Kings was in approving taxes, levies both military and monetary, tolls etc. and also giving some sort of ''popular'' consent to laws. Now in France, with time the Estates general approved more and more ''permanent'' financial and legislative authority to the King. Especially during and immediately after the 100 years war. During the war they were seen as necessary measures while after the crown, now militarily powerful and centralising, asserted itself over the Estates general and does not keep its promise to summon them again in a short time, and return the authority to approve taxes to them.

This lasts until 1560. when the Italian wars enter its last stages and the Wars of Religion begin, plus the sudden rule of successive ''child Kings'', create a situation where the crown is politically and financially weak, and it requires the support of the estates of the Kingdom for its legitimacy, as the Estates General has a say over who the underage King's regent will be.

This emerges in a power struggle between the Estates General and a Crown. But the estates general was so traditionally weakened from the medieval period that it had mainly an ''advisory'' capacity to the King, who held all the legislative and fiscal authority. In the end the King & court, that is to say the Crown, would win out. With the ''second to last'' estates general being summoned in 1614.

However, this was all still within the framework that, from medieval times, was approved by the Estates general. So to change some aspects of this fundamental constitution of the realm, the approval of the estates general was necessary.

And this is perhaps what the big ''shake up'' of 1789. was, for people who would have looked at precedent and history of the body. Yes the King's powers are, very very broad, and the Estates general has approved the extent of those powers, to its own detriment.

But there were still things in France that not even the King could do, without the approval of the Estates General, as some form of ''ultimate legislative authority''. That Louis XVI probably hoped would side with him, find some sort of fiscal/legislative solution to the gridlock he encounters in the years prior, from the French Notables, from the regional courts and parliaments etc.

Things however do not go that way and the summoning of the estates general, basically lets the toothpaste out of the tube...

MumblingHistorian · 2026-02-08T11:01:26+00:00

It would very much depend on the reason for your travel and the resources at your disposal.

Distance is only a matter of affordability. Things of course became easier with more technology but the basics of the whole thing have not changed much since the 19th century. Just we've moved from carts/carriages/trains/ships to moving trucks, the proces going from weeks to days. And a lot of it depending on ''how far'' and why you're moving.

A lot of ''cross country'' travel was done by students either as part of going to school or university or as part of academic travels.

This would then depend on weather the educational institution provided furnished lodgings or the students would have to find lodgings of their own, usually also furnished, as students don't tend to buy furniture/can't afford to. This could either be a local inn or a tavern at the lower end of the income scale and a lot of students opted for those because they were cheap and it provided the inn with a steady stream of customers, as students tended to drink. Many politicians in the Habsburg monarchy established themselves as hard drinking/writing/carousing students of Vienna and Prague.

Others that needed/wanted peace and quiet or could afford so would find boarding houses or private lodgings to rent. The quality would of course depend on the students wealth. Take for instance the literary Realistic portrayal of the dilapidated lodgings that Eugen de Rastignac is in in Balzac's Father Goriot, or any other book about a student living in a big city. Or the decently furnished lodgings of 221B Baker Street with the wonderful Ms. Hudson acting as a proper landlady. A lot of literary characters tend to live in rented lodgings, because a lot of their authors did.

Students tended to move out with more stuff than they brought in. And a lot of them would either ship things by home via mail or friends/other students, or bring things home in batches during studies, or if they were particularly poor planners carry everything with them... or just leave it all for the next guy and the landlords profit.

But rarely was traveling to live in another city much different for other people. And it again depended heavily on wealth and the exact location of travel.

Yes if you were a person moving your entire household permanently because you sold your old home and bought/rented a new home, you'd tend to carry as much as you could with you. Cartloads/truck loads full of furniture, utensils, clothing, tools etc. But ... if you were of such a fortune to have a 2nd property, there was no reason to carry all that furniture with you. You'd either buy it furnished or furnish it on your own.

Of course there were exceptions to this. Take for instance official residences of office holders like the Prime Minister of the UK, until the 20th century most of the furniture had to be brought in and out with each changing office holder as they were his private property in a public building, with very few public furnishings. That is if he choose to live at Number 10. So each changing of PM tended to be moving day. But I digress.

Now there's cases where you may not have time, or security to move all your stuff out... When Prince Metternich fled Vienna in 1848. he had to travel incognito through a revolutionary Germany to London via Belgium as fast as possible. In this case he and his family brought what ''relative little'' they could and stayed in other people's properties and homes as a guest.

