Internationalization of the Civil

Conflicts: the Case of Spanish

Civil War (1936-1939)

Contents

Section I: Definitions and Theoretical Framework

Section II: International context of the 1930’s

Section III: The process of internationalization of

Spanish conflict. (1936 July-September)

Internationalization is the process through

which an explicit and conscious decision is

made: the decision to involve international

actors in any phase-hostilities or negotiation –

of a domestic conflict.

The alternative strategy is to isolate the internal

conflict and consciously exclude international

actors.

IsolateInternationalize

The decision to internationalize (or not to) can be

made by different agents:

External actor Internationalization Internal agents

(local parties to

the conflict)

In fact, internationalization is a

decision making process made by

specific agents with specific goals

and interests in mind.

Internationalization is clearly

intentional, intended and

calculated.

Explanations of Internationalization:

Internationalization

process

Domestic factors International factors

Domestic actors‟

interestsIdentity

ExternalizationDiversionary

theories

Construction

of alliances

Opportunism Intervention

Explanations of Internationalization:

Domestic actors‟ interests

Externalization is a phenomenon according to which

governments engaged in civil wars can

initiate military action against neighboring

states for two fundamental reasons.

Diversionary

theories

According to this

perspective, leaders

in civil war states

seek to draw

attention away from

domestic problems.

International conflict

serves a twofold

purpose: it diverts

attention form

domestic struggles

and it serves as a

pretext to crack

down on domestic

opponents.

Construction

of alliances

(Barnett and

Levy‟s

approach)First, these

governments may

undertake cross-

border

counterinsurgency

actions because

rebels often seek out

foreign sanctuaries

or attempt to flee

repression by

slipping across

borders

A second form of

externalization

occurs when states

experiencing civil

wars engage in

retaliatory attacks

against

interventionist

neighbors in the

hope of coercing

them into

withdrawing

support

Explanations of Internationalization:

International factors

Opportunism suggests that civil

wars can increase the risk of

interstate violence by lowering the

expected benefits of using military

force. Another theory that

emphasizes the role of international

actors is related to the concept of

intervention and the main question is

what motivates external actors to

intervene in domestic conflict or what

are the conditions that make

intervention.

Intervention

Interventions during civil war can be categorized into two major

groups.

Intervention

Neutral (multilateral) (main goal is to restore peace in

the target country, bring stability

to the region)

Military intervention

(unilateral)

Military intervention – Unilateral convention-breaking military

activity in the internal affairs of another state targeted at the

authority structure of that state in order to alter the balance of

power between the government and rebel group in favor of one

over the other. Intervention in a civil war includes actions such as

providing loans to a civil war combatant for military purchases,

offering military training and advising, allowing territory to be

used for bases and camps, supplying weapons and war material,

enacting and enforcing n arms blockade against one of the

combatants, the shelling of one of the combatants, and the

deployment of forces to the civil war state.

Much has been written about intervention, the bulk of this literature consists of case

histories, rather that explanations of patterned regularities in interventionary behavior.

Those who attempt to explain regularities usually draw from four sets in independent

variables:

Regularities in interventionary behavior

2

Socio-cultural cleavages

and political stability

(Holst)

1

Economic (Kolko)

Strategic (Gurtov)

3

Geographical proximity

(Luard)

Power differentials

(Vincent)

4

Alliance polarization

(Kaplan)

Capability distribution

(Young)

Internationalizing their conflict local parties have two main

interess:

1. Military support (material resources to fight the war)

2. International legitimacy

Military supportMilitary

Internationalization

International

legitimacy

Political

Internationalization

The European and International context of the 1930‟s

The main threat to the dominant international order in inter-war and especially in 30‟s Europe came from the new counter-revolutionary and

totalitarian regimes imposed by Benito Mussolini in Italy (1922) and Adolf Hitler in Germany (1933), both the Fascist and the Nazi

dictatorships practised a belligerent and revisionist foreign policy.

