# Portugal in WW2 **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 18, 2001, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portugal-in-ww2/82426 "2001-09-18T17:54:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2001, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portugal-in-ww2/82426/21 "2001-09-19T21:37:33Z")
> [@](#): > > Yes.That’s in the same book on Page 535. It’s excused as “protocol” By Fisk? If so, it hardly squares with the quotation from the same source about the gesture (never mind Fisk’s journalism, which I broadly admire; I haven’t read _In Time of War_) as quoted by Roy Foster, _Modern Ireland, 1600-1972_ (Allen Lane, 1988): “Morally, it was both senseless and deeply wounding to the millions who had suffered in the war; politically it could have been disasterous. But symbolically, it could not be misunderstood: Eire had not accepted the values of the warring nations and did not intend to do so in future.” Hardly “excusing”. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2001, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portugal-in-ww2/82426/22 "2001-09-19T21:47:01Z")
Well, Fisk has just shown himself to have no understanding whatsoever of Eamon de Valera. “Values”? Nothing to do with values. It was a political decision, pure and simple. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2001, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portugal-in-ww2/82426/23 "2001-09-19T22:25:01Z")
So **ruadh** , you agree that Fisk doesn’t excuse de Valera’s action ? ---
**Author:** ![toscar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f9ae1b/32.png) [@toscar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toscar)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2001, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portugal-in-ww2/82426/24 "2001-09-19T22:55:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bonzer \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Yes.That’s in the same book on Page 535. It’s excused as “protocol” > > By Fisk? If so, it hardly squares with the quotation from the same source about the gesture (never mind Fisk’s journalism, which I broadly admire; I haven’t read _In Time of War_) as quoted by Roy Foster, _Modern Ireland, 1600-1972_ (Allen Lane, 1988): > > “Morally, it was both senseless and deeply wounding to the millions who had suffered in the war; politically it could have been disasterous. But symbolically, it could not be misunderstood: Eire had not accepted the values of the warring nations and did not intend to do so in future.” > > Hardly “excusing”. \*\* extracts from Pages 535/6 “de Valera explained his own reasons for paying his visit to Hempel (at the German Embassy) in a personal letter to Robert Brennan in Washington some days later…to have failed to call upon the German representative would have been an act of unpardonable discourtesy to the German nation and to Dr.Hempel himself. During the whole of the war, Dr.Hempel’s conduct was irreproachable. He was always friendly and correct - in marked contrast with Gray. (the American representative)I certainly was not going to add to his humiliation in the hour of defeat.”…de Valera goes on the justify his action and then…"Aiken always supported de Valera’s decision. (Aiken states) “He went to see Hempel because it was protocol” ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2001, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portugal-in-ww2/82426/25 "2001-09-19T23:26:00Z")
\Fisk \*quoting[/i] other sources hardly counts as endorcement, does it **tosccar**? ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2001, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portugal-in-ww2/82426/26 "2001-09-19T23:30:50Z")
Make that, Fisk _quoting_ other sources hardly counts as endorcement, does it **tosccar**? ---
**Author:** ![toscar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f9ae1b/32.png) [@toscar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toscar)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2001, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portugal-in-ww2/82426/27 "2001-09-19T23:33:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bonzer \* > \*\*\Fisk \*quoting[/i] other sources hardly counts as endorcement, does it **tosccar**? \*\* Bonzer I merely passed this on for what it’s worth and for the benefit of those who haven’t read Fisk’s (I think) excellent book. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2001, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portugal-in-ww2/82426/28 "2001-09-19T23:54:06Z")
I agree that Fisk’s probably on the money; now if APB and **ruadh** could agree on matters … ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portugal-in-ww2/82426/29 "2001-09-20T01:16:44Z")