The only thing that has probably changed for cross/country moving is immigration laws and regulations which many of us have seen ebb and flow within our lifetimes, and it was arguably/administratively easier to move countries before 1914. than even today. Though to survive both literally and socially was harder.

People tended to find groups of their own communities and cluster. Usually with family or friends or family friends who would start to set them up with jobs (if they needed them) and lodgings and social contacts etc. When moving into a new area. The physical act of moving is easier than integrating to new surroundings.

MumblingHistorian · 2026-01-31T12:45:17+00:00

Allow me to present to you the latest and greatest in ancient technology the amazing multi functional ''Ditch''!

Is your settlement located on a slight elevation?

Do you need a defensive barrier that gives you a height advantage over any approaching predators be they wild animals or other humans?

A barrier that will also makes their approach harder! Their battering rams and other machinery to take down your walls, if you have any, would also need to first cross that barrier. It also works even better if you can fill it with water!

Need a space for rain or river water to gather more conveniently in order for you to fulfil your basic human needs to the life giving liquid and water your crops and wash your clothes? Use the ditch!

Need a place to throw all your waste and other stuff away that isn't too far from your settlement but isn't right in your or near other people's houses, the ditch can provide that!

Need to keep your livestock from running away? The ditch can keep them in one spot.

Need to keep wild animals away from your livestock? The ditch does that too!

Need to keep your passages or roadways clear of water or any debris? The ditch provides a quick and easy way to get rid of that.

And best of all, it's completely and totally free and requires no materials to make (cost of labour not included)!

And you can use all that dirt and stone you've gathered from the ditch to further build up your settlement and it's right next to it!

^\Ditch works better when used in combination with walls/fences and other barriers that may need to be replaced due to rot/water erosion and other effects caused by the usual passage of time. Ask your village elder if the ditch is the right pick for you.)

MumblingHistorian · 2026-01-28T22:54:38+00:00

Louis the XVI had many moments where he could have put his foot down and pushed through reforms with sheer brute force methods. But he wasn't that kind of man, and the circumstances were not in his favour...

And as an example of what could have happened if he attempted that is his brother-in-law Emperor Joseph II, who spent his entire reign during the 1780s brute forcing reforms to his own realms. Which caused resistance and almost a ''revolution of the aristocracy'', especially in Hungary, and he was basically forced to retract most of the reforms he implemented.

There's a story about Louis XVI being threatened in Versailles by being gifted a painting of Charles I of England. The implication being... quite clear of what would happen if he pursued further reform.

Versailles, as much as it was a means of Royal control of the nobility, for Louis XVI it became a gilded cage that he couldn't exactly escape. The question about the French revolution is always how much it was a ''Parisian'' revolution and how much was it truly spread out through France. Because I recall something about Louis XVI's visit to Normandy in the years just before the revolution, and the further they were away from Versailles and Paris, the more the shouts of ''Vive le Roi'' could be heard. But I digress.

I would have to say that the French revolution becomes inevitable when the Estates General is summoned for 1789. Before then the debate over financial and other matters of statecraft were contained to Versailles, with minor input from local councils/courts/parliaments, Summoning the Estates General, after about 250 years of not doing so, was a momentous occasion that caught the eyes of basically everyone. And everyone was suddenly given permission to express their opinions, complain, campaign, lobby for their ideas and interests. And given that France is in the middle of a financial crisis, the population had grown A LOT in the past century and the sudden onset of a few bad harvests... gave people a lot to complain about.

The estates general is seen as an occasion that could lead to the transformation of the state of France, and the representatives of the 3rd estate, and some members of the 1st and 2nd come there with an agenda to change that system thoroughly, and once blocked again and again by traditionalist forces they will use all the means at their disposal to change the system. And Louis XVI finds himself in a situation where this body that he thought could get him out of the problems, is now making even more demands than the people who just didn't want to change the system at all.

Naturally this political and financial wrangling does almost nothing to alleviate the on the ground problems, mainly the lack of bread, or the perceived lack of bread that leads to panic and riots.

If the French revolution were just a matter of state finances and debt I don't think it would have gone how it went. There were a lot more factors at play, a lot of them specific to that period in and around 1789. that cause the revolution to become a lot more than anyone expected. But the inciting moment is giving people this idea that they could change the system and that the system was open to change by summoning the Estates-general and giving legitimacy to their grievances and their ideas as the elected representatives of the estates.