(1) The recovery of fullmilitary capacity and ofthose territories lost by theTreaty of Versailles in 1919;

(2) The transformation ofGermany into a hegemonicpower in central Europa,annexing or neutralizingrivals such as Austria,Czechoslovakia or Poland;

(3) The conquest of EuropeanRussia in order to becomean impregnable continentalpower and a world powerwithout parallel.

WHY DID WEST NOT TAKE STEPS TO STOP HITLER WHEN THEY HAD THE

CHANCE?

At first he acted cautiouslyTalked of desire for peaceNever had predetermined timetableTook advantage of opportunities as they arose, avoided risks, and accepted success when it occurredEmphasized desire to avoid warStressed that all he wanted to do was make fair changes to Versailles Treaty

The revisionist plans of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were in direct contrast to the

interests and objectives of the two principal powers which benefited from and guaranteed

the status quo in Europe: the democratic regimes of France and Great Britain. In both

countries the territorial revisionism of the Nazi and Fascist imperial irredentism were

perceived with apprehension. For this reason, the Franco-British entente remained

unchanged during the entire inter-war period. Nevertheless, a hostile combination of both

dictatorships was considered very improbable because there was a clear antagonism in

their respective foreign policies. The German aim to annex Austria and to achieve

hegemony in the Balkans came up against the Italian aspiration to guarantee Austrian

independence (as a ,cushion state, in the north) and to exercise a de facto protectorate over

the Balkans.

Rearmament

As Germany was still militarily weak in 1933, Hitler had to move cautiously at first. He withdrew from

the Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations on the grounds that France would not agree to

German equality of armaments. Hitler insisted that Germany was willing to disarm if other states agreed to

do the same, and that he wanted only peace.

Germany was forced to disarm by the Treaty of Versailles, but France did not disarm at the same time, and

this caused tensions between the two countries. The Germans resented the French and feared military

interference. For instance, France was able to simply walk unopposed into the Ruhr in 1923 to

secure reparations payments.

The Saar 1935

The Saar was returned to Germany (January 1935) after a plebiscite resulting in a 90% vote in favour.

Though the plebiscite had been provided for at Versailles, Nazi propaganda made the most of the success, and

Hitler announced that now all causes of grievance between France and Germany had been removed.

The Rhineland 1936

Encouraged by Mussolini‟s fall out with Britain and France, Hitler took the risk of sending troops into the

demilitarised zone of the Rhineland in March 1936. Though the troops had orders to withdraw at the first sign

of French opposition, no resistance was offered beyond the usual protests. This was a vital step in rebuilding

German power. Strong fortifications and forces here would stop France coming to the help of her East

European allies.

INVASION OF ETHIOPIA

Ethiopia invaded in October 1935 by Italian army

Used modern weapons against Ethiopian forced who still primarily used spears and bows and arrows

Invasion was encouraged by Hitler

Haile Selassie appealed to the League of NationsLeague imposed economic sanctions against Italy But left sanctions weak by excluding oil from list of embargo products. Did not close Suez Canal to Italian ships heading for EthiopiaOver 500,000 Ethiopians killed in fighting (only 5000 Italian casualties). Country falls in May 1936. Mussolini had blatantly defied the League of Nations and had gotten away with it.

Spain a country that had long been relegated to the sidelines of history suddenly

thrust itself on the world‟s attention.

One of Giral's first steps, on the night of I9-20 July, was to

send an urgent request to the French Government for

assistance in the form of military supplies.

,,Are surprised by dangerous military uprising <...>

Request you to come to immediate agreement with us

for the supply of arms and air- craft. Fraternally yours,

Giral.”

French Premier Leon Blum decided on 21 July secretly to accept the republican request for support after consulting with his government coalition partners.

French public opinion and political circles became deeply divided over the issue.

,,What is being

planned, this

delivery of arms to

Spain, may mean

war or revolution in

France”

President of the French Republic

Alber Lebren

Uncompromisingly neutral British position deeply worried the Franch

government and led it to overturn its initial decision .

