The Spanish Civil War

Alasdair

The Republic ended up losing the Spanish Civil War in 1939. However, in the initial stages, it was doing rather well. In most of the major cities of Spain, the military rising was put down, and the Republic held the major industrial areas of the country.

So what do you think was the most important factor that led to the defeat of the Republic? Non-intervention and the lack of modern weapons for the Republic? German and Italian support to the Nationalists? The Stalinists putting down the Revolution? The discipline and fighting force of the Army of Africa?

In many respects it was all of them :p:

And yet, I personally think that the non-intervention - especially of Popular Front France - was a calamity and contributed massively to the downfall of the Spanish Republic because the Stalinist reaction fatally undermined the Republic's fighting ability by formenting dissent amongst the former Popular Front allies.

I suspect this thread might be just you and me :p:

Reply 2

OP

Adorno

In many respects it was all of them :p:

And yet, I personally think that the non-intervention - especially of Popular Front France - was a calamity and contributed massively to the downfall of the Spanish Republic because the Stalinist reaction fatally undermined the Republic's fighting ability by formenting dissent amongst the former Popular Front allies.

I suspect this thread might be just you and me :p:

Yes, you're right, it's a unitary process of non-intervention leading to reliance on the USSR as the only country which will supply arms, which in turn bolsters the Stalinist PCE, which allows the anti-revolutionary forces within the Republic to rebuild the apparatus of the state and put down the Revolution.

In terms of this thread, there were a fair few people in the Discussion thread who said they were interested in the Spanish Civil War, but didn't really know enough, so maybe we can educate them a bit :biggrin:

Reply 3

~The Mixed Race Girl~

hmm...it would be to do with the non-inteverntion and also because the republics didnt get as much support! however, there was once this documentary on telly that said a lot of people that claimed they were on the republican side were really not so maybe that had something to do with it....this is a bit like who should be blamed for world war one! it can go on...

Reply 4

Alasdair

In terms of this thread, there were a fair few people in the Discussion thread who said they were interested in the Spanish Civil War, but didn't really know enough, so maybe we can educate them a bit :biggrin:

Yeah definitely. I learned some things about Switzerland's reaction to the SCW last week, especially about their Spanish Aid Committees. Was quite interesting. I've got an article I copied about the "Friends of Republican Spain" which is really quite fascinating. The strongest reactions seem to have come from the Romandie - French-speaking Switzerland - which had a tradition of anti-militarism, internationalism, and pacifism and though I can't see from the article that men went to fight they certain rallied to provide aid to the cause and then help provide aid in the French internment camps in 1939.

I can't help but wonder whether an international history of it all is long overdue.

Reply 5

Mr_K_Dilkington

Alasdair

In terms of this thread, there were a fair few people in the Discussion thread who said they were interested in the Spanish Civil War, but didn't really know enough, so maybe we can educate them a bit :biggrin:

Yup, I doubt I'll be contributing anything, but I will be reading with interest :biggrin:

Reply 6

Gremlins

11

I agree the failure of the French (and British) governments to intervene probably was the main reason, although the fact that the Republicans was pretty divided (anarchists, communists, socialists, liberals, regional nationalists...) probably didn't help either.

Reply 7

jthornton17

I think one of the biggest contributors to the failure of the Republicans was the difference in structure and idealism between them and the Nationalists. The Republicans could not organise an efficient army or gain control of vital fronts until too late, there were ideological clashes within the republican army (as illustrated by the May Days of 1937 and the refusal of some non-communist groups to join Caballero's Popular Front) and their officers were generally inexperienced.
The Nationalists on the other hand only had to deal with one leader (Franco), and thus had more discipline, there was greater unity and less infighting, and their army contained highly professional career soldiers who originated from the hardened Africanistas (who fought in the Moroccan wars (1906-1926)).

In regards to foreign intervention, it is true that the republicans had a disadvantage as they received less aid, however i think the timing is the most important factor. The Germans crucially airlifted Nationalist troops from Morocco in 1936, thus helping them in the beginning stages of their invasion, and likewise soviet aid was important for the republican defence of Madrid. However Germany and Italy kept up continuous supplies and aid, while the soviets stopped by 1937 when they realised the republicans were losing the war.