/hijack Of course I meant Eire but I can’t spell. Other cool things I got from reading the old Tribunes during WWII. The paper reported the Belgians and the Dutch are nuetral but one assumes at the first sign of a German advance they will come screaming for Allied help. The made fun of the Danes saying the Danish know how to run a war, declare war surrender immediately. Clearly the Romanians and Hungarians will wait a few weeks and see which side is ahead and take that side, no doubt to change if they pick wrong. They actually used the word PATHETIC to describe the Italians losing to the Greeks. The Irish clearly got slammed by the Chicago Tribune, which is pretty conservative. If any of you can get access to old on line or microfische newspapers read them from WWII. History is pretty interesting that way. /end hijack ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portugal-in-ww2/82426/30 "2001-09-20T08:58:20Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by toscar, quoting from Fisk \* \*\* > [@](#): > > “de Valera explained his own reasons for paying his visit to Hempel (at the German Embassy) in a personal letter to Robert Brennan in Washington some days later… [”]…to have failed to call upon the German representative would have been _ **an act of unpardonable discourtesy** _ to the German nation and to Dr.Hempel himself. During the whole of the war, Dr.Hempel’s conduct was irreproachable. He was always friendly and correct - in marked contrast with Gray. (the American representative)I certainly was not going to add to his humiliation in the hour of defeat."…de Valera goes on the justify his action and then…"Aiken always supported de Valera’s decision. (Aiken states) “He went to see Hempel because it was protocol” \*\*(emphasis added by me) Would it really have been ‘an act of unpardonable discourtesy’? Who would have taken offence? Hempel? Possibly, although, in the circumstances, he presumably had more important things to worry about. The ‘German nation’? Hardly. In any case, de Valera’s and Aiken’s explanations rest on the assumption that it _was_ protocol. Was this so? I would be mildly surprised if it was the case that such visits by a prime minister on the death of a foreign head of state were regarded as an _inflexible_ requirement of diplomatic protocol. On the other hand, if there was a rigid rule, the irreproachability of Hempel’s conduct would have been irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![toscar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f9ae1b/32.png) [@toscar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toscar)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portugal-in-ww2/82426/31 "2001-09-20T12:30:01Z")
Bonzer: May I comment on the extract from “Modern Ireland” “Eire had not accepted the values of the warring nations and did not intend to do so in future.” This sounds so high-minded and goody goody perhaps even sanctimonious but Eire knew it had a free ride depending on the protection of the UK and US. But, had the UK been defeated Eire would have been next on Hitler’s list and any resistance would have resulted in reprisals “which would have made the Black & Tans seem like a Boy Scout troop.” ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portugal-in-ww2/82426/32 "2001-09-20T17:17:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by APB \* > \*\*Would it really have been ‘an act of unpardonable discourtesy’? Who would have taken offence? Hempel? Possibly, although, in the circumstances, he presumably had more important things to worry about. The ‘German nation’? Hardly. In any case, de Valera’s and Aiken’s explanations rest on the assumption that it _was_ protocol. Was this so? I would be mildly surprised if it was the case that such visits by a prime minister on the death of a foreign head of state were regarded as an _inflexible_ requirement of diplomatic protocol. On the other hand, if there was a rigid rule, the irreproachability of Hempel’s conduct would have been irrelevant. \*\* De Valera and Hempel had a cordial relationship, and it’s quite possible the latter might have taken offence - especially since, as I noted earlier, Dev had made the same gesture (even going so far as to shut down the Dáil) upon the death of FDR a few weeks earlier. Sending condolences may not be a matter of protocol (I confess I have no idea about that), but it is not unreasonable for an ostensibly neutral party not to want to display favouritism by doing it only for one side and not for the other. Still, your points are valid, and those are amongst the reasons why many believe the gesture was more a thumb in the nose to Churchill than anything else. ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portugal-in-ww2/82426/33 "2001-09-20T17:36:22Z")
Getting way back to the OP and Portugal, _The Oxford Companion to World War II_ does state that Portugal along with Ireland lowered their flags to half-staff in memory of Hitler’s death. However, the Allied Forces allowed Portugal to become a charter member of the UN, but Spain was not. Also Brazil forced Salazar to withhold tungsten shipments to Germany saying that such shipments were hurting Brazilian soldiers in the war. And tungsten was about the only natural resource that Portugal had to offer. Portugal’s other main contribution to WWII was to give a place for spies to hang out and give Ilsa Lund and Victor Laszlo a place to fly to from Casablanca. ---