On 25 July 1936, following an intense debate in the cabinet, Leon

Blum announced the decision not to intervene in the Spanish

conflict and the cancellation of any shipment of arms and

munitions.

The Franch leaders believed that in this way they could contribute

to appeasing the domestic situation, reinforcing their alliance with

Britain, and confining the conflict to Spain to avoid the threat of its

transformation into a European war. Nevertheless, the French

retraction did nothing to prevent the rapid internationalization of

the conflict.

Chairman of the Council of Ministers

Madrid 25 July 1936

To the Ambassador of the USSR in France

Dear Sir:

The government of the Republic of Spain needs to supply its army

with modern armaments in significant quantities to conduct the

struggle against those who began and are continuing the civil war

against the legal authority and constitutional government and who are

being supplied with weapons and ammunition from abroad in

abundant quantities. the government I head, knowing what sort of

means and availability of military material are at the disposal of the

USSR, decided to appeal to you to notify your government about the

desire and necessity, which our government is experiencing, for

supplies of armaments and ammunition of all categories and in very

great quantities, from your country.

Taking the opportunity, etc.

Signature: José Giral

José Giral

Document RGVA f.33987 op. 3 d. 991 ll. 56-59

Soviet involvement in the civil war was developed in such forms:

1. From 18 July to 2 August 1936, the Soviet government attempted to assess the

situation in Spain through consultations with its agents in the field, but the regime

took no action, either domestically or internationally.

2. From 3 August to 20 August, Moscow began exploiting events in Spain for a

propaganda campaign, both domestically and internationally.

3. From 21 August to 1 October, the Soviet regime stepped up its involvement

with the Republic on the diplomatic and humanitarian fronts, and began paving the

way for long-term military intervention.

Franco instructed Bolin to go to Rome to seek help. He gave him a

sheet of paper containing the cryptic message... And when Bolin asked

what kind of aircraft and supplies, Franco added a scribbled footnote in

pencil ....

Benito Duce Mussolini

Galeazo Ciano

,,Ministro Degli Affary Esteri “

Son-in-love of Duce

The Italian decision to intervene in the Spanish

civil war was taken sometimes between 25 and

27 July.

On 23 July 1936 the German foreign Ministry rejected a request for support

from the rebels.

Foreign Office on Wilhelmstrasse No. 76 Konstantin von Neurath

Francos‟

emissaries

Party Line

• Hitlers decision at Bayreuth set off a chain of events that led to continued German military intervention in Spain.

• In summary Hitler‟s military intervention escalated in at least three stages: 1. Operation ,,Feurzauber” in July-August 1936; 2. Operation Otto in September 1936 and 3. Legion Condor‟s dispatch in October-November

Hitler‟s advisors in Bayreuth: Goring, Canaris, Blomberg

Franch government proposed on 1 August 1936 thatthe main European powers subscribe to an agreementof non-intervention in Spain.

At the end of August 1936, the twenty-sevenEuropean states had officially subscribed to the Non-Intervention in Spain Agreement, whereby theydeplored „the tragic events being enacted in Spain‟,decided „to strictly abstain from all interference,either direct or indirect, in the internal affairs of thiscountry‟, and banned „the exporting … re-exportingand delivery to Spain, Spanish possessions or theSpanish zone in Morocco, of all types of arms,munitions and war materiel‟. The monitoring of thisagreement was conducted by a Non-InterventionCommittee, set up in London on 9 September underthe chairmanship of the Conservative Lord Plymouth,

Motives Great

Britain

Frence Germany Italy USSR

Localization of conflict+ + + + +

Territorial integrity of Spain+ + + + +

Geostrategic goals+ + ± + ±

Liquidation of pro-Communist seat+ ± + + -

Use Spanish soil as a testing Ground- - + + +

Solidarity with Spanish Republic- ± - - +

Establish or straighten of existing

military political alliance + + + + +

Motivations of Intervention (or Non-Intervention) of Great Powers in

Spanish civil war