As for the economic aspects, the nationalists definitely had the advantage, as they were supported not only by Germany and Italy, but also by american companies such as Texaco, ESSO and Firestone Rubber, as well as also controlling major food producing areas and exchanging wheat and other produce for foreign exchange. The Republicans on the other hand lacked foreign support as GB, France and the US placed an economic embargo on spain in 1936 (which Germany, Italy, Portugal and USSR ignored).

hahaha, sorry its so long :p:

It was one of my favorite subjects last year..

Reply 8

OP

Hrm. I think the idea that the Nationalists were some monolithic organisation run by Franco in the same way that Hitler ran the Nazi State or Stalin the Soviet one is fallacious, especially in the early stages of the war. The different currents within the Nationalist movement (falangist, monarchist (both alfonsist and carlist) and just plain authoritarian conservative) were almost just as different to each other as the different groups within the Republic. Add to that the conflicting personalities of Mola, Quipo de Llana, Franco and Sanjurjo (before he died), and it's interesting that there was so little in-fighting on the Nationalist side. In fact, if Jose Antonio hadn't been killed by the Republicans, I imagine there would've been a sort of analog to the May Days with conservative monarchists fighting falangists...

Reply 9

jthornton17

Well, despite the clear differences between the Nazi State and the way the Nationalist movement was structured, they were undoubtedly a lot more united than the Republicans. Franco had the authority to fuse the Carlists and Falange in 1937, and i think it was their shared opposition towards anti-clericism and communism which united them. The Nationalists didnt waste time fighting over small ideological issues like the Republicans (such as land reform in their captured regions). Your idea that, had Jose Antonio not been assassinated, there could have been a similar conflict as the May Days between the conservative monarchists and the falangists is interesting though, and to be honest i dont know enough about the different groups within the Nationalist movement to debate on that point :p:

Reply 10

OP

jthornton17

Well, despite the clear differences between the Nazi State and the way the Nationalist movement was structured, they were undoubtedly a lot more united than the Republicans. Franco had the authority to fuse the Carlists and Falange in 1937, and i think it was their shared opposition towards anti-clericism and communism which united them. The Nationalists didnt waste time fighting over small ideological issues like the Republicans (such as land reform in their captured regions).

I think 'in 1937' is significant. That's about the same time as the Republicans united the Republic under the non-revolutionary 'Communist' government after the dissolution of the POUM and the effective halting of the Anarchist Revolution.

And in fact, had the falangists been a stronger force, they may very well have spent time fighting over the differences between a authoritarian monarchical state or the far more 'fascist' corporatist view espoused by Jose Antonio and his falangists.

Your idea that, had Jose Antonio not been assassinated, there could have been a similar conflict as the May Days between the conservative monarchists and the falangists is interesting though, and to be honest i dont know enough about the different groups within the Nationalist movement to debate on that point :p:

Essentially, there are three or four groups within the nationalist movement:

- Falangist fascists
- Monarchists (divided between the Carlists who supported one branch of the monarchy and the Alfonsists who supported another, more recent one)
- Catholic authoritarian conservatives like the CEDA
- The Army.

There was a lot of crossover (at least between the last three...), but those are broadly the pillars of the Nationalist Movement.

Reply 11

jthornton17

Alasdair

I think 'in 1937' is significant. That's about the same time as the Republicans united the Republic under the non-revolutionary 'Communist' government after the dissolution of the POUM and the effective halting of the Anarchist Revolution..

But were they really united? The Anarchists and non-communists resisted joining, so i think they still weren't as united as the Nationalists.

Alasdair

Essentially, there are three or four groups within the nationalist movement:

- Falangist fascists
- Monarchists (divided between the Carlists who supported one branch of the monarchy and the Alfonsists who supported another, more recent one)
- Catholic authoritarian conservatives like the CEDA
- The Army.

Didnt they all generally support the church, army, and interests of the wealthy, or are there any major ideological clashes between these groups?

Reply 12

OP

jthornton17

But were they really united? The Anarchists and non-communists resisted joining, so i think they still weren't as united as the Nationalists.

Well, the Anarchists weren't really a force, certainly outside of Catalonia after the May Days - they had been co-opted into the government, and then rendered relatively 'harmless' after the suppression of the POUM. As for the non-Communists, the Esquerra, and the Left Republicans were still either in the government, or working with it. After May 1937, the Republic wasn't as 'divided' as it was before, by a long shot.

Didnt they all generally support the church, army, and interests of the wealthy, or are there any major ideological clashes between these groups?