**Author:** ![toscar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f9ae1b/32.png) [@toscar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toscar)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portugal-in-ww2/82426/34 "2001-09-20T17:36:29Z")
Ruadh says: "Still, your points are valid, and those are amongst the reasons why many believe the gesture was more a thumb in the nose to Churchill than anything else. \*\* [/QUOTE] " May I say: I can’t believe that dev would have made such a childish gesture and if he did mean it in that infantile way it was more likely to have been directed at the American representative who he seems to have disliked even more than Churchill. No. I still reckon dev was a stickler and that the gesture (no matter how mis-guided)was purely “protocol.” ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portugal-in-ww2/82426/35 "2001-09-20T18:33:44Z")
It’s unlikely that it was intended merely as a personal affront to Churchill, toscar. More a defiant confirmation of Ireland’s independence from Britain. ---
**Author:** ![toscar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f9ae1b/32.png) [@toscar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toscar)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portugal-in-ww2/82426/36 "2001-09-20T20:27:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ruadh \* > \*\*It’s unlikely that it was intended merely as a personal affront to Churchill, toscar. More a defiant confirmation of Ireland’s independence from Britain. \*\* Ruadh: I fail to understand how commisserating with the Nazis over the death of Hitler equates to “a defiant confirmation of Ireland’s independence from Britain.” I must give that one some more thought! I prefer to believe that Dev was above such pettiness but not above observing diplomatic protocol AS HE SAW IT. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portugal-in-ww2/82426/37 "2001-09-20T21:46:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by toscar \* > **I fail to understand how commisserating with the Nazis over the death of Hitler equates to "a defiant confirmation of Ireland’s independence from Britain."** It’s not so farfetched when you realize that the need to preserve and maintain Irish independence was at the forefront of just about every aspect of de Valera’s wartime policy. We’re not in GD, and this isn’t a question that can ever really be answered, not based on the evidence available anyway. Suffice it to say that while de Valera always maintained he was just following protocol, Fisk (based on your excerpt, which is all I’ve read of his work) appears to be one of the few analysts to accept this explanation completely. It is still believed by a great number of others that Dev’s eagerness to remind Britain that Ireland wasn’t her lapdog played at least _some_ role in his gesture to Germany. ---
**Author:** ![toscar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f9ae1b/32.png) [@toscar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toscar)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portugal-in-ww2/82426/38 "2001-09-21T17:10:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ruadh \* > It is still believed by a great number of others that Dev’s eagerness to remind Britain that Ireland wasn’t her lapdog played at least _some_ role in his gesture to Germany. \*\* If this were so why should Dev risk offending the other Allies and friendly neutrals when intending only to “remind Britain?” ---
**Author:** ![Rayne\_Man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df705f/32.png) [@Rayne\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rayne_Man)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portugal-in-ww2/82426/39 "2001-09-21T17:51:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by toscar \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by ruadh \* > > It is still believed by a great number of others that Dev’s eagerness to remind Britain that Ireland wasn’t her lapdog played at least _some_ role in his gesture to Germany. \*\* > > If this were so why should Dev risk offending the other Allies and friendly neutrals when intending only to “remind Britain?” \*\* Don’t forget also what stage the war had reached. Most of Germany was in Allied hands and with this the true nature of the German goverment had come to light. Most people would have seen the horrible images or heard the graphic accounts from BBC reporters of Belsen and the other concentration camps. To then afford the social niceties to the German Ambassador,the representative of this evil regime, must have struck many people as offensive. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portugal-in-ww2/82426/40 "2001-09-21T17:59:20Z")
Why, precisely, would he care? Simply by remaining neutral he’d already risked offending them - America in particular was quite pissed off about this, and he wasn’t particularly bothered by it. And I’m not sure why you think he should have been. Ireland’s independence from Britain was his main priority. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portugal-in-ww2/82426.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portugal-in-ww2/82426.md?page=3)