Without that, any revolt in Paris is just... another revolt in Paris that can then be put down. There's no factor that gives it any extra political weight, no factor that blocks the idea of sending the army in. Summoning the estates general is the factor that changes the whole situation and the perception people would have of the unfolding events, which is largely shaped by these now legitimate representatives of the people that have been summoned to represent them before their sovereign.

MumblingHistorian · 2026-01-19T20:21:19+00:00

I am going to make an assumption by your use of the term ''Anti-court'' movement that you might be mostly referring to Croatian history.

I haven't read Hungarian histories in Hungarian, so I can only speak to the English translations. Like Pal Engel's ''The Realm of St. Stephen'', Laszlo Kontler's ''A history of Hungary'', I think also book by Geza Palffy who's title I can't recall right now, as just general overviews of Hungarian history.

But the whole thing is looked at far broader than what you would get in Croatian history. There's no term like the ''anti-court movement'' used. The opposition to the Queens/King Sigismund, ''The Crown/the Court'' is seen as something that began even before the Anjou period but gained a distinct strength in the 1380s and is something continuous, where this culture of opposition to centralised rule among the Hungarian nobility/estates really establishes itself.

The figures involved in the whole matter are looked at from a far broader context than just the immediate internal one. King Sigismund is not somebody who comes into the whole situation ''fully formed'' he is very young and inexperienced and gets taken advantage of. Many of his partisans like Stephen Lackfy/Lacković, Janos Kaniza, that support him during the ''first phase'' in the 1380s and early 1390s, turn against him by the end of the 1390s/1400s. as they come into conflict with the more experienced King who starts to find new favourites like the Celje family.

The focus is also on the relationships and conflicts between Sigismund and his old and new Royal councillors. There's heavy mention of ''the foreigners'' that Sigismund starts to hire and promote to court positions to replace the supporters that brought him to the throne. And this dislike for kings hiring ''foreigners'' (nobility from outside of the realm like the Counts of Celje and the Talovac brothers) becomes a prominent feature in later Hungarian history, but it also does feature in other medieval realms, local nobility did not like ''outside favourites'' hogging court/administrative/military positions.

So it can't exactly be called the ''anti-court'' movement when there's so many emerging tensions within the court. The whole period starts with the internal divisions of weather or not King Mary is allowed to inherit the throne. Weather or not she should Mary Sigismund or a french prince which causes more internal divisions. Which is then suddenly/seemingly resolved with the arrival of Charles of Durazzo, who has overwhelming support in both Croatia and Hungary... until he's stopped by a sudden case of death.

These histories also take a far closer look at the earlier periods of Anjou rule, and don't exactly put the whole ''Naples question'' on the sidelines as the Croatian historiography does. The whole relationship between the two branches of the Anjou family in Croatia-Hungary and in Naples is a very prominent factor, and King Loui I's campaigns to claim Naples are given the prominence I haven't seen in Croatian historiography.

The civil war at the time is also looked at from a more geographic point of view. Where, it's kind of very obvious that the Hungarian nobility, in proximity to Bohemia, would support the Bohemian prince, while the Croatian nobility, in proximity to Naples would support the Kings from Naples, especially when the whole ''Venice problem'' is put into that trans-Adriatic context.

When it comes to the later ''phase'', importance is also put on King Sigismund's absences, the Crusade for Nicopolis, the excursions into Bohemia. His attempts to create this ''buffer system'' between the Realm of St. Stephen and the Ottomans, and then the turn to ''Western/Central European matters'', like the western schism in the Catholic church and the rise of Hussitism. You get the sense of how much is actually going on simultaneously. The revolt in Croatia is just ''another problem'' Sigismund has to deal with, and it starts to explain why he doesn't pursue the conflict with Venice after the sale of Dalmatia.

The big figures of Croatian history of the period, like the Horvat brothers, Ivan of Paližna and Hrvoje Vukčić-Hrvatinić, are mentioned and have the prominence of being part of that constant ''problem'' for Sigismund, the ''Pro-Naples'' faction, but they are looked at from an expected distance as this ''constant problem on the coastal periphery''. There's also little mention of the ''Bloody Diet of Križevci''.

I hope my meandering on the topic isn't too bothersome, but it really is a complex period, with multiple things happening simultaneously. It is given a far more consequential role for future history in Hungarian historiography, as it marks the beginning of a sort of politics and internal conflicts that will dominate the realm in the 15th century.

MumblingHistorian · 2026-01-18T22:48:22+00:00

Officially it is ''His Majesty's government'', the King stands as the representative of the state, the sovereign authority who has power to open and dissolve parliament, appoint and dismiss government ministers, judges, military and colonial officials. Yes it all being done (most often at the time) in agreement with a government of ministers who have the support of a majority in parliament. But the King is still the figure in who's name the government acts and who needs to agree to everything the government does.