The falange especially shared some of the proletarian values of early-Mussolini Fascism. But just because they were all broadly for the same thing doesn't mean they were united. Look at the Republic - they were all 'for' democracy, anti-fascist, anti-clerical and in the case of the Socialists, the POUM, the Communists and the Anarchists, against Capitalism. That didn't stop them, being divided.

Reply 13

Pryste

Adorno

In many respects it was all of them :p:

And yet, I personally think that the non-intervention - especially of Popular Front France - was a calamity and contributed massively to the downfall of the Spanish Republic because the Stalinist reaction fatally undermined the Republic's fighting ability by formenting dissent amongst the former Popular Front allies.

I suspect this thread might be just you and me :p:

Leon Blum couldn't have gone to war- France was pretty much n the verge of civil war itself, the widespread anti-semitism throughout Europe meant Blum's leadership was shaky enough to start with.

Reply 14

Pryste

Leon Blum couldn't have gone to war- France was pretty much n the verge of civil war itself, the widespread anti-semitism throughout Europe meant Blum's leadership was shaky enough to start with.

Leon Blum wouldn't have gone to war but again I think we need to get over this notion that all governments are single people. Part of the reason for the failure of the Front Populaire was precisely because at the moment its ally in Spain needed help, it stood silent; preferring instead to acquiesce to British insistence on non-intervention. Indeed, the very principle of non-intervention split the British Left as well.

Decisive action by Blum's government in 1936 or 1937 would certainly strengthened his position. I think you make too much of the anti-semitism.

Reply 15

Pryste

Adorno

Leon Blum wouldn't have gone to war but again I think we need to get over this notion that all governments are single people. Part of the reason for the failure of the Front Populaire was precisely because at the moment its ally in Spain needed help, it stood silent; preferring instead to acquiesce to British insistence on non-intervention. Indeed, the very principle of non-intervention split the British Left as well.

Decisive action by Blum's government in 1936 or 1937 would certainly strengthened his position. I think you make too much of the anti-semitism.

I can appreciate that Blum wasn't the only person involved in the popular front, but the government as a whole was still hindered by a general European paranoia of communism, especially of the Russian variety, add to that the lack of internal cohesion in any popular front and you've got a government that can barely keep itself together, let alone dash to the other's rescue. Plus I think you may be taking the anti-semtism too lightly; the Germans weren't the only ones with a bad track record for it.

Reply 16

Pryste

I can appreciate that Blum wasn't the only person involved in the popular front, but the government as a whole was still hindered by a general European paranoia of communism, especially of the Russian variety, add to that the lack of internal cohesion in any popular front and you've got a government that can barely keep itself together, let alone dash to the other's rescue.

See, it's fairly clear that Blum was torn up by his decision not to intervene on behalf of Republican Spain. [On this, I'd suggest reading Tony Judt's The Burden of Responsibility which gives a good portrait of Blum. I think you make too much of the fear of Communism in this period especially but that may be a feature of taking a right-wing analysis of the period in which anti-communist tendencies are amplified out of proportion. In fact the same goes with the Jewish question:

Plus I think you may be taking the anti-semtism too lightly; the Germans weren't the only ones with a bad track record for it.

Yes, yes. I'm well aware of it, I just don't believe it to be that much of an issue in this instance. Just because it's the 1930s we're talking about, doesn't mean we have to shoehorn anti-semitism into every single argument or debate. It's rather irksome.

Reply 17

Pryste

I don't especially 'shoehorn' it into every argument, however in this particular circumstance I see it as contributing to Blum's lack of central authority (alongside the general structure of popular front governments). I'm not surre if you would call it a right wing analysis, I just see communism and left-wingedness in general as having been feared more than extreme nationalist philosophies.

Can I pick up that book in Waterstones? I've only recntly started getting into early 20th century France and have a few scant resources (generally about other topics which refer to France only as relative to their subject matter) to go by.

Although I will agree with you on being pressured into non-involvment by Britain. Trade came before ideology in good old Brittania.

Reply 18

Bagration

18

I think one factor may have been that the military was... well, a military. It had the leadership, the technology, the experience and the training to beat the Republicans. Regular troops vs Irregular troops will usually win in the long run unless there is some underlying issue that gives great support to the Irregulars (and not to the Regulars), i.e. fighting on home ground.

Reply 19

OP