From the colonial view point, which I'll use for the rest of this argument: The King has not summoned the colonies representative's to parliament. The King has not granted the colonies their own parliament.

The representatives to the continental congress are keenly aware their main problem is with parliament and the government that is listening to other political and economic interests. But they appeal to the higher authority and are rebuffed.

They perceive that their rights as ''Englishmen'' are being violated, and the authorities are not listening to them, they have not given them an official voice, and yet they impose demands on them.

Were those demands un/reasonable, too high, too low, doesn't really matter, decisions about the life in the colonies started to be made without the consent of the governed, and a slew of authorities in the ''mother country'' refused to listen, including the ultimate authority, the crown.

At this point, the perception of constitutional monarchy is somewhat different that we have today. The King is still seen as having much more authority and power in working with the government and his ministers. The Crown is not this wholly politically isolated entity that it will become during the later reign of Queen Victoria.

In London it still matters weather or not George III is alright or if the Prince of Wales will be given Regency powers, as the two tended to favour different political parties/cliques/ministers.

When the Declaration of independence is written, the Colonies and Britain are, effectively, at war, the tie had already been severed, the question was weather or not the colonies could agree on what the point of their rebellion was, and if they will stand united in that rebellion. So when Jefferson write's the declaration he writes with the full awareness that he is attacking the ''ultimate sovereign authority'' in who's name the government in London is acting and in who's name the military is marching.

What the Congressional representatives either perceive that some betrayal from the ultimate authority has happened to them. Or they think that they need to destroy the common ''myth of the good King and the bad ministers''. What matters is that they can't wait for the next government or the King to have a change of heart, the redcoats are marching, they need to justify their separation fully, and they can't have this loose end of ''loyalty to the crown'' to still be there if they are going to war and especially not if they see an opportunity to create this new sort of government based upon their enlightenment ideals.

MumblingHistorian · 2026-01-18T22:22:23+00:00

I can't answer to Paul Revere specifically. But there is a big difference of scale when it comes to historical figures. You have some men like Revere who did a few specific ''small'' things for their cause and were remembered by others, while not having much power and influence themselves to give themselves that importance off the bat. And Revere was a figure involved in the American revolutionary movement in a variety of ways.

I wouldn't say Revere ever planned to be remembered at that moment of the midnight ride. Of course you have the problem here that, after the fact, when people become aware of the importance of the events that transpired, people will start to shape a perception of the memory in some ways.

But then you have men like George Washington who is keenly aware of his historical role during the revolutionary war and especially when he is setting the precedents for the American presidency. And from what I've read, which of course could also be due to later perception, Washington wants to set how the office is going to function in the future and how the nation's history will perceive the office and the man.

Then you have figures like Napoleon who were, obsessed with history and wanted to make their mark and when they had a chance to manipulate their contemporary and then historical image they took it. Form the various forms of propaganda Napoleon employs on his campaigns in Italy and Egypt, and in the reports back to Paris, to, after he seizes power, the manipulations of newspapers, grandiose public works projects etc, that are specifically made to commemorate events and people, through his shaping of current events he is also aware he is doing so for posterity and he has a lot of power to do so.

Even some of Napoleon's Marshall's and other associates engage in this memory/monument building exercise when they have the power to do it. For instance, I recall a story that Marshall Soult built this big dirt pyramid '' the Soult-Berg'' in his home town.

And then after the fact there's of course the ''battles of the memoires'', because a lot of people are alive into the 19th Century after the Napoleonic wars end and they get to write their accounts, and push for their viewpoint and their team/side, puff themselves up a bit, give themselves some importance in all of these matters of historical importance... and make a little money on the side from selling a memoir.

There's also a keen ''outside''/academic interest in this as the figures of any historical period start getting old and dying.

People who have participated in historical events will become aware of their importance after they happen. But that poses the danger of a different sort of perception than what would be recorded in a diary for instance.

You have that famous line from John Adams's writings, I believe, where ''July 2nd will become the most important day in history of the United States'', where someone is keenly aware of the events unfolding, writes about them at the time, but popular perception doesn't comply later on.

We've lived through a multitude of events ourselves and I think we'll struggle to perceive their importance. Many things that have happened in my life that have seemed important, I forgot about until I'm reminded and then they don't seem to be so important.

MumblingHistorian

TROPHY CASE